Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

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

« Archives, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

Main Page: "Wikipedia languages" section

Moved to Talk:Main Page § "Wikipedia languages" section

rationalizing/rationalising -ize -ise suffixes in articles

I don't mean to cause great controversy, but I am wondering about a guideline to encourage -ize endings for English words that both the OED and Philippines/American English use -ize and depreciate -ise for only those words where -ize is used by both. Where the OED and American usage of -ise and -ize spellings do not match (analyse, analyze) the current policy would remain in effect. This would unify the spellings for many words and is not culturally biased as evidenced by OED endorsement. It also is more logical in terms of etymology. Again where the OED and current American English words differ either could be used as is now. This would only effect words in which they are in agreement. Thoughts? EdwinHJ | Talk 15:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If we enforce whatever is common to both the OED and American English it would imply our support for just two variants of English. Currently we tolerate any version of English provided the article is consistent. ϢereSpielChequers 16:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The OED is rather old fashioned in this area, ise is quite common in Commonwealth English,[1] and there would be howls of protest if this proposed change to guidelines was made and bots were to implement it. -- PBS (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've yet to see us tolerate Indian English in practice. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose In fact, -ise is the normal suffix in UK English. The usage preferred by the OED in this case is famous for not corresponding with UK norms. Bluap (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with the above user. By preferring -ize the OED is at odds with UK norms and other respected dictionaries such as Chambers. Although we support any variant of English perhaps as a general guideline (not a fixed policy) any articles written about topics mostly relating to the UK, the Commonwealth and the globally adjacent areas such as Europe where British English is more influential could prefer/encourage -ise and 'colour' etc whereas articles mostly relating to the Americas could prefer/encourage -ize and 'color' as long as they are consistent. Ant501UK (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment that is already codified at WP:ENGVAR. --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment oh, well not in some of the details. There is no preference for British English for Continental European topics, nor for American English for Latin American topics. WP:TIES relates only to English-speaking countries. --Trovatore (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bluap. "-ize" is not the more common suffix in British English. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support The Oxford English Dictionary is the legitimate authority in matters of British English. Far more people around the world use USA-type English than British English because of its use as a lingua franca in science, engineering, and business. If those two agree, a 'z' should be used, but I also feel that this is not very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert the Devil (talk • contribs) 00:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment What evidence do you have that the OED is the "Legitimate Authority in matters of British English"? I have never heard that it has any officially sanctioned UK Government authority giving its opinions prevalence over those of any other British Dictionary (such as Chambers) but do correct me if you know otherwise. Ant501UK (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per many reasons noted above. But I would say that if y'all would just smarten up and adopt Canadian English, we wouldn't have this problem.  ;) Resolute 23:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV changes

Note that an editor is making large scale changes to the examples without providing adequate reasoning for why (or for reasons that don't make sense): Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Recommended_changes. Extra editors for opinions welcome. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of this seems to be a desire to change the examples in the policy, generally away from Holocaust and Flat earth examples towards Elvis sightings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't we find a compromise? --84.44.230.72 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems rather than discuss the proposed changes JJB has waited until things have become quiet and has started the changes again: [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

What should I do if two guys always vandalizes the edits which I made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by World historia (talk • contribs) 10:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• See also WP:ANEW#User:World historia‎ reported by User:Kusunose (Result: Protected) (and following sections). World historia, those editors are not "vandalizing" your edits, they are reverting them. The long and the short of it is, go to the article talk page and present the rationale for your edits, accompanied by reliable sources for your contested assertions (i.e. "empire vs kingdom"). --84.44.230.72 (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Probation Period

We should create a policy which would create a administrator for a probation period for something like one week or else.In this policy, whenever a user reaches a confusing decision at WP:RFA, the user should be made admin for a trial or probation period.In this period, his actions and contributions should be observed by fellow administrators and bureaucrats.There should be a voting at the end of the period.After that it can be decided whether he could be a permanent admin or not.Such way, It could get really easy at WP:RFA.Also, this way a user can also get a hold of the responsibilities of admin.So, he or she could rethink about it.Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Something similar was proposed at Wikipedia:Tool apprenticeship and got a lot of good support, but didn't quite get over the hurdle. 64.40.57.98 (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Website URLs watermarked on Images used in Articles

Have a question for anyone who has the time to answer. Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding whether or not it's permissible to use a picture in an article, in which a website URL appears watermarked in the image (say, near the bottom of the image, on the left or right, etc)? Assume that the font size of the URL is relatively small, and not commercial in nature; is there a specific policy that speaks to that issue? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:WATERMARK. In general and if possible, the image should be edited to remove the watermark. Anomie⚔ 10:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, if the image is at Commons, see commons:Template:Watermark and commons:Commons:EXIF#Purpose for using EXIF at Commons. Anomie⚔ 10:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Splitting articles arbitrarily

WP:SIZE#Very large articles says that articles may be split at an arbitrary point. This would create articles which are not in themselves notable. I agree with splitting large lists in such a way but I think this drives a horse and cart through WP:Notability and have been objecting to it being stuck into WP:Summary style. Do people support the splitting of large articles arbitrarily rather than into subtopics with their own notability? Can anyone find an article where such action is necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talk • contribs)

WP:N is a guideline, so there are practical exceptions and not a hard rule, so we're talking guideline vs guideline. The most recent notability discussion that's appropriate here was about the idea of notability of lists, and the best that we could agree via consensus that "list of X" type articles (Which are often spun out from larger ones) should generally be notable, but there could be no agreement on "List of Y of X" articles (say , list of characters from a fictional work) or more complicated lists. And this says nothing towards non-list articles.

We do expect that the sourcing in spinouts will be more than primary. The "topic" of the spinout itself may not be notable on its own but would otherwise be a natural and fair collection of secondary sources that point to it. (case in point that I know Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series is not a notable topic but the type of coverage of the individual factors, plus the limit on content, make it an appropriate split from the main article on the series itself. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say that the cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series is not notable? Are you saying "With over $2 billion in total sales worldwide, the game series has made a significant cultural impact, becoming a "cultural phenomenon" and recognizable in the popular culture." is not an assertion of the notability of the article? Dmcq (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If we go by hardcore notability philosophy that some have, no, the topic of "cultural phenomenon of guitar hero" is not notable because there is no single secondary source that covers that topic in whole. Of course, the idea that's not article that meets notability is a BS one, but I've seen people argue that definition. My point is that the example is a natural split as an original subsection from the main series article that clearly is well-sourced to secondary sources and is not an OR-aggolmeration of infomration. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That isn't a requirement in WP:Notability so it is as you say BS. Have you an example of say two unrelated things in a subarticle or something which really isn't notable? Dmcq (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Arguably it is: the topic of that example article is not "Guitar Hero" but "Cultural impact of Guitar Hero", and thus it is argued at times that notability has to be about that specific topic.

But as another example class, the various "Criticism of X" articles, like Criticism of Christianity, have always been contentious because there is almost no notability (secondary sources directly about) for that topic name. Yet, for obvious reasons, we include those articles. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That is covered in WP:TITLE. Notability is about topics not names and the name may be descriptive. Dmcq (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I (and probably most others) recognize that but there are hard-core notability people that recognize that if I call an article "Criticism of X", the notable topic is "Criticism of X" and if that topic is not fully documented as a whole within multiple source (read: each source itself being in detail on that topic and not a accumulation of smaller bits of coverage leading to that topic), then its not notable. Yes, I know that's not a majority view but that is a viewpoint taken at times in some AFD and why we have so much difficulty with concepts like notability of lists. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking in terms of logic and not strict policy, a list is basically a summary with all breakouts and no summary. Therefore one critical difference is that a summary can be used to protect subtopics which cannot be broken out. However this creates a dilemma when the protection is useful AND the resulting page is too long. To resolve this, currently either all subtopics must be made to meet general N to create a list first, or the same arbitrary split feature from lists can be incorporated into summaries. One solution seems better than the other. Agent00f (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying, could you make it simpler please. Dmcq (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to break it down:

1. A critical feature that summaries possess is that even without arguments about N, it can be used to incubate smaller subtopics without subjecting them to AfDs. This is not something you can reasonably do in a list.
2. However, just like lists, summaries can get too long. In that case, we have a problem which needs solving, just like lists.
3. One approach to solving it is that we can transform the summary into a list, which contains existing guidance on splitting. However, this disposes the summary feature of protection, and forces everything to be spun off.
4. The other approach is to incorporate the same "arbitrary" (subject to domain discretion) split feature from lists into summaries. That way, the disruption is minimal, and only requires a more full understanding of the close relation between these two templates.
5. Personally I perceive one solution to be superior to the other for obvious reasons. Others might differ.

Thanks for hearing this out. Agent00f (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I simply don't understand your argument. The basic question is about straightforward articles, not about logical arguments equating summaries to lists or whatever, that just sounds like some encouragement to wikilawyer to me. You used the word obvious in the middle of all that, really we're not taking about anything esoteric. If a topic is very large is it reasonable to split it into subarticles which are not notable in themselves but arbitrary chunks split out? Or are we constrained to find subtopics which have some sort of notability themselves? An individual chapter in a book which has had a lot of comment may have individual notability but two chapters or half of one chapter and half of the next are much less likely to have notability as a unit. Arbitrary means should we allow splitting into parts which have no reasonable notability as units? Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That argument was somewhat targeted to your statement: "agree with splitting large lists". The gist of the argument is since you already agree that lists can be split to resolve a size problem, then there should be no problem with applying the same agreement to summaries. This isn't "lawyering" as much as applying the same reasoning consistently instead of special cases for lists vs summaries which really aren't that different.

