Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

I requested this discussion be evaluated and closed, here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Uninvolved_admin_wanted_to_close.2Fevaluate_Village_pump_discussion_on_partial_disambiguation

--B2C 17:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Before someone closes this discussion, should someone notify the impacted Wikiprojects? (e.g. Music, Albums, Songs, Film, Novels, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

All WikiProjects would be impacted; the ones you mention are simply the ones we have used as examples. I think it excessive to notify them all, and biased to only notify a few. Neelix (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Did this close request get lost? I don't see any uninvolved admin coming in to judge consensus, but I also don't see the request on the noticeboard. Powers ^T 00:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, the request was placed at the wrong location here, and that request was archived. I don't believe that anyone has posted a request at the correct location. User:EdJohnston said he was considering stepping in and closing the discussion, but he may not be interested anymore. Would it be appropriate for me to request a closure at the correct location? Neelix (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've tabulated those who support and oppose:

SUPPORT:

• Neelix
• JHunterJ
• Bkonrad
• Robsinden
• In ictu oculi
• Dicklyon (he writes 'partially support')
• Ltpowers
• Wnt

OPPOSE:

• Born2cycle
• Blueboar (doesn't want there to be a general rule on this)
• Bd2412 (he writes 'partially oppose')
• GoingBatty
• Tbhotch

OPPOSED to disallowing New York (city):

• Anomie

Closing: I'm acting on the request that was made at WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to close this. Neelix's proposed change to WP:DAB fairly represents the consensus in this VPP discussion. I encourage him to go ahead with that change. There is also a consensus to allow New York (city) to continue to serve as a redirect to New York City. The opinions in the above thread are not strong enough by themselves to decide the fate of Thriller (album) or certain other articles that might be construed to rely upon 'second-tier primary topics.' That's because the size of the turnout and the margin of approval limits the force of this verdict. In case of uncertainty the safest option is to open individual move discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little confused. You link to this saying it has consensus, except that it presupposes that Thriller (album) must redirect to Thriller (disambiguation) rather than Thriller (Michael Jackson album), which you say does not have consensus. This presupposition can be seen clearly in an earlier revision of Neelix's change, and I note that Neelix has acted on that presupposition, e.g. here. The presupposition would also require New York (city) to redirect to New York (disambiguation) rather than to the article New York City were that article to be at a title such as "New York (US city)" instead. Anomie⚔ 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is a strong enough consensus to change the language of WP:DAB but it is not strong enough to perform moves on a lot of the articles mentioned in the discussion. If you also want to get all the disputed articles moved, open an official RFC, get it listed at WP:CENT, and get a big turnout. The disputed articles might not be there due to 'second-tier primary topic' reasoning, they might be there for other reasons, known only to those who participated in the individual RMs. This could be discovered by a wider discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion determined that a particularly disambiguated term shouldn't serve as an article's title, which doesn't mean that one mustn't redirect to an article.

However, if this truly has consensus (and I don't assert otherwise), Thriller (album) should redirect to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) instead of functioning as the article's title. An exception would swallow the rule (as this is exactly the sort of situation that the change is intended to address — one in which an article occupies a partially disambiguated title because it's considered much more prominent than other topics to which said title could refer). —David Levy 02:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

@David Levy: If your reading of the above discussion is correct, then a move of Thriller (album) to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) is consistent with the revised guideline. Someone could try doing that move without a WP:RM discussion but it risks being reverted. As a discussion closer I only close individual discussions. I don't have the authority to make everything consistent regarding article titles. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not suggesting that it necessarily would be prudent to rename the article without a WP:RM discussion. I'm noting that I see no basis for an exception in that case. Thriller (album) is a textbook example of the type of article title now contraindicated, so if there isn't consensus to change it (or other article titles along the same lines), that calls into question the consensus apparently established above. (This is hypothetical, of course; I'm not implying that I believe it to be so.) —David Levy 00:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello - I'm writing to ask whether or not there is a policy or precedent for an issue we have had recently with the article about Newmarket, Ontario: One or two IP editors have been repeatedly changing the lead sentence of the article where it indicates that Newmarket is "approximately 50km north of the City of Toronto", changing the 50km to 25 km. The facts are that the distance is about 50 kms from downtown-to-downtown, whereas it is about 25 kms from the southern border of Newmarket to Steeles Ave, the northern border of Toronto.

I have started a discussion at Talk:Newmarket, Ontario#Distance to Toronto in order to build consensus, and it has been suggested that Village Pump (policy) may have dealt with the question before. Do we have a standard rule/guideline for measuring distances between localities? PKT(alk) 18:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I don't think this has ever been discussed in general before, so I'll just give my opinion: center to center. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
• I'd tend towards center-to-center myself, but think it needs to get replaced when it gets misleading. Phoenix and Glendale in Arizona are probably ten miles apart center-to-center, for example, but they share a common border that's twenty miles long. Describing them as "ten miles apart" would plant a false image.—Kww(talk) 02:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
• It has to be centre to centre because cities are changing borders all the time. It is for that very reason that highway distance signs measure to a specific point in a community, usually city hall. And through that, it is why a google maps search shows Newmarket to Toronto as being 54.7KM. Kww makes a good point, however. So in this specific case, is there even value to noting the distance, as opposed to simply stating that "Newmarket is a city in the Greater Toronto Area, located north of the City of Toronto"? That statement strongly implies the short distance between the two while neutring the argument over distance. Resolute 14:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
• You could probably solve this problem by labeling it: "Newmarket is approximately 50km north of the City of Toronto, measured from city center to city center." WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

JFTR if the article is in Canadian English, as I would expect, that should be “centre“.–Odysseus1479 04:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I think http://www.aag.org/ is free to join. Someone may wish to and see if they have a codified solution. They have an online forum but only members can view it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
• My opinion is omit the distance entirely. --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
• My opinion: City limit to city limit. The centre of a city isn't necessarily located in the downtown area, and it isn't necessarily easy to pinpoint the centre of a city either--the boundaries tend to be all blobby and amorphous. (Sorry to get technical.) OttawaAC (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Edit... leave it out. City limits change when city boundaries change, as with the amalgamation of suburbs/exurbs. Or, give an approximate distance. OttawaAC (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

People here dont mean the mathematical centre. They mean the centre as defined by the downtown or central business district, generally this also includes the suburb after which the city is named. In some smaller locations the centre may also be defined by the location of the post office, the town hall/council chambers, or other important buildings such the police station. -- Nbound (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