From a design standpoint (which is what the spirit of the rule is aiming at), it makes sense to split a cohesive and coherent whole out in a way that's informed by both the subject matter and size constraints rather than "arbitrarily". For example, even if some chapters brush up against notability, it makes no sense to force them onto the same page if the result is just unwieldy and miserable to use. That's why WP:SIZE was written in the first place: "Readability is a key criterion". If one chapter in the book per entry makes everything easier to read/navigate/use, and it's the same material as a whole anyway, then it's breaking the 5th pillar in two to force a worse solution just because another rule for standalone entries (created without this scenario in mind) seems to contradict this. WP:SIZE was created to address this very issue, so please let it. Agent00f (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you got any examples where an article has been split into non notable pieces that still makes sense? Not something theoretic but something actual and concrete that's in Wikipedia and is there because this bit of WP:SIZE allowed it? Dmcq (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There might exist examples, but in practice it's probably more common for people to create reasonable stub-sized entries in the first place and grow them rather than start with something stupid-big and then use WP:SIZE just to adhere to policy. You can probably look at histories of the competition-types entries I linked below. Some of them probably started with "summaries" and then got split and linked via template. Agent00f (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose long articles must not be split into arbitrary chunks but into bits with separate notability. Only very large stand alone lists may be split arbitrarily. Dmcq (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So what is the solution if the resultant bits are still too long or just irregular? Why propose a special exception for lists rather than more general solution given that the the problem is shared over a broad range of entries? Agent00f (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's why I asked if anyone can find an article where such action is necessary. I don't believe it is ever necessary, that there would be so much to say about a topic but it can't be split into notable subtopics. Dmcq (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at any kind of competition entries, it's very common for this to have already been done: cars, cards, horses, etc, etc. Practically none of these types of entries individually meet N, but the subtopics together as a whole do (eg. all f1 races in 1997). The template on the bottom links them. Agent00f (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you really saying that 1997 Canadian Grand Prix or 2009_Preakness_Stakes are not in themselves notable? I do have doubts about 1998_World_Series_of_Poker as the citation is to some web page with no indication of its value as a secondary source and there is no lead section pointing out why the article is in Wikipedia. Exactly why is that article in Wikipedia? As WP:IINFO Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Provide some notability indication and it is no longer indiscriminate and it isn't an example of some arbitrary split article with no notability. Dmcq (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

All are simple collections of STATS about ROUTINE events with often poor sourcing. Just because you've heard of it doesn't mean it's inherently notable (accord to hardline interpretation anyway). There have been successful AfD's on similar entries which are generally better sourced. These aren't some carefully chosen collection, just random competitions off the top of my head and then some arbitrarily chosen entry . There are countless numbers of them on wiki. Agent00f (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And I believe the poker one should be sent to AfD. Its talk page asserts it is list class but it isn't a split of a larger list. Lists require notability like anything else. The other two are not examples of non notable articles that I can see. Have poker articles like that one survived AfD, I'd like to see one that has. Dmcq (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

NONE of them would survive a hardcore AfD individually. The point is it's rarely tried for kicks because removing one entry out of the list is a dick move. Agent00f (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you give up this hardcore business please. I'm not asking about anything strange, I'm talking about a straightforward consensus. Has any of them passed AfD? Dmcq (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This one didn't. Agent00f (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This one is a bad example because it's an unsettled discussion. I see AFDs all the time that delete something that is a subtopic of a notable list. I just merged Tower Cube, for instance, though that's not a great example either. But the issue is that (unlike with Tower Cube) often the merge would dramatically unbalance the "main" topic. JJB 02:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How it is "unsettled?". It's settled in wiki's eyes as far as that individual event in its current state goes. The fundamental problem is it never should've been only settled for that individual event, but rather all or nothing for all similar entries according to more domain-informed guidelines. Until that root issue of general vs local rules on wiki is resolved, we're never going anywhere since single AfD's using GNG/NOT/etc can be used to delete regardless of what domain experts think. The AfD's should be focused on the fit of local rules to general ones, not singling out arbitrary entries. Otherwise the only way it's NOT a mess is through hapstance of apathy on the part of AfD enthusiasts. Agent00f (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There's also the example from the summary template page that got us here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1701_Okavango. Note these specific ones are computer script generated (incl auto-source from one DB). I can't imagine any out of thousands passing a hardline deletion process, yet I supposed many find the formatting useful. There are a LOT of these lists/summaries/article-collections on wiki. Agent00f (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(Ahem) I was the editor who carried this quote from one page (WP:SIZE) to another, so I had suggested Dmcq discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Article size. A couple of side notes: first, there is no conflict with WP:N intended, as it says, "These notability guidelines ... do not limit the content of an article or list," clearly affirming that notable articles can grow beyond size requirements; and it is logically conceivable, given the N wars, that none of the subarticles would be clearly notable (not every camp has the very wide view that all my various examples at Wikipedia talk:Summary style are all either notable, or exceptions because lists). I appreciate Masem's comments and examples.

Now, given the sizes we're dealing with, from Dmcq's point of view of N, it would not actually ever be necessary to split "arbitrarily", because there would always be enough data to split something with some logical subtopical method; Dmcq and Masem basically have given an N pass to these kinds of subarticles. From the narrower POV of N, the split would be called "arbitrary" because there are many cases where it could easily be asserted that no RS divides the topic the way we do or gives independent notability to the subtopic. Accordingly, this might direct us to clarify the meaning of "arbitrary" in both guidelines to indicate something like "the 'topic' of the spinout itself may not be notable on its own but would otherwise be a natural and fair collection of secondary sources that point to it." I certainly don't hold that "arbitrary" means to call the article "Isaac Newton part 3" and split it anywhere. I would appreciate it if comments would stay on the primary topic, viz., whether the long-standing sentence in WP:SIZE should be clarified. JJB 01:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems to more or less fall in line with actual practice. So it's just a clarification of what reasonably knowledgeable editors do anyway. The crux of the problem IMO is that lot of folks conflate "arbitrary" with "random". Agent00f (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not given a notability pass as you phrase it. That's practically the opposite of what I've said. Allowing all logical splits would allow these poker articles which have no separate notability that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If these poker articles have no separate notability, then NONE of the entries with same formatted I linked above have separate notability. Each are the top tier competition in their respective subject. Some people might personally care for one subject over another, but how do you brightline distinguish between what's inherently "acceptable" about one subject vs another? Agent00f (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's what I've been going on about. You treat them like normal articles. In particular you look for notability of the topic as that is what distinguishes an article from a subsection of an article, subsections only have weight within an article. The essay WP:BEFORE that JJB pointed at below gives a good summary on what is needed for an article. If an article would fail AfD then it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia. If they are as important as you say then surely there should be some secondary source that talks in a some detail about them? If somebody wins the 100 meters in the Olympics we're pretty certain there will be newspaper articles about it, that's why it is assumed such an event is notable. Notability is not just a random choice by editors on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The reality is that they're NOT like normal articles. A 1998 tour article by itself is clearly NOT the same thing as a 1998 article which is clearly and cleanly linked to all surrounding years of similar articles all forming a set of useful information. Your entire stance is that context CANNOT matter, which is very hardline and ignores the fact that wikipedia is not a site of individual siloed entries. For example, a random planet #10103 article is surely not the same as the long list of them. As to sources, if you look at the circumstances surrounding the linked AfD, clearly secondary sources weren't going to save it: the AfD Delete crowd demand WP:EVENT "enduring historical significance", claims any event that occurs regularly (ie every year) fails WP:ROUTINE and whatnot. The problem isn't YOUR standards, but theirs. Agent00f (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The issue with poker is that very few at all of the articles in Template:Major poker tournaments pass N on their own; many of them have zero secondary sources, and one primary source or a dozen. Further, to AFD the 1998 event alone would be exceedingly rude to WikiProject Gambling and would delete data haphazardly and thus unencyclopedically; and to merge it to WSOP would leave that article unbalanced, contradictory to WP:SUMMARY. Accordingly, these many kinds of articles are given a pass, and I am interested in codifying why. It appears that their "N pass" stems from (occasionally) an SNG exception or (more often) unconsciously being regarded as balanced spinouts of a list (here, the list in World Series of Poker, and the list of World Series of Poker Main Event champions). That is, the list with its spun-out details would be too long in one article, so each item on the list is spun out. Notability inheres only to WSOP, but the spinout is natural and fair. I add that in many cases secondary sources are not findable for every spinout; I think encyclopedicity is achieved by a proper combination of subtopic primary sources with topic-level secondary sources that also mention the subtopic. JJB 02:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

People are warned that they no longer own stuff after contributing it. Any stuff may be edited mercilessly. NPA applies to interactions wth people, however if the consensus is that an article should be deleted we do not keep it because it might be rude to delete it. And we cannot be rude to a project, only to the people with it either individually or as a group. If you just deal with the issues and don't attack people personally that is fine and rudeness does not come into anything as a factor.

Now has anybody actually tried an AfD on any of these poker articles? Please see WP:IINFO and if you think the poker articles are not indiscriminate collections of information point to the source that shows it has some interest, and then perhaps that will be good enough for notability of the articles. Otherwise if there is no notability for the articles why are we keeping them in Wikipedia instead of just pointing to where they are in some external database? A list would be okay but I do not believe those articles are sections of a notable list, each article at best is a list and needs separate notability. Dmcq (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You want me to dare you to go to AFD? I see these AFDs all the time and they are considered a violation of WP:POINT, especially when WP:BEFORE is omitted. If you don't like the word "rude" to mean "pointy", that's fine. These articles exist all over WP, when AFD deletes them they break up datasets or create imbalanced merges, and whichever result occurs they cause hard feelings. I can find you some examples of AFDs if you want; it's generally regarded as gauche to nom certain kinds of articles singly rather than as groups. In the poker case the article is a spinout of an item in a notable list, merge would imbalance the main topic, and delete would imbalance the overall WP coverage very, um, arbitrarily. Now, getting back to the subject, I see there was some discussion of your primary question at Wikipedia talk:Article size, so I recommend we close this VPP discussion due to redundancy with that one. JJB 02:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a question of daring. I asked if any had gone to AfD. That's a simple enough question. Doing an AfD takes a bit of work. If it requires a test case like that to decide this question then yes of course I will take one to AfD. Yes I would like to see an AfD which has been rejected on one of these poker articles or something similar if you can find one please. The poker would be best as I can agree the individual article is not notable. Dmcq (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I gave you an example above. Note that similar examples o the same subject brought that whole wiki space to its knees for months. I don't think a better example of how destructive this sort of AfD can be exists. Agent00f (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The only ones I can see mentioned as having gone to AfD are two that have nothing to do with poker and that were both deleted. Hardly a convincing case that there is a consensus that large articles can be split into bits which don't satisfy notability. Have I missed out some AfD that failed? In fact has any article which fails notability got past AfD? The later life of Newton and McCain's life before he became a presidential nominee are both notable subjects even if people are only interested in them because of the rest of their lives. Those poker games though have no indications of individual notability that I can see. Just saying the world poker series is notable does not automatically mean everything about it is notable to the extent one can split off subsidiary articles about every game. Newtons later life and McCains earlier life could easily have been unnotable if they hadn't been such notable people. Dmcq (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have placed a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker#Discussion at VPP as there is an extended discussion here about the notability of one of the articles they look after. Perhaps they can explain the status of the 1998 World Series of Poker article which was cited as one of no notability and yet reasonable to keep. Dmcq (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Hardly a convincing case that there is a consensus that large articles can be split into bits which don't satisfy notability." Note that this is the exactly the problem that this discussion in part might help resolve. Again, can we agree that deleting random elements in the set makes no sense when the real question concerns the notability of all fungible members? Is your claim that sticking them all on a massive page is somehow an improvement? Split them off cleanly is just a navigation aid, just like splitting off unwieldy lists. Agent00f (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary split

Daring itself would be rather pointy, although I get it that you are being rhetorical here. And there are a great many articles that shouldn't be here, or should be merged, or should be here but aren't because someone just hasn't written them yet. This is why comparing to other articles is not useful, as Wikipedia is a project, not a finished product. All we can do is take it one article and one project at a time. Where there is controversy, more eyes are drawn toward it, so it ends up getting more attention first. The less controversial problems tend to get pushed onto the back burner. The order in which we choose to "fix" areas on Wikipedia is more a factor of how many people are willing to get involved, rather than an indication of how important or how broken it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't go in for rhetorical, I try to be more of a what it says on the tin type. I don't have an infinite lifespan, I don't fancy doing AfDs, and I'm not interested in poker, but if it would clear up the point one way or the other then yes I would do it, and I don't see it as pointy to delete stuff that is not notable. I would consider it disruptive to do hundreds at once rather than get the principle established first but that's about it as far as restricting AfDs is concerned by me. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with you, and I don't imagine you would do it only for a pointed dare. For example, my experience with MMA has been such that I'm not convinced that you could use the basis of that poker AFD to convince the enthusiastic crowd that it should serve as an example and gain a consensus there. As to the merits of making such a comparison, there are both pros and cons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's meant to set or result in some sort of precedent/guideline/rule for all such articles of that type on wiki, then it's worth doing considering this format style for sets of competitive events is the rule rather than the exception. Agent00f (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Articles should never be split arbitrarily, the resulting articles should always be separately notable. Editors deciding where to split the article into original subtopics which are not mirrored in reliable sources constitutes original research. It is of a topic that is not discussed as a collection by reliable sources. Also note that although OR is a content guideline, the reason we ask for notability is because; "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content, to be consistent with this there should be no original research on the grouping of topics (or even a single topic) into an article (as a general rule). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Provided these articles are clearly and cleanly linked (say perhaps by template with fwd/back/up links), and assuming the audience is aware of how links work, can you provide arguments to the downside of "arbitrary" splits as long as they make sense? Individual volumes (let's say 100+ in total) in a serialized publication, each with summaries and links to background data, might be a good example to work with. Agent00f (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines are supposed to describe the best practice in what is done. You are entitled of course to try finding an article where you think something like this would be reasonable and then discuss splitting it like you want and there is even a basis in IAR for then implementing it even if it conflicts with current standards. That could form the basis to amend the guidelines or set up a new one. However this discussion isn't about something new like that but what should be described as currently okay and reasonable. Dmcq (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've provided real examples here and elsewhere (which you've seen). This more hypothetical (but reasonable) one is based on your "chapters in a book" example above. As we talked about before, in practice editors already split up excess entries before they get too unwieldy. If you look through reasonably popular TV shows, they often have a separate page per episode with nothing but plot synopsis from the DVD or whatever. The implication is either every TV episode is notable or there's already some other practice at play. Agent00f (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The episodes should have secondary sources showing notability. Are there examples which do not have such secondary sources and a statement showing notability? Whatever about my preferring maths and science topics and throwing up my hands about Pokemon cruft I'm fairly certain that every single episode of the Simpsons or Doctor Who or Star Trek can easily demonstrate notability. Dmcq (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Just something I pull at complete random: south park episode. Only refs are network's own page and generic entries at DBs like, well, IMDB. Note this is basically best case scenario of the most popular show on a whole network (comedy central). I doubt most would do better. Agent00f (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to come back to an argument I've made before way back on these elements. en.wiki's SIZE creates an interesting problem that traditional print or offline encyclopedias don't have. A print work could have coverage of a single topic that spans dozens of pages; it may be possible take bits and pieces of that topic and make individual articles on them, but they lose relevance when taken out and may hurt the cohesion of the main article. So as such, they can print it all in one large chunk.
  Now on en.wiki, what if that same content is 500k of text? SIZE would tell us we're looking to try to break that down to 5-7 separate pages, but even if I took the few aspects that could be make individual articles, we're looking at a 400k article with the same problems of losing cohension that would happen with the encyclopedia. (But with WP, where overspace is not limited, it would be completely possible to have those individual articles and enough summary of them in the main article. However, this is a point not relevant to this). The only way to we can resolve this is to find ways to break the article up naturally, a combination of how information is organized in the main article, the relative importance to the reader to have that immediately available when they read about the topic, and other facts. I use Cultural Impact of Guitar Hero as a prime example: at one point, the Guitar Hero series article had just a small "Cultural impact" as the last prose section (back when it was just a couple of games), but obviously expanded with the growth of the series. Though for all purposes the topic (not title) of "cultural impact of Guitar Hero" is not singularly covered in detail by any one specific source (a "technical" violation of WP:N), the breakout is logical, backed by numerous reliable third-party and/or secondary sources (for all intents, passes WP:N), and is not necessary to have (outside of a summary) on the readthrough of the main game article to start with.
  Another common split are "data tables", but these can range from things like episode lists for a TV series, discographies for a band, or a filmography for an actor. Such tables or lists aren't necessary to have to read about the core topic, and easily can weigh down size.
  Now, to that end, I've come since to recognize that UNDUE plays a big role here. If you have 500k of text, not considering any tables or sections that can be naturally split, and are forced to start consider arbitrary splits, you probably have too much detailed information. I'm not saying its impossible to have that much text that simply cannot be easily split "naturally", but I'd bet more often than not the lack of splitting either comes from simply being too detailed, or perhaps reorganization is needed. In the later, things can be fixed; in the former, major trimming is required. If after all that, you simply cannot trim down further and have considered every possible topic reorganization and still far exceed size, then the next step is to break apart "arbitrarily", ideally on reasonable breakpoints that still are well sourced to secondary/third-party sources to make it feel likes its own topic. For example, this appears to have been done on Early life of Isaac Newton - this is an example of probably a bad cut, because there's really only one source (and a handful of others), and seems to apply undue weight to this portion of his life; the gravitation law section seems awfully tacked on as well.
  My end point here is that when spinning out, notability should be a major consideration, even if we're not going for a 100% WP:N requirement on spinouts. It is not that notability in inherited to spinouts, however; except in the case of certain data table spinouts, we do expect that the sourcing to cover the spinout is coming from non-primary sources. This makes, for example, calling the 1998 WSoP article a spinout of the general WSoP article problematic. There's no secondary coverage, it's just results. I could see a table summarizing results over the years for all WSoP since it doesn't appear any single event is notable on its own, that table being a separate article from the WSoP article. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This sounds very reasonable. In the case of WSoP, we do have two tables summarizing results, though not in as much detail as the spinouts: the inline list in World Series of Poker, and the list of World Series of Poker Main Event champions. These are main articles to the subarticles. Since this discussion is now about a generic question that is different from the specific questions on other pages, I am going ahead with the suggestion that, hypothetically, if 1998 WSoP were nommed, WP:PRESERVE would indicate that the data be kept (especially as part of a notable dataset), and WP:SS would indicate that it not be merged but kept due to imbalance in the main article. There is tension between the belief that articles should "stand alone" and the belief that very large datasets have enough collective notability to be preserved. I don't believe in weakening N, but it does already state that N does not limit content of a notable topic (thus necessitating WP:SIZE and this resolution). We can still say "split 'arbitrarily' if necessary", but that is now charged as ambiguous, so the question becomes what we mean by that, or whether we should retain the ambiguity for convenience. I submit that, per a prior discussion, the community's first favorite is the bandage of using SNGs to localize the question (56%-76%); its backup view is that spinouts are treated as sections of a larger work ("arbitrarily", at 50%, ahead of "inherent notability" at 29%-47%). If we carefully describe the situations in which spinouts are treated as subsections, as I am seeking to do, I think that would be recognized as at least an equal solution to SNGs. JJB 14:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with an article like the 1998 WSoP is that very few people would actually think of that in terms of a spinout. It is talking about a very specific event instead of a broad subtopic of a larger topic. To that end, we would expect that to be a notable event on its own, not considering that there is a parent WSoP. In part, there's a problem as it is classed as a "list" but we would expect this to be an article, not a list. Another problem is that there's only one source given, and a search on Gnews' archive shows some hits but only as "this player finished X in the 1998 WSoP". I've glanced at some of the other WSoP articles from the template, and they all have this same problem that I refer to above under UNDUE. I have no question that the recurrent annual WSoP event is notable, but the individual events, and the results of every single sub-event outside of the largest money event is truly UNDUE given the level of coverage provided for the event. (If you haven't been following, this screaming out the same situation as the MMA/UFC sport event articles). Some coverage, but not as detailed as given - particularly since there are websites linked that repeat this information - is appropriate, and perhaps the summary of the events, grouping, say, the WSoP events by decade, may be the better way to make these feel and be treated more like spinouts rather than non-notable articles as they are now. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Would it help spinout status in your argument above if the linking template where more prominent? I would think that 1998 WSoP is a natural subtopic of WSoP events which helps provide a narrative of the org w/ respect to competitors. Without this info, it's difficult to form a picture of who was competing against whom in a given era/year. In comparison, looking for the same knowledge by clicking on every notable player and remembering all their individual timelines to match up later would be unnecessarily time consuming. IMO it's difficult to argue that this type of useful info isn't encyclopedic. It's also notable to others that WSoP-event type articles exist in just about every competition I cared to look up whether it be cars, horses, triathletes, etc, etc. Clearly this knowledge is useful to wiki editors across the board, well past the point where the same argument is fungible everywhere. That seems to provide a good rational for rule clarification. Agent00f (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

May I point you again at WP:IINFO, if people want to check some database like that then let them do that outside Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources Dmcq (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a quote from you above: "Are you really saying that 1997 Canadian Grand Prix or 2009_Preakness_Stakes are not in themselves notable?", which implies that you have no problem with this as long as it's something "recognizable". None of these pages are full text copies. Agent00f (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the same compromise was proposed in MMA where all 2012 events were attempted to be grouped into one article. But 2012 in UFC events is no more notable than UFC 145, and 1990s in poker is no more notable than 1998 World Series of Poker (though that may be "hardcore"). Now, if all the articles were styled as "lists with explanatory prose" rather than "articles containing lists", the breakout nature would be more obvious. Then there might be an argument for "arbitrary list split" per WP:NCLL, which would favor the by-year or by-decade articles, or there might be a stronger argument for "subtopical split", which would favor splitting into individual articles; and this could be determined by local consensus. I can also consider an argument that WSOP is perhaps an undiscovered work-in-progress currently unduly balanced, but it seems to me that the situation happens often enough that we need to strengthen current guidance so that local projects can build from it. The same list spinout situation happens with presidential-preference polls, e.g., but they are much more conducive to listing, because there is less data per event; so we have tons of poll list articles and not all that much contention. It's when there is significant data per event that we run into these battles. So while I've recognized the "bundling" option has often been presented as a compromise, I think alternatives are possible. Perhaps a joint essay on options? JJB 16:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In terms of notability. I don't think anyone questions that World Series of Poker isn't notable, and as it is a competitive sport, some summary of the results make sense. However, as best as I can tell, specific YYYY WSoP articles are just event with nothing beyond routine coverage, and this is where splitting them off into as much detail as they give is UNDUE; this is particularly supported by the fact there are very few notable poker players on those lists.