On the Newmarket talk page, people have been saying that it should be cityhall to cityhall. But in many cities, CityHall is located some distance from the CBD/downtown/oldtown. And oldtown, downtown and CBD are located in different places in many cities as well. Any distance measurement should explicitly state what they are measuring. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

If the other measurements provide results unusual compared to real life experience. Then use something thats more appropriate (how do road signs measure in that area?), Measure from the suburb that shares the city name perhaps? Consider how you would measure between two localities within the city, and transfer the same mechanism to the other city? IMO, City hall measurements only apply to smaller towns and villages that do not have a downtown/CBD. FWIW, Road signs are relatively easy to cite thanks to google street view. - Nbound (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• If it were my choice I would measure it from where the North/South main throughway crosses the East/West one. If they use ring roads then just estimate where they would meet. This seems the most logical to me as a driver and border to border seems the least logical as it does change and may eventually be zero. The geographers I linked at the site above may have it codified and someone at Wikipedia:Reference desk may help as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • What about cities that aren't organized in either of those ways? --Jayron32 23:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Most cities that are large enough for the difference in measuring techniques to matter are large enough that they don't have a clear pair of "main throughways" (eg. what is the main north-south throughway of Detroit? Is it I-75, I-96, M-10, or Grand River Avenue? What about east-west: I-75, I-94, or US-12?). --Carnildo (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
• If you measure city limit to city limit, the distances between cities in Los Angeles and Orange counties is always zero. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
• The natural interpretation of "distance between two cities" (or between any two physical entities) is the distance between their outer boundaries. If they are adjacent, then you say that and the distance between then is moot. If there is a concern about the boundaries (or the centers) changing, then don't include the distance. Jojalozzo 03:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I dont agree Joja, in that case the cities would have adjacent metropolitan areas, but the cities themselves (measured from centre as per roadsigns, and colloquial speech) could be tens of kilometres apart. Most major city metropolitan areas are formally or informally further split into smaller cities or towns. Which in turn are usually just a group of suburbs which have a shared historical or planning basis. - Nbound (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I think I figured out a standard we could adopt that some governments use. Measure it from the official Benchmark (surveying). Each place may have only one official one. File:Torontobenchmark.jpg is one in Toronto. The one in Newmarket, Ontario may have its location online somewhere. We may wish to add benchmark locations to infobox templates for settlements so that readers can find them here instead of searching the net for them. An email to http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography-boundary/11612 will probably get us a list of the Canadian ones and they may also know how distance is measured.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
• We should follow existing off-Pedia reliable sources, or select among the best of those. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think most off en:wp ones follow city hall to city hall or benchmarks. Reference marker (New York) and California postmile seem to go border to border. I can see the difference though. One is for travel distance once on the road and the other is for distances recorded in atlases (altlasi?) and maps. Did anyone that cares more than me join http://www.aag.org/ and ask yet?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• There's a real problem with using a "border to border" distance in places like New England, where there is essentially no unincorporated land, and every plot of land is occupied by a municipal corporation (see New England town). Also, many cities and towns have "official" boundaries which are so large as to be almost useless for indicating the location of the compact urban place, for example Jacksonville, Florida and Juneau, Alaska have very large areas within their borders which are essentially open land; no one thinks of these locations as "part of the city", as people will think of the city center or downtown area. I agree that the best course of action is to use some official location inside the city limits that serves as a municipal center: A city hall or town hall, post office, or benchmark, or some such. --Jayron32 14:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unless someone has a reliable source to otherwise, I do believe that no state DOT in the USA uses "landmark" measuring for their green distance signs, contrary to popular belief. It is always to nearest crossing of that highway by the city/town/village line. If two communities border each other then you should never say they are xx distance; you should say they border each other. Of course the reason people think that DOT's use landmark measuring is because, especially in the south and western states- boundaries shift and the signs are not updated (also, DOT's are terrible at putting up those signs, there are several instances in many places where you'll see xyxxxz 9 miles and then 3 miles up the road another sign says xyxxxz 9 miles meaning you've gone no closer in those 3 miles to your destination!) Of course I would always argue in favor of whatever the most current reliable source says the distance between two communities are (except for if two communities touch, then it is moot and you should say they border). Reliable sources trump entering info into Mapquest or Google Maps and getting directions.Camelbinky (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Control city is relevant to what the state DOTs put up. Can't give you any reliable sources, but I can say from experience that at least here in Indiana the situation is different from what you describe. If you're heading from Bloomington to Indianapolis, you use northbound State Road 37; shortly after passing 39°14′8″N 86°32′24″W / 39.23556°N 86.54000°W / 39.23556; -86.54000, you see a sign for "Indianapolis 45" — it's only about 35 miles to the southern border of Indianapolis (it's a Unigov, like Jacksonville and Juneau) but 45 to downtown. Meanwhile, if you're on westbound I-70 at 39°48′25″N 85°57′10″W / 39.80694°N 85.95278°W / 39.80694; -85.95278, you're crossing the Indianapolis city limits, but a mile or two farther to the west, you'll see a sign telling you that Indianapolis is a few miles away. Ohio does likewise, at least in some places; the signs for Cincinnati on southbound I-75 give distances that are virtually identical to the mile markers (it leaves the state by crossing the Ohio River right at downtown), although the highway crosses the city limits several miles to the north. Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, the correct measure is from center to center. The article should say "Newmarket is located 50km north of the centre of Toronto". --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

For those still following I did some actual research (something we all, including myself, should have done before guessing)- each state is different in specifics, but all fall within the following Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, subsection 36 (Distance Signs) which states "The distances displayed on these signs should be the actual distance to the destination points and not to the exit from the freeway or expressway"; in the case of Wisconsin they use GIS software to determine the center of town, and then decide on the nearest major intersection and round to the nearest mile. In Iowa they use a prominent building near the center of town and rounded to nearest mile. All states I found however agree that once a city boundary is moved to be past the distance sign the distance sign is either removed or if multiple city listings the home city is blanked. So in my opinion if two cities were to share a boundary the distance would have to be zero based on if you had a distance sign on the border, no matter which side you were on, the distance should be zero.Camelbinky (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would like to propose that there is a presumption to delete images of people who are clearly under majority age where there is doubtful sourcing or no formal indication of an appropriate release from an appropriate supervisory adult.