Going back to my statement just above, lets consider how a print encyclopedia would likely handle this. They'd have an article covering the ideas, concept, and structure of the WSoP, how it relates to the sport of poker overall, and the like, but then in considering the paper aspect, they would likely list the top major details of each of the individual year events (where held, how many players, total winnings/prizes, and who actually won in terms the top match and overall) I really cannot see, with the level of sourcing possible for the individual YYYY WSoP events, for them to actually have articles on each. While we are not paper and can expand indefinitely, we also need to be very aware that it is not an allowance for infinite expansion past one notable aspect. Hence, I would tend to treat our coverage of the WSoP in the same way, tables summarizing the most fundamental and the most important details of the event with links to sources that outline all the details. Exactly how to format this, I don't know. Maybe one table for the event's 20+ yr history could work, or if that grows too large, splitting into reasonable chucks (by decade) are natural splits without creating seemingly individual, not-split-like articles, even if those splits haven't been done before in other sources. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

But what if a poker event is reformatted as a "split-like" article, such as with a header template indicating its position in a main list, Template:ArticlePair to indicate the prev and next articles, a lead that further indicates its subservience to the main list, and a Template:Subarticle on the talk page? Then it would look better than a decade article with the same features. Would using 1998 WSOP as a guinea pig (for restyling, not for AFDing) be advisable, to illustrate what I have in mind? JJB 17:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt, I would expect that to be compared to "putting a dress on a pig". It doesn't change the core problem that the article is not the type of material that is considered as "spun out" but would be expected to hold its own. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, I would think that stuffing the exact same info all on one page only to provide some kind of aggregate notability is comparable to stuffing hogs in a dress. Agent00f (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If it was simply dumping all the same information into that article, yes. If we are being highly selective to summarize the results, no. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The summary might already exist (eg history of WSoP events or somesuch). We're mostly talking about unwieldy formatting here (like all WSoP championships on one page). Agent00f (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, that crystallizes my question: what type of material is considered as "spun out", and what type of material is expected to hold its own? I would think the former should include any subarticle of a long main article with sufficient overall primary/secondary sourcing; why would that category be abridged? JJB 19:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Demanding that notability of subtopics or sublists be demonstrated is neither helpful nor even a coherent analysis in many instances ("yes, the university is notable, and it has notable alumni, but a list of its notable alumni is not notable." wtf?). It also doesn't make sense to hold navigational lists to a different notability standard than categories, which WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN recognize, and which WP practice clearly demonstrates is widespread consensus, but WP:LISTN confusedly recognizes only backhandedly (the confused caveat in the last paragraph of that section, which most people ignore when they are trying to use it to delete a list). If a section or list legitimately belongs in an article because it is verifiable and encyclopedic, and the size of that section legitimately grows to the point that the original article would become cumbersome to include it, it adds absolutely nothing to the encyclopedia to demand that such a split-off be itself somehow notable apart from the parent topic. Obviously if article size were not a concern, or if we were making a print encyclopedia where the articles and related sections could just unfold over successive pages, we would not even be having these discussions. So long as a split-off article or list is anchored in a notable topic, I don't see that notability of that split-off per se is often (if ever) a useful question. The main issue instead should be whether the split-off section is that large only because of trivia or other indiscriminate details, which is not a question of notability at all but rather what we determine is "encyclopedic", i.e., what we think would belong in an article if length were not an issue. Otherwise we are inhibiting the growth of the project, and the depth of our coverage, for the sake of nothing but misguided formal enforcement of a guideline meant to describe best practice, not absolutely prescribe it. postdlf (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with your sedimentsentiment, but knowing what's been argued over the years, this rationale for when to split has lukewarm support. This is why LISTN is so flimsy and only talks about a specific case; there's much disagreement on it. There are bad splits, but the line between good and bad is grey an at times as "I know it when I see". --MASEM (t) 17:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Now here is a summary I can endorse! Debating notability of splitoffs is rarely useful, when we should be debating what content is encyclopedic in the unlimited main article. That's what the last graf of the lead of WP:N is about. JJB 17:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC) I endorse "sediment" too, that's the most humous thing anyone has said yet. Better than all this swineyness.

Should I start an essay and slap an RFC on it? I prefer essays that are not one-man shows. JJB 19:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Split 2: What is a spinout article?

This is address a point that JJB asked above, which is completely a fair question and may help to address some of the points here.

I would first argue that a spinout is not about a highly focused, singular topic. Regardless of how the article came to be, something like 1998 World Series of Poker would never be considered a spinout and receive whatever "allowances" we'd give spinouts (if we give spinouts any); it's too narrowly focused and we would expect it to prove its own notability. Spinouts, to me, are broad cuts of a larger topic. Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series, the various "Criticism of X", discographies, filmographies, episode lists, etc, are all types of things that, irregardless of notability, would like be considered as spinouts, though whether we keep them or not, that's a different story. But key is that they don't focus on one specific narrow facet of a topic, but are broader pieces.

From there, I would qualify spinouts as two categories. One is based on creating spinouts that exist for other topics. Yes, it is a form of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but usually if there's wide use of that type of spinout to create appropriate articles that are generally accepted by notability (eg: episode lists of multiseason TV series), then these are appropriate regardless if they are as notable or not. It is still inappropriate to split these off from short articles (there's been a push to put 13-26 episode lists back in the body of the show's article if the show only lasted 1 or 2 seasons as one example), but one there's a general SIZE issue, the spinout is accepted.

The other type is the one that is hard to give guidance on, where "Criticism of X" or "Cultural impact of X" fall. They may be patterned after similarly-named articles but these aren't always accepted. It is very hard to give guidance beyond two factors: that the spinout is helping to relief SIZE of the main article, and that numerous secondary sources are present to validate the topic's notability. But these are not requirements from what I've seen at some past AFDs. But again, going back to my first point, they are generally broad cuts from the main article and not narrow focuses.

But these are very rough guidelines, they will vary project by project. Hence why we should focus on the concept of notability as a means of unifying what is broken out as a spinout though by no means the last determinant of it (notability is just a guideline.) --MASEM (t) 22:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no requirement for any special status for spinout articles. We can describe them as a group of articles which may go logically together with some using the {{Main}} template to refer to others and having just a summary of what they refer to. It is entirely possible however for two different articles to both refer to and summarize a third article and there is no requirement for that third article to ever have been part of a larger article. Dmcq (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to create a spinout without the actual text of the article ever being in the main article; eg: the "spinout" is not describing the process but the resulting arrangement of articles. Mind you, editors are discouraged from creating spinouts before they know they are necessary, though I'm sure with experience this step can be bypassed. I'm still considering the end point of what results regardless if it started in an article or fell out afterwards.

That said, that brings up another point. A good spinout article is one that can be reinserted into the larger article (ignoring SIZE) and would otherwise not disrupt the flow or content of the article. That's why pages and page and pages of stats broken out as spinouts are likely not really good spinouts because you wouldn't have tables and tables and tables of stats in a single article. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Masem, the second type you're talking about seems to be addressed by this essay. Note abundant use of word consistency. As for the idea that spinouts can be incorporated back in, I would suspect that there might be good design reasons why they were created seperately in the first place. That argument essentially comes down to bias against info that isn't conducive to referencing in giant chunks. Agent00f (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's what I mean, consistency, but at the same time time, a 5k article on a TV that would add 5k more for an episode list does not need a separate episode list.

When I mean "put back in", it is simply a theorhetical process for simply evaluating if a spinoff makes sense as a natural division of an article. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely on consistency, but just a warning that policy hardliners do not. I understand the put-back test, but only wanted to note that if it was separated for good design reasons, it doesn't make sense to evaluate the worse format for readability. Agent00f (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me give an example of a spinout that fails the put-back test without worrying about readability: Early life of Isaac Newton. The whole section about the law of gravity in conjunction with this makes no sense in context if that spinout was put back into Isaac Newton. There is a whole message around this articles that makes the choice of this spinout poor to start with. (There might be better support to put forth an article on "scientific advances by Isaac Netwon" but it would require reordering a lot of information. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe I understand the test. The problem is as you say the amount of work necessary to make it right, if it's possible at all. Being hardline on this IMO excludes useful encyclopedic info (his early life) for no good reason. This isn't a trivial problem to solve broadly given the solution is mired in subject details. For example, Britannica solve the N problem in part by using two sets of books. Wiki can be far more flexible on inclusion and should just use the deletion process for truly bad entries (and by entry I mean set of entries if applicable). If we're to be strict, it seems the only reason all these common cases above survived is because of apathy in deletion. Agent00f (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I never said that the early stuff would be lost. The problem is the organization between the main and early life articles is haphazard and an example of how not to spin out stuff. (Also to a point: the early life article is weak with sources, putting it in an UNDUE light). And at one point WP was more inclusive but we've become more critical of what gets included to avoid being indiscriminate. We are not a collection of all possible information, we are to summarize it. Too many people treat WP as the end-all, be-all of information, when all we are as an encyclopedia is the first step. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we're in significant agreement on this, such as the problem in this case is poor article synergy. I think you misunderstood my "inclusion" statement. What I meant was that IMO the problem isn't so much how we can create the perfect encyclopedia starting afresh, but rather how we treat odd things that already exist. From your statements about merging, I feel we agree here, too. In general we're on the same page that the rules should protect a certain threshold of "reasonable" spinouts, but not poor ones which don't fit a given criteria. We might disagree on actively merging what's always been separated. Moving fwd we just need to work out where that line is, or more importantly how to determine where that line is. Agent00f (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Just an illustration of domain specific this is: some TV shows are episodic with no long plotlines. It therefore makes little sense to put generally unrelated shows on a "season" page just to satisfy arbitrary size thresholds. The only reason those "seasons" would exist is external (local TV culture, nothing inherent to the show). Even within any given category, many nuances exist, so creating rules with bias towards specific designs (ie the omni page) only makes the field ripe for unnecessary contention. Agent00f (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

TV shows are split by season because between seasons is usually when any major changes will occur: casting, timeslot, production, writers, etc. Season articles naturally fall out from that regardless of the show being serialized in story or not. The point is to recognize that certain breakouts are commonly accepted, but the breakout should be done only if needed; you don't break out 5k from a 10k article just because every other article that's much larger in the same field does it. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 5k break out from a 10k article is ridiculous. In this case where it's more like 5k breaks from >155k (31eps, a few with marginally longer entries), the reasoning isn't so clear. But more importantly, I was trying to convey that it can be hard for someone looking only at a rule on a page to make a definitive determination (which is what often happens at AfDs), and it rather requires some external reasoning. For example, you gave a justification above which is still primarily based on domain knowledge, even if it somewhat favors larger pages. My question here would be if a bias towards as large of a page as possible should be the site policy. Agent00f (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, can you summarize the "no requirement for any special status" in the context of 1997 Canadian Grand Prix or 2009_Preakness_Stakes or 1998 WSoP above? All of them seem subject to AfD ATM given the interpretation that they're just info from DBs. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I read the leads of the first two articles and they seemed to assert good reasons for notability. One of then just had a citation needed for the notability rather than a secondary source but it looked like it could probably be found. I'm not sure all the lists within them are worth including. However just because some DB info has been put in them does not remove their notability. The WSOP one though had no statement of notability and no reasonable secondary sourcing. It was just a database. It appears no one has shown any interest in writing about it as an event never mind satisfying WP:GNG. Dmcq (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference there seems to be a couple lines asserting that these are grand prix's or part of triple crown; I assume that's also true for WSoP championships. This is somewhat biased by own selection of higher level competition, there are probably pages for lower rank events. When I checked for sources, googling for "1998 world series of poker champion" seemed to return many hits. Agent00f (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well if they can show their individual notability in secondary sources then fine by me. I'm still a bit leery about what I see as a database dump in them but I'd be much happier if each event could show it satisfy the notability guidelines. And I believe if they can't they should be deleted. I'd much prefer they had been set up in the first place with some evidence of their notability rather than having people coming along thinking they can fill Wikipedia with articles that have no notability provided they can phrase them as spoinout articles. Dmcq (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly trying to get a measure of what you might suppose is a reasonable line for competitive event notability (not "games in a series" as alluded to elsewhere, which I assure you annual WSoP championships are not). Frankly given that you don't object to those examples above as long as they have a very brief intro and secondary cite I don't think there's any bone of contention here. As to the general question of splitting, I supposed we might disagree but frankly it's irrelevant at this point given you have a very reasonable standard for notability. The problem mostly arises when WP:NOT/EVENT hardliners feel that basically all events are inherently non-notable unless they prove "enduring historical significance". Agent00f (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There's guidelines which supplement WP:Notability, I'd guess WP:Notability (sports) would cover that. In fact looking at that notability is tightened up slightly because practically any sports event is covered in a number of newspapers but even so people don't consider them notable unless they receive more than routine coverage. The talk page of that would I'd have thought be the place for discussion if you find problems with that guideline, AfDs tend to define common practice a bit too. The change to the summary style guideline seemed to allow practically anything through without any notability check and that definitely is a step way too far for me. If the specific notability guideline seems straightforward about something I don't believe that any enduring notability question arises, such questions about enduring notability of sports should be discussed on the talk page of that guideline and the results incorporated into it rather than trying to appply that over and above what has been agreed as okay. The specific guideline should be enough for the notability requirement. Dmcq (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

During AfDs, material arguments can be made without reference to local rules (for example, failing EVENT's "enduring historical significance"). In general the hardline stance is that local rule CANNOT be more lenient than EVENT or NOT. Separately, the specific problem with the NSPORTS page is that its events section is only written with the few most popular sports in mind, which share their own eccentricities. Note the exceptions made (including inherent notability); their application to everything else is awkward. It's worth pointing out that Masem was a regular participant there and perhaps feels this is a general enough of a problem to also address here. The overall intent is only to help protect thousands of similar coherent sets of pages from arbitrary AfDs on their individual elements. For example, it makes no sense to delete WSoP 1998 while keeping 1997 and 1999. The notability test (of whatever degree you desire) is still applied across the set. We can also specify minimal level of notability for each element (which IMO is not "enduring historical significance"). The details are open to discussion, but we should agree on the general idea first. Agent00f (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

History of... articles would also be spinouts, eg History of the Montreal Canadiens as a spinout of Montreal Canadiens. Resolute 23:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, have read this all once, but will need to come back to it. JJB 05:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC) OK, my reading of Masem's def of "spinout" is that a spinout shows obvious dependency on its main topic. However, some articles are technical spinouts yet appear independent (European Theatre or Pacific War), and some of these easily have multiple (adoptive?) parents. Thus my reading is that Masem might regard an independent-looking and -sounding article as needing to satisfy a notability guideline, but a dependent-looking article might be judged based on its "evidence of dependency" (just as other articles display "evidence of notability"; evidence of dependency often includes an uncommon (descriptive) name, like criticism of patents). So my next questions are:

• Is there a way to make an "independent-looking" article look dependent, or would such attempts just be cosmetic because there is a qualitative difference between independent and dependent? I could imagine articles making very obvious "assertions of dependency", such as "Subtopic is the nth item in the [notable topic] list of ...." Template positioning would also assert.
• Second, as above, would anyone support my drafting an essay, moving this already-long discussion there, and opening an RFC to gather more input on subtopic notability; or is there already a good community solution somewhere? JJB 09:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer we decided the basic question about notability of 'spinout' articles first. We could have an RFC on that here if you like. The question is simple enough, do we need to show notability for the separate parts of an article that is split up or not? If some annual conker competition is notable can we set up separate articles on each conker competition without needing separate notability for them? Or is the only real requirement for their contents verifiiabilty? Dmcq (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You might be trying to find a mallet to swat a gnat. We might not want all years of all notable competitions to have their own articles, but it doesn't follow that the best or only way to do this is to require all spin-offs independently satisfy notability requirements. That's way too far reaching a rule, and one with no actual support in practice as an absolute. It's also quixotic to think that if we just formulated the right rules, we could clearly preclude content we don't want or avoid the need for case-by-case determinations. I think this is about as definite as you can (or should) get: "Sections of articles split-off because of size concerns may satisfy notability requirements purely by virtue of the parent topic's notability. Other considerations, such as whether the split-off consists of unencyclopedic and indiscriminate trivia or data, or does not appropriately represent WP:SUMMARY style, may be more relevant." postdlf (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am incorporating those thoughts into my draft. JJB 21:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, I thought it was clear there was no consensus: Discussion in 2008 did not result in a significant single consensus on the question, "Does every article need reliable third-party sources to prove it is notable, or can notability be inherited [in any way] from another article?" There are divergent apologia for status quo; yours (that "McCain's life 1981-2000" is a notable topic) is just one of many alternatives. (Here's another: History of the United States (1789-1849) and History of the United States (1849-1865), even though 1849 is only mentioned once across both articles, the Gold Rush began in 1848, and there is no notable reason to select the Gold Rush among many other events. Arbitrary OR split, or source-based notable subtopics?) The competition question, and most such general questions, would be based on whether main article plus subarticles have sufficient WP:SIZE, they meet core policy, everything is sourced, primary sources are not imbalanced, the main article is not imbalanced, and their relationships are made explicit. Just like any other article set, there is no bar for creation when basic requirements are met. I think that an RFC would work better with a foundational proposal to build from and I do have some text for one now. JJB 16:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not know of that but exactly how do you see that RFC as relevant? The Notability guideline is what is agreed. We have no policy or guideline currently saying notability does not apply to articles which have been split off a large article. And I really do not think that editors in general would see WP:SIZE as allowing articles about every episode in a film series or every game in a championship just because the series or championship is notable. This was what I mean about trying to drive a a coach and horses through notability. The [[WP:SIZE}] guideline does not even mention notability. I see the phrase about 'arbitrary splitting' was introduced in an edit about technical issues with Firefox and just hasn't been looked at much since. Has this really taken as support for ignoring notability guidelines before? I'll put a note on the Notability guideline talk page about the discussion here. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In these cases I'm not sure if you still have an objection. We've clarified that the type of "arbitrary splitting" that the community does every day is not the evil random splitting feared. We've clarified that spinouts have varying unresolved views on notability (per 2008 RFC). In particular, episodes and games or events are handled locally, in accord with core policy, and without any change in community N practice; many such, as demonstrated, are spun out with incomplete demonstration of RS, which often needs adjustment when it happens. By your definition of N, N is not being ignored. More discussion is good (which is why I'm angling for support for an essay about treating spinouts as a group, anyone, anyone?), but what are you specifically objecting to that I said or did? JJB 21:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

So are you going to revert this [3] where you say in effect that notability does not apply to split out articles? If not I believe we still have a real problem. Dmcq (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Here I showed how your diff of my edit was simply a collection of other guidance in one place, among several others inserted at the same time. Your WP:OR reading (which is not my view), that N doesn't apply to splits, is not an objection to my words, but an objection to the guidance and practice. If you think that the guidance says N doesn't apply to (some) splits and that this is wrong, you can offer changes to the guidance, which hasn't happened. Which of those guides needs to change? JJB 21:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You have stuck two bits together in a synthesis that implies that. And if you want to quote OR look at WP:SYNTH. There was no reason to mention notability there at all and it didn't do so before you put that in. WP:SIZE never said anything about notability and yet you have used it to say notability is not needed. Dmcq (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A bit before this I separated the sentences and used exact quotes from each source (including yourself). Your inference is not my implication. If you think the new version still contains synthesis, rather than tell me what you think I'm saying, tell me how to say what should be said. But please do it at Wikipedia talk:Summary style. JJB 00:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to offer some context to the position that JJB and Agent00f have been arguing. Specifically there have been exhaustive discussions at WT:MMANOT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f about notability of individual articles for MMA events versus merging those events which do not appear to meet notability into a collection that together appears to better satisfy the notability guidelines. JJB and Agent00f's discussion style has been documented quite thoroughly at the above mentioned RfC/U. Please feel free to review both of the exhaustive discussions and exercise best judgement in regards to arguments posted here. In no way does this constitute canvassing, just context that has been missing so that editor's motivations and intentions is no longer hidden. Hasteur (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is not canvassing, thanks. (Neutral audience, open transparency, mostly unbiased message.) However, my interest in summary style long predates my attempts to mediate the MMA dispute by use of it. I also believe that Hasteur's hint that my and Agent00f's "discussion style" is collective and needs documenting is a colorable view. However, when I first brought this topic up at WT:Summary style, I did advertise that the MMA dispute was related and findable in my history.