This policy to change to apply to images uploaded after July 1st 2013.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some issues:

1. Define 'majority age'. In which country are we talking about? Britain: where you can join the army at 16 but cannot vote? America: where you can't drink until 21? For it to be a useful policy, we need to turn "under majority age" into an actual number.
2. Are you referring to images of people who are currently under age or people who were under age when the photograph was taken? For instance, this photo shows Michael Jackson age 14. If someone were to find and upload a similarly old picture of the Jackson 5, would there be an issue there?

—Tom Morris (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

On point 1, majority age as defined by reference to appropriate community standards, in the UK this is typically 18. I would have no objection to defining to defining 18 as an upper limit, the wording 'clearly under majority age' was intended to say that the proposed policy change related to images that were clearly younger teens or minors, as opposed to images of say college students.

On point 2, The intention would be that the policy would apply to subjects who at the instance of the image being uploaded, would be clearly under majority age, at the time of upload. It would not apply to images where the photo subject was of someone under majority age (when photo created), but who is now over majority age and thus capable of objecting through appropriate process...

Some additional points,

• This policy change would not be intended to apply where :
  • The image is uploaded by someone over majority age (and they are the subject of the photo). It would be unreasonable to bar uploaders from putting their own images (assuming the meet other Wikipedia policy requirements)
  • Images of high-profile figures, where the image is from verifiable 'official' sources, or has been released by official agencies ( such as photos released as part of law enforcement investigations for example)

Does this help? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Um what? Doesn't apply when the uploader is over the age of majority? And just how do you plan to acquire that information? I don't see the point to this proposal and it is more or less impossible to enforce anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

and they are the photo subject :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I read that, you didn't answer my question. How would you verify either of those things? I could upload a picture of my 16 year old niece and say it was me and I am 19. How would you have the slightest idea if I were telling the truth? (answer:you wouldn't and there is nothing you can do about that so until you resolve that issue this proposal is actually not possible even if it were supported by the community) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be saying that this proposal doesn't work because it's impossible to reliably confirm ages of uploaders,

This could be easily resolved by amending the upload terms, so that the terms you agree to when uploading include a clause like " If your image subject contains identifiable individuals not of majority age, you assert that you have an appropriate release, and are willing to provide confirmation of this via the OTRS system. Non-provision of this confirmation may result in the image being removed."Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sfan, I think I can see where you are coming from. Is this policy intended to prevent the invasion of privacy of children? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Partly, Yes. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

What else then? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is to ensure that there can be no objection to images of people not of majority age Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• How would you relate this to Commons' policies? Resolute 19:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Non-conforming Commons images should not be permitted to appear in the encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you give examples of presently-used images that would be affected by this policy, or examples of past problems with images that would have been easier to resolve if we had such an explicit policy? postdlf (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• oppose at least as it's currently worded. Otherwise we're deleting landscapes. I have some sympathy for the principle, but it would need to be very carefully worded if it wasn't to do more harm than good. I doubt if such a policy is even possible. It would certainly be the end for a lot of Commons content that is just basic, innocent "children of all nations".

In my proposal I stated this would only apply to new uploads (after July 1st), The issue of what to do with existing images is a related, but different discussion.

When we can still have users like Commons:user:Toilet (the name is as obvious a hint as you might get) and their ongoing uploads of random women's backsides, still unchecked only because he seems to have toned down his previous "themed" image titles, then we aren't yet at a position to start censoring all images of children, simply for being children. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

This was not about removing all images of children, It was about changing policy such that for new uploads there was a higher standard being applied. However as you are reading this thread, you will see a number of objections.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Whats wrong with a picture of a 3 month old baby? The baby anyways looks different in next 3 months.   §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I guess someone has to answer this question now that an image was added to the discussion (which I removed). At the age of, say 7, the child might be very upset that an image was used, without their, or their parents' permission on a very public site. Any parent should ask themselves, 'How would you feel if an image of your child was shown in WP without your permission?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry my style of pointing out the absurdity of this proposal doesn't comport with your idea of how we should discuss it, but I have restored that edit. Please don't do that again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you prove that you have the permission of the parents or other appropriate adult to show that picture here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Both images I have added here are hosted on Commons. anyone on earth can use them for any purpose they want. You seem to be asking me to prove they conform to this very new proposal that has basically no chance of becoming policy, which is just absurd. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

As it happens, it looks like the child in the picture is now around 23 years old and thus able to object to the use of the image themselves so this image in not one that would be affected by the proposal. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

That's a reasonable point, That's a crowd image, and it's a location where there would not be a reasonable expectation of privacy. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Getting back to the point, it seems a discussion abotu image policy can and should involve concrete examples. So, look to your right. There are obviously children in this group. My understanding of this proposal would ban an image like this from being used anywhere on Wikipedia. I don't think that is a good thing and I don't think this proposal has been been thought through to examine all the potential ramifications. Also, many countries have "freedom of panorama" which means persons of any age in a public place have no expectation of privacy. Wikipedia and Commons have long held that this applies on our projects as well so long as the image was taken in a country that does provide such freedom. This proposal would, if it had any chance of being approved, be a fundamental change at the most basic level as to what we do and do not permit here. As such it needs a bit more than just a thread on this page to become policy. A formal, widely advertised RFC with actual specifics would be needed. this is basically so vague and obviously deeply flawed that I see no point in discussing until the obvious problems are rectified. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • • Sorry for the late reply, at Commons we were only now notified about this discussion. "freedom of panorama" has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. "freedom of panorama" is an exemption from copyright for photos of still copyrighted works permanently installed in the public; terms differ from country for country; in the U.S. valid only for buildings. It has no relation at all to photos of real people. --Túrelio (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Yeah, the policy proposal is meaningless (not even "flawed") without even an explanation as to why the proposer thinks it's necessary, with concrete examples as you said. This thread should be just closed rather than us wasting more time than what little the proposer spent thinking about it. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is a disscussion, Rather than calling it 'meaningless' it would perhaps be more reasonable to continue to expose it's flaws in it's current wording, as you already being doing .Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Why? Jeepday (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

It would indeed be helpful if the originator of this proposal would give their detailed thinking behind it. There is a point about privacy. I do not think, for example, that we should show a picture of a child against the wishes of the child or parents even in cases where we might be legally entitled to do so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

From reading the comments some reasonable objections have been raised.