Hasteur, it would serve everyone's interest to contain MMA drama in its own space. Thus it would be best if you can link to relevant content notes where applicable and restrict personal statements to your RfC/U's. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary split 3

In other news:

• User:2005 confirms at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker#Discussion at VPP that 1998 World Series of Poker is believed to have significant print RS coverage, which is handled by Template:Refimprove rather than AFD. When one asks the WikiProject one usually finds a good rationale.
• We do have an AFD test case now, though, initiated by User:KoshVorlon, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia. This article and its main topic Rees's Cyclopædia are an excellent example of abandoned, poorly wikified spinout practice that rings most of the changes in the discussion above; a move is certainly indicated, and a merge is not impossible. The AFD followed a citation at NORN and would likely illustrate many of the points already discussed.
• My two bullet questions in split 2 above do not appear to have been answered. JJB 21:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

So the poker example is removed as a case in point for keeping splits which are not notable even without doing an AfD to really determine it.

However we have a case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia which JJB thinks is not notable but has voted to keep in an AfD. I have asked in the AfD for them to explicitly comment on whether Notability is an issue with it and listed the secondary sources in the article which talk about the topic. I really would like a much better example than that where it looked less notable but if JJB is happy with it then perhaps we can agree tha in general there do not seem to be examples where a split out article would survive AfD if it lacked notability. In that case there is no reason to make some explicit end run round notability for articles like that.

I did answer the questions. You can easily make things look dependent if they are not notable by just sticking {{Main|not notable article}} above a summary of it in some more general article. And I don't see the point of you doing an essay and moving the discussion there when the discussion has been centralized here. And can I add I most certainbly do not want you summarizing what I say i an essay and then inviting comment judging from the places here where you've said you were doing that and put in the complete opposite of what I said. Dmcq (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia you do not wish to use that as a test case. Perhaps we could remove the bit you stuck in about notability not being relevant at WP:SS until such time as you do come up with an example where that is relevant and proper guidance based on common practice? Dmcq (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Observation

TLDR as regards the above discussion, but it becomes apparent to me having seen a number of discussions on the topic lately that there is no coherent and consensually adopted philosophy as regards the whole question of notability. The same conclusion follows when you try (necessarily unsuccessfully) to find any overall coherent logical structure in the WP:Notability guideline and its children. Unless you guys just like discussing these things over and over and want to retain the inherent ambiguity so as to increase opportunities for such discussion, I suggest there ought to be a concerted effort to work these matters out from first principles so that we can produce some clear and meaningful guidance. Victor Yus (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So do you support saying in effect as in [4] that notability is not required for sub articles based on putting various sentences from different guidelines together? The notability does not restrict contents comes from WP:Notability, the arbitrary split bit came from WP:SIZE. The split of long lists bit came from WP:SIZE - and I do agree that they can be split this way. WP:LSC was put in too but is not relevant here I think. Dmcq (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Myself, I don't think these various guidelines are worth a crock of beans. They don't generally seem to represent considered consensus, or even convey a logically coherent and consistent take on the matter.

I can see that there are two issues: one of being selective about what information (even of the "verifiable" sort) Wikipedia ought to contain - we realize that "the sum of all human knowledge", taken literally, is not a realistic aspiration even to be aimed at. The second issue is that of combining information or splitting it out onto separate pages for convenience of use. It may just happen that our ideal criteria for page size limitation, for information inclusion and for "notability" mesh happily in such a way that we can say that if information needs to be split onto a separate page and the topic of that page is then found not to be notable, then the information is superfluous. But I doubt it; in any case I don't think we have well-defined criteria for any of those things. Sorry, I'm not helping to answer the question on the table, just making a general observation about the state of things. Victor Yus (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference is between what you describe as the current unclear situation where common practice and AfD decide corner cases, and a clear statement that notability is irrelevant. Dmcq (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's about such pages as List of Star Trek characters (G–M), then I agree that notability is irrelevant. Few reliable sources wiill have addressed the specific topic of Star Trek characters whose names begin with the letters G to M. But Star Trek characters (or at least Star Trek itself) is a notable topic, and it assists our presentation of that topic to make a separate list of characters and then to split the list into arbitrary parts, so no probs. Victor Yus (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

List type articles are specifically okay for splitting arbitrarily and have special standards. Dmcq (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO, an argument from the rule (ie. authority) is not a valid stance here. Agent00f (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So if it's about pages like History of the United States (1789–1849), then I still don't have a problem. I don't know whether in this particular case that exact period has garnered specific attention from reliable sources, but even if it hasn't, it still seems quite reasonable for Wikipedia to have such a page if there is a need for a split and no more satisfactory way of doing the splitting. Victor Yus (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"work these matters out from first principles so that we can produce some clear and meaningful guidance" I agree that's the right approach. The primary problem IMO is how a given large set of information is presented on wiki. Let's first use the list of WSoP championships (or TV episodes) above as an example. First, it makes no sense in cohesive lists of similar items to evaluate each entry/year individually. Either the general topic is notable, or it's not. Removing 2001 while keeping 2000 and 2002 makes the user experience inconsistent, and this is noted at OTHERSTUFF. Then the problem in these lists becomes if it makes sense for broader policy to have a bias on how domain-specific content is presented. For example, the current policies seem to support giant pages over smaller ones, since notability tends to "aggregate", while splitting risks arbitrary AfDs on member entries.

Another example to use are the "Early life of" or "Criticism of" variety of spinouts which are clear not the same type of case as cohesive sets. The solution arrived at in each might coincide, but as matter of first principle they should be considered separately. Here the case becomes even more mired in domain details, since an answer to designing knowledge presentation in the general case (ie data with inconsistent uniformity) appears far too open to be address by trivial rules. Thus it might be best to consider the first type of example before moving on to this bigger challenge.

To put both cases in perspective with respect to current rules, the common practice is either keep piling stuff on until it's handle by "arbitrary" splits in WP:SIZE, or more often just make divisions/spinouts from the start and hope nobody AfDs with hardline interpretations. An sometimes contradictory set of local rules with inconsistent quality also comes into play. Considering individual AfDs can be informative, but this really needs a fresh look from the ground up to provide coherent guidance across more than unique circumstances. Agent00f (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The very first line of WP:POLICY says "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia." It does not say we develop new policies and guidelines from first principles. It says we describe best practice. Practice is something that is done. IAR and discussion can be used to bring in new practices or change practices but if there is no clear need to discard a guideline like notability then extracting bits and pieces from different guidelines and sticking them into a synthesis to claim something that is not obviously intended is synthesis. Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but citing even a single guideline/policy by way of an argument from authority is an almost equally weak tactic, since these pages often do not provide a coherent and true description of real practice or real consensus, or even of an imaginable state of affairs. Until we can improve matters in that regard, we are unfortunately reduced to having to think for ourselves. Victor Yus (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note both types of examples above are in very common practice, and not some abstract ideal. The idea here is to consider what the right thing to do is, and then reconcile that with existing policy; not throw everything away and start afresh. This is consistent with POLCON. It seems fairly evident enough from comments above that the intent is to provide reasonably conformable harbor for tons of existing useful/encyclopedic info (the definition of practice) in no-man's land right now. Weighing this against examples of shouldn't be kept is of course part of that discussion. Agent00f (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If they are so common then please give a good example of a split out article which has gone through AfD and survived and which looks like it would not pass the notability guidelines. Dmcq (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the request. If those are common, then there's no point to this. The examples above would all pass and everyone (except AfD hardliner) is happy. Agent00f (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Why should the example have been through AfD? An example that has not gone through AfD is probably even better, since in that case no one has considered it worthy of deletion, whereas in the AfD case at least one person has. Victor Yus (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The change would say that notability is definitely not required for spin out articles. This would mean that if one can establish a series as notable then by putting in a big database of all the games in it one could say it was too large and all the separate parts of it could become spinout articles and need not satisfy WP:Notability (sports). This is the sort of wikilawering that happens currently but saying they are list type articles because this is expressly allowed for lists, it is countered by editors saying the articles are not parts of a list.

The point about wanting one that passed AfD is that would show notability was not established but the consensus was that the spin out article should still be kept. We have had people putting in ones which hadn't passed AfD above and then arguing they actually would pass the notability tests which just makes everything messy. If such articles are common then it should be possible to find one which doesn't establish notability and which passed AfD as we have quite enough people going around looking for stuff to delete. If they are not common then it is not common practice and we don't need a policy or guideline covering it, and certainly not one that removes a basic requirement like notability for articles. Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

All right, I see where you're coming from. I think the issue to be addressed is a more general one: that of how much detail of information Wikipedia wants to provide. If someone downloads a huge database of information on some (notable) topic, then we need to decide whether we want all that information in Wikipedia or not. If we decide we don't, then goodbye; if we decide we do, then we may further decide to split it onto separate pages to improve our presentation. The question of notability (with respect to those separate pages) has no need to arise, just as you acknowledge it doesn't in the case of alphabetically split lists, to which the case we have in mind here is closely analogous. Victor Yus (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Do you really think such a weak argument would block a AfD?
2. Whose notability standard are we referring to here? Does this, or this, or this collection of "stats" pass yours?
3. Victor has a good point that the "common" article is not one which has gone through AfD. 99.99+% do not. Agent00f (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you believe they pass WP:Notability (sports)? If not I would ask why are they in Wikipedia. The change to WP:SS would make WP:Notability (sports) irrelevant to them. Dmcq (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

They don't seem to pass WP:SPORTSEVENT, but they (and all their peers linked from them) are clearly in wiki. I hope these satisfy your request and we can move on with the goal above. Agent00f (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The first is the only one that passed AfD and it definitely doesn't seem to have notability established in its lead. However the AfD for it said 'Keep being part of the 2010 US Open Series appears to be notable, and I'm seeing significant coverage on Google News.' I do not know why after that they couldn't be bothered to stick in some of that significant coverage establishing notability into the article. Also it seems that notability was a definite consideration in the AfD. Does WP:Notability (sports) say notability is assumed for something like an event in the US Open Series, where assumed means people are pretty certain that notability can be established properly with citations if ever required? Dmcq (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I does seem to me that the argument is with WP:SPORTSEVENT and this is an effort to try and get around that. If people can't agree on WP:SPORTSEVENT I really don't particularly care for them trying to break the rest of Wikipedia to get their fave sports event included. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Policy on penises

OK, completely random question, not derived from anything really happening anywhere. For real. Is it OK to put pictures of genitalia on a user page? You know, like vaginas or, more specifically in this non-existing case, penises? (From humans.) Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be OK if they were hatted with disclaimers, or otherwise hidden by default. Ideally, no-one should do it, but we've got to have a sense of humor.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jasper. People! Need more opinions! Drmies (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an enormous difference between a good joke (the unobtrusive penis on the admin's user page), and adding pictures to explore the limits of what is acceptable at Wikipedia. I don't think there should be (or could be) a policy or guideline on this—just do what is best for the encyclopedia: laugh at the good joke and block someone who edit wars to keep pictures that have little difference from what a troll would post. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

John, I think you're on to me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This basically comes down to local culture. Much of middle america will say no, much of europe perhaps ok. Nobody else counts on wiki. Agent00f (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Such pictures should only be used in an educational setting in Wikipedia I think. WP:ASTONISH applies in articles and WP:UP#Images applies in user talk pages. Dmcq (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never observed a picture of a penis hurting anyone, but I'm not in middle America. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I would've posted something original here, but Johnuniq pretty much nailed what I would've said, so I hereby transclude his comment here. The only thing I can't echo is the part about "the admin"'s particular use of the appendage in question, since I'm uninitiated in the dispute that apparently sparked the question. I'd like to point out, also, that if a dispute did the sparking, it would be more proper to detail that with links in the original post. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

But the OP said it was "not derived from anything really happening anywhere". I'm confused. (Not about penises.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq's sidebar, "the unobtrusive penis on the admin's user page", seems to be referring to something happening now, and Drmies seems to know what he was referring to, regardless. It would be good to let everyone here in on what they're referring to (preferably without us having to ask). Equazcion ^(talk) 08:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not wanting to draw attention to specific cases, but I see my comment above is unfortunately teasing for third parties. It relates to a discussion here involving a user who has recently been discussed at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

John is correct, and John, I appreciate your discretion. Equazcion, I am trying to ask what policies or guidelines are applicable here without burdening the answer too much by the particular case. Some people are predisposed, given the amount of dust thrown up, to judge this one way or the other. I myself am very much on the fence. HiLo, I thought the irony was dripping from every word in my original posting; next time I'll add "hush hush, wink wink, say no more." ;) In the meantime (and I haven't looked at the particular user's talk page this morning), I'd appreciate it if this particular question could be answered here without spilling over onto his talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• The Principle of Least Astonishment really ought to apply here. There are certain articles where I would be astonished not to see a penis, but a userpage is something that a wide variety of editors might visit and some things are just not appropriate on userpages. That said not all images of penises are equal, nor all locations on user pages. If the start of your userpage explains that you mainly write about gay porn then people shouldn't really be surprised if after paging down you reach a bit that includes a photo of a penis. Equally there is a huge difference between a photo of a nude male statue and a close up of an erect penis. ϢereSpielChequers 08:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the general principle but the guideline WP:UP#Images covers the specific case of sexual images on user pages. Dmcq (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:GRATUITOUS also applies. Jakew (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel compelled to point out that penises aren't just sexual objects. They have other purposes too. And they're not just part of gay porn. Some females have an interest in them too. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• It is all about context, as others have pointed out. As part of a good joke or to make a simple statement, it wouldn't bother me in the least. If it is done solely to inflame, push the limits (WP:POINT), or other reasons that are clearly outside the limits of WP:UP, then it doesn't really matter that it is a penis, as disruption is disruption regardless of the actual content. They grey area is very difficult to pin down, however, as there is so much cultural difference regarding the "offensiveness" of the human penis among English speaking Wikipedians. This is why it is so difficult to make inflexible rules that are fair or reasonable. Typically, the pool of judges is limited to whoever is lurking at AN/I at the particular moment that attention is drawn to it, a less than ideal situation. And I am bit curious why you qualified your question with "(From humans.)". I wonder if the reaction would be different if an offending page had pictures of non-human penises, and why. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Look at penis--last time I checked the article opened with a rather bizarre collection of what appear to be penises from sea mammals. That's not what I'm talking about; I don't think anyone would take offense to that. Drmies (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is possible or desirable to provide guidance for when a user page may or may not display genitalia (other than the links given above to the effect that such images are very rarely helpful). All we can do is rely on I know it when I see it, and if good editor A presents a barnstar to good editor B, and that barnstar happens to feature a good joke involving an image of a penis, and if it is clear there is no gaming involved, it is easy to conclude that there is no problem and if someone objects to the very unobtrusive image on a user page, they can be told that the solution is to not look at that page. By contrast, when editor C is known to like trolling, pretty well any discussion about what C is "allowed" to have on User:C is a waste of time and is sending the wrong message—we are here for the encyclopedia, and the only discussion with C should be to point out that Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech or a place devoted to fairness (he has a penis pic so why can't I?). If that core message is ever received, it might be possible to restart a discussion about what is "allowed" on User:C, although such time would be far better spent helping editors who are tired of defending the encyclopedia from incessant POV attacks (I have a specific case in mind where yet another good editor is possibly retiring). Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This whole thread is likely part of a gigantic troll, instigated by a recently unblocked but supposedly laying low member of GNAA, User talk:Badmachine#statement. The fact that at least one admin is now helping him see how far he can push the limits of his behavior here is unfortunate in my opinion. Heiro 02:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

True. And even if not true, the thing that should count is that the discussions are indistinguishable from trolling, and they need to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Heiro, what a nice little comment about me that was. Let me PayPal you a couple of bucks so you can replenish your supply of good faith. You know what, someone close and archive this already. "Gigantic troll" is enough of an exaggeration--you and others are very good at making mountains out of molehills, and we see the process in action. Guy wants to put a cock on his userpage, and whoa, Wikipedia comes to a grinding halt. Sheesh. I came here for advice on policy and guidelines, not for yet more drama and now a personal accusation. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are being hoodwinked by the user, not that you are participating in the troll. I think your extension of the hand of friendship to them is being taken advantage of. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact and until the ratio of their edits starts to trend more toward useful contribs to the 'pedia and not making sure they can somehow put images of cocks on their userpage, I'll assume they are merely here for the lulz. As another user noted above, discussions that are indistinguishable from trolling still have the same effect. Heiro 04:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a lot better--now I'm dumb instead of a troll enabler. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, just in this instance too nice for your own good. I respect you. I respect all of the work you do here. I just dont think they are as altruistic as you. Sorry if I caused offense, it was not what I intended at all. Heiro 04:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

i find this statement dubious. your other comments on this matter wrt me in particular, are quite offensive. you state "until the ratio of their edits starts to trend more toward useful contribs to the 'pedia and not making sure they can somehow put images of cocks on their userpage, I'll assume they are merely here for the lulz". if you look at my contribs, only the most recent contribs are dedicated to restoration of a userpage that sat undisturbed for months, iirc, until one user, who has since expressed regret for doing so, brought up my userpage at an SPI, at which i was cleared of socking. -badmachine 10:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This body part discussion seems to be a complex matter. Some users are offended to see body parts allowed at any page whereas other users are offended to see body parts disallowed at any page. However, the reason for the blacklist policy seems to be that images shouldn't be used where such images aren't expected. With user pages, this appears to depend on the user page. Some users like to create galleries of their photos and of their uploads, and if there are body parts among a user's uploads I don't see why the user shouldn't be allowed to include the photo in a gallery. There are probably also other cases when photos of body parts may be expected on pages in the User namespace, but it really depends on the situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the key issue is the WMF resolution on "principle of least astonishment". As I said recently; a small and collapsed penis image on a user page isn't very astonishing. 50 penis pictures (which is what the issue skirts around mentioning) is fairly astonishing. Is the "joke" good enough to ignore that principle? I don't think so. People visiting user pages would not expect to see nudity, or other controversial imagery, so it is a good idea for our policies to caution against it. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of the desired number when I posted this. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, most users commenting here agree that WP:ASTONISH applies here, and as such we need to have some context before allowing or disallowing penis pictures on user pages. One collapsed image in a large user page may be okay, 50 large penis pictures and nothing else clearly is not. Can I assume that we have a consensus for this? --Conti|✉ 11:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that 50 large pictures always is unacceptable on a user page (regardless of image type), but maybe acceptable on a user subpage in certain cases. Users might be visiting the user page using a mobile phone or an old computer, and heavy image use could be too much for less powerful devices. It would also consume a lot of bandwidth, which may be an issue for users connecting from a mobile network. That said, I don't know exactly what was going on here. A user name is mentioned in the discussion above, but when I went to check the page, I noticed that the page has been deleted and restored multiple times, so there is no way for me to check an old revision and see what it looked like. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

there has been a misunderstanding. it is not fifty large images, it is one image, 100px wide, five per line, ten lines. this is a humorous reference to the fifty hitler post internet meme, and is hardly "astonishing" imo. this "fifty penis post" sat undisturbed on my userpage for months, iirc, with no problems until one editor brought it up during a SPI, (at which i was cleared of any socking). i have supplied an example here. -badmachine 16:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Competition for the worst Wikipedia page - be in to win!

Add your entry below to go in the draw for an all expenses paid trip to Jimbos user page. Runners up will be exempt from 3RR and will be given free admin rights for a year.
Be in to win folks!
DO NOT edit content pages to score extra points
The winner will be notified on their talk page.