1. It is not currently possible to verify uploader ages - This could be solved by changing the terms agreed to when media is uploaded, I'm open to a further discussion on a 'reasonable' wording for this.
2. There will be acceptable images (meeting other legal requirements and Wikipedia policy) taken where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. - What constitutes 'reasonable expectation of privacy'
3. This would cause wide-spread deletions of existing uploads - This change would only apply the higher standard (i.e age verification, release permission) to new uploads. Applying it to existing uploads would need a further community discussion, as the vast majority of existing images as has been pointed out are currently acceptable.
4. This policy is that there should be a presumption to delete, it does not say that the deletion should be automatic, which is an important distinction.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

SFan, can you explain the reasons that you wish to make this change in policy? Also, can you give some examples of wher this policy might be relevant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am going to have to second (third... fourth...) that request. The value and nature of this proposal would be easier to judge if we knew what, specifically, you are concerned about. Once we have that, we can then discuss (1) if it is desirable and if then, (2) how to mitigate unintended consequences. Resolute 13:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

These were some of my reasons for proposing the change :-

• It is a generally accepted view that images of minors need careful handling, and I feel that Wikipedia should apply a higher standard than it currently does so. Wikipedia already meets minimum legal requirements, and there's no concern being raised in that respect.
• It was felt reasonable that the privacy of individuals not of majority age (and thus not generally able to directly start due process directly) should be protected, This privacy extending to images of the individuals concerned.
  Whilst the majority of uploaders understand issues relating to privacy and child protection, it cannot be relied upon that all users would fully understand that by posting an image on Wikipedia, it could become highly visible, and open to uses towhich the subject of the image (their guardians, relatives, community etc.) may object to. A presumption to delete images without a clear release (the exceptions and objections noted) could pre-empt the sort of angry mis-informed complaints the subjects of images (their guardians &c.) might raise about media of which they are the subject, or have a close connection to. The 'release' being a confirmation that the subject of the image and the uploader understand the issues involved and accepts them.
• Images with doubtful sourcing should be removed as it imposes an additional burden on downstream users, who have to figure out who they might need to obtain permission from.
• Additionally I feel Wikipedia/Wikimedia (as a major content provider) should be supporting 'responsible' practice, as an example to others. In commerical use (which Wikipedia and Commons hosted media allows), responsibly run mainstream media, will not generally make use of images of minors without releases. Whilst it is understood Wikipedia (and Commons) are not (yet) legally required to obtain releases, by doing so Wikipedia and Commons will demonstrate that it's prepared to respect

examples of 'responsible practice'

However, it seems from the this thread, that there is already widespread concern about this proposal.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you raise an important point which should be discussed further. We should, in my opinion, apply higher standards to pictures of minors than we do to adults. I think many who have commented and even opposed it have not even understood your proposal. There is much irrelevant talk purges of current images, and legal issues for example. It is a pity that on WP it is practically impossible to discuss principles without rapid polarisation of response. WP is not the media and should apply different standards. If users do not like your specific proposals it would be more useful if they were to suggest alternative ways in which we could protect the privacy and feelings of children depicted here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have accepted uncritically Sfan00's premise that there is a real need to protect the privacy and feelings of children that current policy and practices do not meet. That has not been shown in any way. It shouldn't surprise you that such a broad and restrictive proposal is being soundly rejected when no one has offered a concrete problem to justify it and a cogent explanation as to why the proposal is necessary to fix it. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is a matter of generally accepted principle that children need to be protected more than adults. It is quite likely that there could be problems that we do not know about in WP today. For example, in the child article we have this picture. Let me ask you some questions. Do we have any evidence that the children and their parents gave given permission for this picture to be in WP? How would we know if they (children or parents) were actually rather upset by the picture being in WP? What would be your view if we somehow knew that the both the children and parents objected strongly to the image being in WP? What would be your view if you found that your children had been used in WP without your permission or knowledge? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Applying some logic to the images in that article (in it's revision as of date)

1. Archive image from 1911 - Reasonable source (LOC) - Retainable as archive image with provable source.
2. Identifiable group (clearly noted), but taken at an obviously public event, Own work.- Probably retainable, public event, so no reasonable expectation of privacy. Release desirable but not essential.
3. (Map)
4. Artwork, (Anicent) Individuals not identifiable, - Retainable, No identifiable indvidual in artwork
5. Artwork, 15th C, Indviduals not identifable, - Retainable, No Identifiable indviduals.
6. Photo, Flikr (No obvious indication of model release or connection to photo subjects), Potentially identifiable indviduals- Would fall within scope of proposed change as there
7. Photo, Own work by uploader, OTRS for permission, - Would fall within scope of proposed policy change, but at lower priority, as OTRS is assumed to have contact details, so clarification on 'child privacy' etc can nominally be checked with the original photographer.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The above analysis suggests that a broad presumption to delete would be overly prescriptive. However, I still think that a narrower presumption in favour of deleting new uploads containing "recent images of potentially identifiable persons not of majority age, which do not appear to have been taken in a "public venue" are not archive images of the uploader themselves, and were they not published on Wikipedia/Commons etc. the subject of the image would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Archive images from 'reliable and reputable sources' exempted." should be considered. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose unless the Foundation says we need to. The Foundation would be the first ones aware of any legal issues with our image use, and they would tell us when there's a problem. Granted, we do need to be aware of legal photography rights in the United States and privacy issues, and that comes under the general catchall of the location of the servers. But just as we would not permit images that were taken by illegal acts (like trespassing), we'd similarly not allow images of minors that were taken illegally, whatever that means. That aspect thus gets a catchall in the general "don't upload what US law wouldn't allow", and doesn't require a new rule or a purge of images. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose We should be ready to delete problematic images, but aside from things such as the difficulty of verifying age (legally necessary for things such as pornography, but not legally necessary here), this proposal is going way too far. This proposal would result in the deletion of images such as File:Paducah Masonic Temple site.jpg, which shows a couple of girls (junior high age, if I remember rightly) who didn't consent to the photo. Nobody's going to complain, because they're in the distance, they're facing away from the camera, and they're definitely not the focus of the photo, but this proposal would likely mean the deletion of this image if it had been uploaded here after this proposal were to take effect. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some thoughts on the image you mention.

1. Are the individuals the main or prominent focus of the image? No
2. Are the individuals generally identifiable in the image? No
3. Was the image taken in a 'public venue' ?Yes

So under the narrower approach suggested above this image wouldn't be affected. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose If there were a need, I would expect the Foundation legal people to be onto it. Has there been any case that has brought this up, or is it a solution in search of a problem? Peridon (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. What is comical about this proposal is that it is stumbling around groping for a policy to enforce... and such a policy exists... but it can't touch it because the discussion originated from the endless anti-Commons rants at Jimbo Wales' talk page. Therefore the proposal doesn't look there for a carefully written, if unpleasantly restrictive, policy based on ten years of people uploading everything from baby pictures to child porn while a handful of admins somehow managed to balance respect for freedom of the press and Wikimedia's core mission of education with the uncertain legal landscapes of a hundred countries. The reform the proposer might really look for - one which I might also oppose, but which would at least be a fair idea for debate - would be to say that Wikipedia should not accept uploads that are rejected on Commons under Commons:COM:PIP. Wnt (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am new to this subject. Could you give me some links to the discussions that you are referring to. The common link seems not to work. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I thought that was the acronym - it's Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Wnt (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

• Oppose. I happen to be the photographer of this photo of a girl getting ready to march in a parade, but I believe that it would be exactly as legitimate to use if it came from a Flickr account. And, no, I didn't have a release from her parent or guardian and, no, I don't need one. This is a person in a public place in the U.S., and I'm perfectly entitled to take and publish the photo, and her being a minor has, as far as I know, no legal effect on that. - Jmabel | Talk 15:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This has nothing to do with legality. Maybe some her want a higher standard than the legal minimum. You are perfectly entitled to take an image of an unknown girl that you own the copyright to an publish it on WP just to prove a point but what if the girl and her parents do not want the picture to be published? Do you care or is it just their hard luck? Just out of interest, did you ask anyone's permission before you took the picture. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why would someone need to ask permission to photograph someone marching in a parade? Is Jmabel to shout to every parade marcher "can I take your picture? Please stop marching and sign this release!" Your position is just getting more and more ridiculous, and your concerns are purely hypothetical if not hysterical. Someone, somewhere, might be "upset" (whatever that means) that a photo of them taken in a public place has been uploaded and used in Wikipedia, apparently just for the mere fact that they are in the picture, not because of anything in particular that it depicts about them. Though neither you nor Sfan00 have actually pointed to any actual instances of this, let alone legitimate complaints that were not dealt with properly because existing policy was somehow inadequate to address it. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Maybe someone taking a photo of a girl in a parade might have thought it polite to ask the parents if they minded a photograph being taken and published on one of the world's most visited web sites.

I am surprised you do not know what I mean by 'upset' it is a fairly commonly used term. For a child I guess it might refer anything from mild and short-term embarrassment to significant long term distress.

Regarding actual instances where people have been offended, how would we know? I am an experienced editor of WP and I do not know how I would go about getting a picture of myself removed from WP. It would certainly be a very public discussion, which many people might not want to get involved in.

If there is any hysteria here is is from the 'opposes' who have had a knee-jerk reaction to what they see as censorship. Most of those who oppose the suggestion have not even understood what is being proposed and why. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

At this point, perhaps we should acknowledge that there is a real distinction between law and ethics... what is legally permissible and what is ethically correct. With the obvious exception of child pornography, it is legally permissible for an editor to take a picture of a child, and publish it on Wikipedia. Once published, however, it is ethically correct for us to respect a child's privacy, and to remove that picture if either the child or his/her parents asks us to remove it (an exception to this are images of those who do not have the same expectation of privacy as the rest of us... such as child actors). The key is that the initial publication is based on law, while the removal is based on ethics. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

While I commend your comment, I have to add a correction to your statement "it is legally permissible for an editor to take a picture of a child". Even for images of adults, this statement is true only in the U.S., China and Slovenia. As one can read from the table on Commons:Country specific consent requirements, in most other countries, consent of the depicted is required per law for publication of an image of an identifiable living person and in several other relevant countries (Brazil, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Switzerland) you need consent even for taking such an image. --Túrelio (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's also a difference between removing an image (even if legally permissible) after community or Foundation review of a specific complaint, and what would effectively be a preemptive ban on a whole category of images. postdlf (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• This broad proposal is not going to make it, but we should still require all uploaded sexual images used in articles to state (in the image documentation or through appended contact) that the person is age of consent for the image, to address this and similar concerns. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This proposal was to do with 'child privacy' and proving images were reasonably obtained. Issues relating to explicit content are a different thread. In any case Wikipedia/Commons already has a legal obligation to remove explicit content of minors irrespective of other policy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

We are not here to discuss Commons, however, what do we know of the age of the subjects. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose : Moral panic generating a solution in search of a problem. Postdlf and Jmabel above explain it well. --Cyclopia^talk 16:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Comment - While this proposal seems to be overly vague, it does reflect the growing community awareness of the issues of consent in regard to images. After years of chipping away at this and related issues on Commons, we may have reached a tipping point. We are starting to see these types of proposals popping up here, on Commons, and even on Meta (with some of the same editors who have been the most obstructive on Commons apparently wishing to be seen as supportive). Commons (and, to a lesser extent, the various language WP projects) continue to be out of step with the 2011 WMF Board resolution on images of identifiable people - if the community does not act to correct this situation, it is likely only a matter of time before the WMF does. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't think anyone opposing this idea isn't saying it isn't bad, but because it is in legal territory we shouldn't react preemptively without the Foundation's acknowledgment for fear of being too protective (eg several examples presented already). Someone should (if they haven't already) ask what the Foundation's stance is on these images, and if they say there's a problem, we'll react accordingly. But no one has pointed out a legal law that says a photograph taken of a child in a public setting requires the parents' permission to publish, or anything similar, so reacting on the belief there's a problem would be potentially harmful to the project. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • But no one has pointed out ... - but I had so in my comment slightly above. See the table on Commons:Country specific consent requirements. --Túrelio (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • THat's not a change from current practice (eg the same rules apply here as apply there). The proposal being made here would impact any photo regardless of country of origin (eg where right now all those spaces that are green, we'd have to suddenly worry about children, etc.). --MASEM (t) 20:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • Country-specific requirements are largely ignored on Commons. The number of images which violate those regulations increases daily as Flickr is duplicated on Commons with bulk uploads initiated by Commons admins. As for current practice here, I doubt that country-specific regulations are considered by editors placing an image into an article if the image is hosted by Commons, but I have no sense of whether uploaders consider that aspect of images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
          • This is why there is language on Commons' disclaimers (as well as ours) that redistributors of such content are responsible for any media reuse they include to make sure that it does apply to the countries they plan to use it in. We here and at commons make as much reasonable effort to make sure that any country-restricted issues are noted (there's a template for personality rights, for example, which varies from country to country) but we'd need a dedicated legal-related team to keep every image marked perfectly as to any country image problems that might exist. Ergo why I don't believe we need to push on this aspect since, at least in the US where our content is hosted, there's no issues that I'm aware of legal restrictions of photos of children taken in public areas. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