This is actually a serious issue the community has to address. There are systemic problems that are not being resolved. I have to use humour otherwise I will loose my rag and leave Wikipedia. I don't want to do that - Wikipedia is too important a project. I want to fix it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Category:Logic - This one was bad and I managed to make really bad by putting templates up for deletion and adding a {cleanup} template. I was really lucky that other editors helped me in making it the ugliest page on Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Cute, but what's the systemic problem you're trying to point out? That lots of pages on Wikipedia suck? Equazcion ^(talk) 21:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• It will take me all day to list them. I don't have time. Too many other things need sorting on Wikipedia as well as in real life. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Oh, alright. Seeing as you asked:

• WP talk pages are treated as if they are social media
• the wrong sort of human emotions are all too easily roused
• some editors are as thick as two short planks
• some editors think WP is to be configured for editors alone
• some editors seem to abhor change
• some editors don't realise that there should generally be a separation between the project and the content
• lack of prescriptive guidelines leads to endless edit wars, edit/revert cycles etc

etc.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• The systemtic problem he's trying to resolve is that he doesn't like navboxes in categories, and doesn't like information for editors to be visible in categories. The unnecessary clutter is mostly Alan's. And this is probably the wrong VP page for the discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• BEEEERRP! Wrong. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I guess this is what sparked this. Just FYI for whoever's watching. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• And this and this. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• And the other 100,000 edits that I have done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• There are worse things to be found than excessive use of navboxes, I challenge any editor to find any articles worse than Jerusalem during the Crusader period and Expropriation of the Princes in the Weimar Republic. Both created by the same editor over a year ago as machine translations of the hebrew and german wikipedia articles respectively, the muppet didn't even bother to use the source code of the articles. The result are massive, largely unintelligible and barely sourced articles, filled with [1]'s and [2]'s, that are so gigantic an undertaking to sort out that barely any editors go near them.--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You are now in the draw. Congratulations! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting note: If you hit Edit on a google-translated Wikipedia page, Google's code invades the wiki-code. Might deter people from trying anything further than copying the rendered text. Only way to do it is to hit edit on the untranslated page, then copy the code into google translate. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "am i a maaaaaaaaan, or a muuuuuuuupet??!" :D. No, seriously, in all fairness I did try to use the source code for the article, but those hyperlinks - "[ __ ]" - broke up sentences and caused them to be translated even awkwarder (those translators translate better sentence by sentence rather than word by word. Plus, even tyring to do that caused so many errors due to the differeces in the English and Hebrew/German codes, that I just gave up. TBH it is one of the more embarrassing moments of my Wiki career, creating those articles. I never (to my knowledge) actually argued their case to kept or deleted. I *am* fine with them going. It was a spur-of-the-moment thing... and I do regret it.--Coin945 (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Why don't you try fixing it? Drmies (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Echh... i dunno.... i guess i just forgot about it.. plus ive been very busy with uni atm so even if i had decided to work on them, im not sure how much id have been able to accomplish.--Coin945 (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I counter with Impacts of Colonialism in India. However, it is not nearly as bad as the other two above. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You are now in the draw. Congratulations! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Since the article has now been redirected, I present the nominated version here. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have with nominating the worst pages I've encountered is that I fixed them. Well, not just me, but you know what I mean. And I reckon that translated pages should be a special category. The main cat should be those created by editors(?) who would claim to be native users of English. HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll bite. Non-helical DNA structure. Worse a few days ago. JJB 05:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You are now in the draw. Congratulations! Good on you for making a stab at fixing it. I will give you a bonus double entry in the draw. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Despite appearing innocuous enough on the surface, any and all entries in the Mixed Martial Arts space qualifies as the worst articles on Wiki ever. Though only a handful out of hundreds of clones have been sent to AfD, it's already resulted in an influx of off-wiki canvased SOCKS of all types and drama of the highest order. No other page nevermind hundreds more of the same kind can drag out the same miserable situation for months and manage to antagonize insiders and outsiders alike. I boldly believe a ticket to the draw for every single one is well deserved. Wiki veterans are welcome to try fixing them to nullify this nomination and increase their chances of winning, but anyone who enters the no-man's land between the entrenched positions on AfD's (WP:NOT/GNG/EVENT/NSPORT/EVERYTHING) is subject to shelling from either side. It wouldn't come as a surprise for an edit war to erupt over this very nom, and someone ends up indef-banned for 300RR. Agent00f (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent is mostly referring to 2012 in UFC events, which is pretty ugly, as per several threads on its talk page (IMHO the rest of the MMA articles do not sink to the level of putrescence you are looking for). However, parts of list of British supercentenarians are worse, starting with the table of contents. No, I didn't touch that DNA article at all. JJB 07:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Y'know, orders of magnitude (length) has gotten much worse since I last checked it, especially the fanatic PNGs disguised as navtemplates. JJB 07:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB, I hope you're not detracting from my petition for extra tickets to the draw to increase your own chances of winning. Unholy levels of drama is clearly a factor to consider and the drama in MMA long preceded 2012 in UFC events. At the very least I should get extra credit for unwittingly becoming a now seemingly inseparable part of that drama. Agent00f (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Introduction to cloud computing has some interesting content, but its layout leaves a lot to be desired. Diego (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion sounds a bit like a discussion on Commons (see Commons:COM:VPR#Commons:Worst images gallery) and a related deletion request (see Commons:COM:Deletion requests/Commons:Worst images). Don't you think that people might be upset if you write that their articles are bad? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"that their articles are bad"; Ignoring Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, the really bad articles are abandoned, many of them can be found at WP:URA. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OWN largely only applies in theory but not in practice in my opinion (as users may show in discussions about "their" stuff), but never mind; that's another matter. What I meant was that users who have written an article may feel humiliated if the article is elected "worst article of the month" or anything like that. Let's avoid pointing fingers. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

:) Concur WP:AGF & WP:BITE. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this whole discussion is very BITEY - mocking good faith articles (which in most cases could be fixed) and by implication their creators does not help to improve the encyclopedia or retain editors who could, given time encouragement and mentoring could become valuable assets. . If the articles are broken because of editor behaviour, then there are seprate avenues for dealing with individual issues - this page does not appear to be it.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I nominate Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research. I tried to help it earlier, but it didn't stick. The disputants eventually reached a compromise and settled on an article that was too useless to be biased. The current version is actually one of the best in the history; at one point it looked like this. Kilopi (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • My gosh...if past histories count, then I second that one. I'm reminded of a very brief essay I wrote a long time ago, but this is a whole new level. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The current was ridiculous, there wasn't actually an article, just a little rant about neutrality thats remained like that since november. I've restored the article to a one-line stub, it can be rewritten from there--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• It's actually kind of neat that these "worst" articles are somewhat being fixed by bringing them into this discussion (redirected, cut into stubs, etc.). Go team. :) Killiondude (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• My nomination West Hartlepool War Memorial, almost the definition POV OR.--Salix (talk): 18:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Never seen such TLDR like that Energizer Bunny TLDR! JJB 20:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I nominate List of wars between democracies. Almost all wars listed are either not wars, or not between democracies; sometimes neither. It's soon two years since the last big effort to clean that up and the minor wars that caused. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• nominating list of Kevin and Kell characters. note that it is about ten times as large as list of Peanuts characters. on the other hand, there are many other examples of fancruft that are equally bad. -badmachine 09:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Fancruft, perhaps. But Peanuts does have a much smaller character gallery than Kevin and Kell. Different types of writing. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Worst BLP not dominated by "current political POV arguments" is likely Charles Lindbergh at this point - longer than reasonable by a factor of two with wondrous adjective and verb choices <g>. Many silly season BLPs also are pretty bad - Wikipedia is a prime site to run campaigns in. Collect (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

When should administrators decline to email the source text to deleted material?

Some administrators routinely decline to email the source text of deleted articles to authors citing the English language wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.

The wikipedia relies on its volunteer contributors for its content and editing. When contributors draft new editorial content they voluntarily surrender some significant intellectual property rights -- and they retain others.

Contributors are free to re-use editorial content we drafted, anywhere we want. We wrote it. We retain the right to claim authorship if we re-use material we first drafted here.

When contributions are deleted through the wikipedia's processes the contributors are recommended to consider that even though the material was judged not to fit within the english language wikipedia's project scope it may very well fit within the scope of a sibling WMF project. They are asked to consider that the deleted material may well fit within the scope of a non-WMF wiki.

Sometimes the author or authors of an article may be aware that it may soon be deleted -- because they were participating in its {{afd}} and they can see how it is going. In those cases they can look at the revision history, and cut and store those passages they wrote themselves, prior to deletion. If they were the sole author of the article's intellectual content, they can save a copy of the whole thing, for use elsewhere.

Other times however material was subject to speedy deletion, or it was subject to {{prod}} or {{afd}}, where the authors weren't aware the material faced deletion -- because the nominator skipped the important step of leaving them a good faith heads-up. In those cases authors who want access to the material they submitted to the project in good faith have to rely on administrators to get access to their material.

As I noted above some administrators routinely decline to email deleted content back to authors on BLP grounds.

I had an administrator recently decline to email me deleted content. I won't name the article, or the administrator, as I would prefer to have this discussion be about the general principle as to whether there are grounds an administrator can decline to return deleted text to authors.

I will say that in this most recent instance the article was deleted as an expired {{prod}}, not following an {{afd}} or after a claim it met a criteria for speedy deletion.

Is it legitimate for an administrator to call upon the authority of policies, like BLP, that only apply here, when justifying withholding deleted material from its legitimate authors for use elsewhere? We have a principle that the wikipedia is not censored. Policy compliant administrators don't delete material to "censor" it. Policy compliant administrators delete material that isn't in this project's scope, or otherwise doesn't comply with this project's policies, guidelines and long established conventions. So, does an administrator's authority to interpret this project's policies really extend to withholding content so it can't be used elsewhere?

Some administrators might read the arguments I wrote above, and might respond, "I am going to continue to decline to email deleted material from authors. I am going to justify doing so not on censorship grounds, but just because it is extra work, my time is valuable, and I don't see it as part of my job as a closing administrator."

We are all volunteers here -- including our administrators. No one has the right to order us to undertake new tasks, because we are volunteers, and we get to pick and choose our tasks. I do think the rest of the community should expect us to bring tasks we begin to completion. Sometimes we may begin a task only to realize it is going to be more work than we expected, and in those cases I think other contributors are entitled to expect us to nevertheless bring that task to completion or find someone to take over for us. I suggest to closing administrators that responding collegially to the occasional good faith request from contributors to have the source of their deleted contributions made available to them is part of the task of closure. Geo Swan (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)