From the comments here, it would seem that a general presumption to delete DOES NOT have community consensus, which means that the proposal in it's current form would be unworkable. It would however be appreciated if someone could summarise what the basis of the objection is, so that when the next moral panic occurs, Wikipedians (and Commoners) have answers ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose legal issues should be left up to legal counsel from the Foundation, unless and until we receive such direct guidance, we should make editorial decisions here as though there were no legal problems with what we're doing. --Jayron32 04:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Like most of the 'opposes' above you seem to have completely misunderstood the issue. It is not about legality, it is about privacy. Some people may simply not want pictures of themselves or their children to be published in WP; they may consider it an invasion of their privacy. For adults, there is a case for saying that is just too bad, you were in a public place and your photo was (in the US) legally taken and (in the US) can be legally published, however, for children the suggestion is that we take a more responsible line. This is in accordance with a Wikimedia Foundation resolution which states, 'Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some people may simply not want pictures of themselves or their children to be published in WP; they may consider it an invasion of their privacy. - These people are free to contact OTRS and we can deal on a case-by-case basis, depending on if and how much the request is reasonable. A blanket policy would do more harm than good. I totally understand it's a matter of privacy and not law; yet I feel it's a ridicolous overreaction. --Cyclopia^talk 09:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

As I said above, I as an experienced editor, am not sure how I would go about trying to get a photo of myself or a relative removed from WP. How do we expect others to react when they suddenly see an picture of their child in WP, witout their knowledge and permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)

That you do not even know how to get an image removed from an article or deleted from WP or Commons rather undercuts your insistence that we must somehow do it differently, if you don't even know how we do it now or seem to think you should investigate that. You've had five days since the start of this thread to put some thought and time into figuring that out, instead of just repeating ad nauseum that we think of the children, who may be upset but not telling anyone. Time to drop the stick. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• strong oppose this is just ridiculous. If photos are taken legally and can be published, then they should be allowed here. Anything inappropriate can be considered at FFD. We are trying to increase encyclopedic pictures and content, not reduce it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Several editors have expressed 'Oppose' votes to this suggestion and several others have expressed general support for the idea although none, including myself, has gone so far as to give a 'Support' vote.

Is there any way that we could discuss what action could be taken to increase privacy of photographic subjects, particularly children, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation resolution which states, 'Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media...'?

Just to be clear:

• This is not about censorship.
• This is not about child porn.
• This is not about the law.
• No 'image purges' are proposed.
• It is about responsible and respectful behaviour towards others and their privacy and feelings, especially children. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, because a lawfully taken picture appearing on an encyclopedia is so horribly violating privacy and feelings. And here is my proposal: Why not having for each picture a relative discussion page where people can write about the picture, including complaining if it is their own picture and asking editors to take it down? Oh wait, it already exists! It is called "Talk page"! What an amazing coincidence. --Cyclopia^talk 16:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, who cares, they are only people, we are writing an encyclopedia.

Or we could have a sensible discussion on improving our responsible use of images. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, who cares, they are only people, we are writing an encyclopedia. - Exactly, my friend. Thanks for summing it up very well. --Cyclopia^talk 15:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

As soon as you start going down the road of saying "its to make us feel good", you open a door for anyone to start to complain and demand changes because they personally feel it is bad. We have policy and legal restrictions in place that prevent abuse beyond even what the law allows (BLP specifically) but there simply is nothing bad about taking pictures of children in public places where there is no expectation of privacy. Until we have a legal requirement ( a new law in the US or the Foundation's own statement) , its best to try to make law up for ourselves when it could interfere with other not-broken parts of WP. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Even short of being legally compelled, I'd take this a lot more seriously if we were shown that there have been a number of legitimate complaints about images of children, particularly if those complaints were not handled appropriately (or not handled at all). In other words, evidence that this is a genuine concern. We have none. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Time for closure? The original proposal does not have consensus Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm coming to this discussion late, but the proposal as worded would pretty much ban the usage of historical photos of children, including such notable figures as Alice Liddell. Pretty much all of the public domain photos here would be off-limits, unless the individuals themselves or their estate could be contacted to give permission (probably not feasible in the overwhlming majority of cases): commons:Category:Black_and_white_photographs_of_children.

More generally, I understand the rule's intent in protecting the privacy of children from people randomly taking snaps of them and putting them up on the internet, but such a rule would need to be carefully worded. What are the working guidelines in photojournalism or commercial stock photography? Those would be a good starting points. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not necessarily, because when the use of a person's likeness gets commercial the rules may change, particularly if the likeness is being used to sell a product. Personality rights are somewhat analogous to trademarks in that sense, just like we can upload uncopyrightable trademarked logos to Commons because they are "free" in every way that we care about, but just see how free it is if you try to sell your own product with a competing company's logo. So I don't see the relevance of commercial practices and think it would just be a distraction to delve into. postdlf (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Curiousblue - I commented on this far above in this section - there actually is such a policy Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people used at the main photo site for Wikipedia; the comic bit is that the people pushing this policy are motivated by a hatred of Commons, especially its acceptance of naked images of adults, and so they cannot make any use of it and need to start over from scratch. Wnt (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unsurprisingly, Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people is not a policy. It is a guideline, and one that is not consistently applied. Although that guideline makes references to consent, there seems to be no willingness on Commons to actually follow the advice therein. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've seen it invoked many a time, in just the sort of discussions you find most interesting. Wnt (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Many articles concerning catastrophies do this. This is something the media does. I don't know if there is a policy exists that covers this, but shouldn't special mentions of women and children be excluded from these articles? It's purpose in the media is to touch people's hearts because women and children are seen as fragile, but I don't see a reason to say "200 people killed, including women and children" or "including 4 people under the age of 6". I remove cases like this and people tend to keep it that way because they agree, so I'm wondering if Wikipedia's policies would allow it. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm...Wow...Great question. Part of the reason this is often seen is that traditonally it shows it's a worse disaster because women and children (and the elderly and disabled) would naturally be protected while men might be put in a situation more exposed to danger. I don't think it's always wrong for WP to mention this if the sources do the same thing. (Of course I know that now days women are out on the front lines as first responders along with men so that part is old-fashioned.) Borock (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you also suggesting the same in reporting on war and terrorism? Borock (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

If the incident did affect a building that would be prone to a specific segment of a population, it likely makes sense to discuss that state. One case in point of recent include the Sandy Hook shooting (which took place at the school, so clearly how many children were killed would be a major point of discussion). On the other hand, for the 2013 Moore tornado, though the storm took out two schools, they weren't in sessions, so how many children were injured in the storm isn't a factor. But otherwise, if the disaster or event affected a random segment of the population, calling out how many children and women were killed is going to be done by the press but something we should not reiterate to avoid bias. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that mentioning the number of women is relevant. There's female soldiers and firefighters, not to mention doctors, so it's trivial information. I do think thet mentioning the number of minors is relevant. Now, in the case of armed conflicts, we must contrast the number of civilians with fighters. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

To everyone here, my concern is that it stems from subjective viewpoints and that it wouldn't necessarily be neutral. Is there a reason to include woman and children besides targeted attacks, like Sandy Hook? Take Oklahoma City bombings for example. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I get the issue with women here, but what's the subjective viewpoint you think is behind separating children casualties? postdlf (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

We certainly should not take the lead in breaking down statistics this way, but if the sources of the time described it in such a manner, it is meaningful, because it was meaningful to them. It may help to openly cite the source so as to put some distance between ourselves and the phrasing; we also should feel free in this context to use more old-fashioned phrases like the number of "souls" that perished, when that is how the sources spoke. Wnt (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think we can use more care if it clearly is a case where the source is trying to create emotion. Let's say there's an earthquake (An event that doesn't care about age or gender) in a poor region of a country. I can easily see reliable newspapers reporting how many woman and children were killed if only to create an implied emotional plea to the reader, but otherwise makes no attempt to justify that number. We should not be continuing that bias even though the numbers were reported as such. But on the other hand, if the earthquake's fatalities were high because one of the hardest hit buildings was a school while in session, then reporting on the number of children that may have died would likely be sensible following that. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it's reasonable to call out children or other special populations, especially if it's unexpected. You expect a workplace disaster to kill adults, so if any children die or are injured, they should be noted. If there were a fire at an all-male monastery, and a woman happened to be present and die, then that should be called out. One might similarly note the deaths of elderly people in a nursing home disaster, or wheelchair users in a tall building, the difference between workers and inmates in a prison disaster, or other such special situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with removing this from articles, because it is an information. And more information the article contains, better it is. If it was removed, you wouldn't know that the victims / whatever included children and women as well. And even if that information may not be important for you, it may be important for someone else. Petrb (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Easy solution: do what the sources say. If the sources include a distinction for the number of women and children, or of a nationality etc. then we should include it. It's not up to us to decide the demographic interests of readers. The desire to not discriminate on the basis of "irrelevant" demographic information is certainly well-motivated from a position of moral universalism and equality. But it's not Wikipedia's place to enforce said moral vision. In the article on The Holocaust, we righly point out the numbers of people killed in different ethnic and social groups (Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Poles, Romanis, Soviet prisoners of war, blacks, the disabled, gay people, political opponents, Freemasons and Jehovah's Witnesses) and have articles covering the progression of the Holocaust in different countries in Europe, even though the principle of universalism and equality ought to suggest to us that each death in the Holocaust is the same, whether Jew or Gentile, German or not, gay or straight etc. The Holocaust is a very strong example of a case where we would absolutely not want to suggest that excluding information about background would be a good idea.

But it applies further. I've frequently seen Wikipedians attempting to erase national, ethnic, religious and sexual background from articles about people and events on the basis not of difficulty sourcing that information but on the basis that such information is "irrelevant". For our readers, more information may be perfectly relevant because they are trying to understand precisely the thing which we've deemed "irrelevant" because of our moralising. If we consider the demographic details of a crime "irrelevant", then we better consider deleting Violence against women or Violence against LGBT people or Violence against prostitutes and any number of other articles which focus on what some Wikipedians consider to be "irrelevant" details. Nobody put us in charge of deciding what factors are considered irrelevant or relevant; we should go with what the sources tell us. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Except that some reliable sources, at times, will include breakdown of deaths by some grouping that has no relevance to the actual incident, if only to demand sympathy from the reader. We have to be aware when the sources - even if accurate - are not approaching the topic clinically which is what we must do. (eg, this is basically "Won't someone think of the children?" -type statistics). There are cases where the number of (certain group) were involved should be reported but othertimes not, even if sources exist in both cases to document it. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The sources obviously consider it relevant, hence the inclusion. Why do you think Wikipedia should override the sources on this matter and not others? —Tom Morris (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Because of systematic bias which we do have to be wary of and do not have to follow since we're just summarizing. Again, the argument I put forth is the usual "Won't someone think of the children?" issue. A report could say that drunk driving kills 1 in 100 children every year, gaining empathy from the reader, but fail to mention that the same number is true for any other demographic group. That's systematic bias that we should not repeat. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think if the information is there, it can be included, unless it is shown that it really is non-neutral, non-verifiable, etc. If the reliable sources multiply affirm and do not deny that "5 men were killed", I don't see what could be non-neutral about the article also including that information: neutrality is about points of view; but if no reliable source has a differing point of view, then representing the only point of view cannot possibly be non-neutral. Maybe the sources do include the information merely because they have some non-ideal motive to distinguish groups of people without legitimate relevance, but just because the sources have that motive, doesn't mean editors here need that motive in order to reflect their claims: These editors just need a motive of being interested in not having verifiable, neutral, etc. information excluded. The statement "5 men were killed" contains more information than the statement "5 people were killed". If the first statement is equally supported by all the reliable sources as the second, then editors do well in not replacing the first statement with the second. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I don't think I've ever seen a Wikipedia article do this (at least not for long). Could you provide some examples to support this being a problem we need to worry about? It seems to me we're already doing it; it's editorial common sense unless it's contextually relevant. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I recently had a conflict with User:Mean as custard regarding an article on a company, Ansaldo STS. The issue was whether information on what a company does is essentially advertising their products and services. The user I was in conflict with was deleting large section of texts on the basis that is was WP:PROMOTION. I could see some of his argument, but disagreed with what I viewed as a hardline stance. Discussion on the talk page and the other users page failed to reach a resolution, and so I took the issue to the admins noticeboard [3]. As you can see I was deemed to be the party in the wrong. In fact the admin that reviewed the case was not even sympathetic to my argument that the article could have been tagged as being too promotional or have been editing to make it more WP:NPOV.

The issue that I take from this is that writing any article on a company and its products and services should not be so easily mistaken for advertising or even SPAM. If the products and services that a company provides are what make it notable then it meets the basic criteria for being in a wikipedia article.

I would like to understand what others think. I think that there is an inherent conflict between policies. On the one hand the issue of not making an article on a company appear as advertising versus the inherent notability of a company, which is the success of what it does and what it produces. Bhtpbank (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's not rocket science. When someone adds material to an article containing phrases such as "With over 150 years of history and innovation"; "dedicated to safety, efficiency, reliability, and sustainability"; "tailored to our clients' needs", then it all goes in the bin as there is clear promotional intent. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll agree with Mean as Custard. Anything in the first person is promotional and should go - for the simple reason that it is either the company itself posting (OK - a member or agent of the company...) or it's a copyvio (and very few company sites are compliant with NPOV anyway - that's not what a company site is for, is it?). 'Dedicated', 'tailored', 'solutions', 'innovation', all those are PR speak. There are many articles about companies on Wikipedia that do comply with NPOV. They are either edited by company staff so cleverly that they fit our requirements, or they are edited by neutral editors. Whichever, we've got good material (assuming notability, of course). Mean as Custard is very good at rooting out the PR speak. As are several others of our patrollers. You say "If the products and services that a company provides are what make it notable then it meets the basic criteria for being in a wikipedia article." - yes. But the article must comply with [[WP:NPOV]. No matter how notable the company or the individual, if there is promotion in there it should be removed. Even if it means the whole article. Someone else can write another one some time. Let the promo in, and you'll never be rid. In the time I've been deleting things myself (and previously when tagging), I've only thought Mean as Custard was wrong a couple of times. And I might have been, anyway... Peridon (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

So, are all the articles about TV programs essentially a sales and marketing tool? I think you are on a slippery slope towards having wikipedia remove significant content from itself. Biographies of living persons could also be considered promotional. As for everything written about The Simpsons ... I'll bet Matt Groening is laughing all the way to the bank, thanks Wikipedia!! Bhtpbank (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you're missing the point. It's not what the subject is. It's the way the article is written. PR people use certain buzz words - 'solutions' being a favourite. I saw one article that was so full of them that I never found out what the company actually did! An article stating "BloggsCo offers its valued clients market-leading solutions for their little everyday difficulties" is going to be pure advertising, and anyone who can't see that probably works for a PR company. (I have found that they don't seem to see that they are talking a different language - I once sat behind two PR people on a train, and the only meaningful thing they said in half an hour was to fix up to meet for lunch on Tuesday.) It's quite possible to talk about a subject without advertising it. Whatever the intention behind the creation of the article. If it's neutral, it's neutral. If it's PR jargon, it's promo. These things can be re-written. You're welcome to do so. But in compliance with WP:NPOV. Some companies are inherently non-notable (while things are going well for them...). A company whose products are on millions of tables every day can still be non-notable - if the products carry the 'WeSellCheepa', 'BloggsCo' or 'MandysMart' brands for those chain stores, and nothing they make carries their own name (Frank Henning and Daughter, Inc) (don't Google - fictional example). Now, if the Henning company is hit by the revelation that cat DNA has been found in their dog food, and seven employees have been found to have the highly infectious and contagious Popsy virus, AND the company finance officer has absconded to North Korea, that's different... But that's notability. Non-notable = no article, no matter how written. Promo = no article, no matter how notable. Peridon (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

By "promo=no article, no matter how notable" surely you mean "no article in its currently written form"... If an article is notable, even if it is promotionally written, it deserves to exist. It can be cleaned up. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater just when the bathwater gets dirty.Camelbinky (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think what Camelbinky means is: if the topic or subject (in this case a company) is notable, an article about it deserves to exist. If the article is overly promotional, that can be fixed by re-writing the article. Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I thought that tagging an article for re-writing, or simply re-writing would be acceptable ... however User:Bbb23 who was the admin that reviewed my case on the edit war page totally disagreed, and dismissed it. This admin completely came down on the side of User:Mean as custard. I felt this was harsh, and that some middle ground could have been found. Bhtpbank (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Out of interest, I looked through the log of User:Bbb23 and found that he clearly dislikes WP:SPAM. He indefinitely blocked User:Naderaleebrahim for promotion, even though the account had only made FOUR (4) edits in wikipedia ... talk about harsh treatment, and WP:AGF. Bhtpbank (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's kind of you to review my actions and give me the benefit of your wisdom. Actually, Naderaleebrahim, had far more than four edits before I blocked him; you just can't see them. I'm mildly curious why you're even in this forum. Are you proposing a policy change?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, when I said 'promo = no article', I was meaning in terms of what was there. Not possible futures. A new article would be treated on its own merits. I'm also curious about the point of this discussion. I'm not certain about where Bhtpbank is coming from - are they suggesting that nothing should be deleted or removed for being promo, if the subject is notable? Or is it that nothing should go whatever? Tagging for reworking is used in marginal cases, and may or may not work. Those tags seem to last for years. Information on what a company does can be neutrally worded or promotionally worded. We accept the former (I'm assuming notability here - without that there's no chance anyway), but reject the latter. And this is not only companies. It applies to individuals (CVs are usually regarded as promo even if neutrally worded, and articles about as yet unpublished first novels, films by unknown directors that are still casting, and so on). Peridon (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

User:Bbb23 to me based on his snarky remarks to User:Bhtpbank (especially I'm mildly curious why you're even in this forum) I would say a little less bitey from his remarks would go a long way. Even if you are battling spam, vandalism, trolls, improving the encyclopedia, or even just copy-editing... just be nice and talk to people as if you were talking to your mother (and she has a giant rolling pin to wack you across the head if you mouth off, and it's legal for her to use it). Just some friendly advice.Camelbinky (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. I thought the first sentence in my post was snarkier than the rest. This is the wrong forum, and Bhtpbank is wasting our time, all because they disagree with the closure of a report at WP:ANEW. My last comment, blunt but not particularly snarky.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

These kinds of things usually just need some copyediting. "Ansaldo makes signalling equipment for trains" is useful, factual, informative, and encyclopedic. "Ansaldo provides solutions to customers" is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, I came to this place to see whether the review of my posting on the admins noticeboard was a fair reflection of policy. I felt that the actions of User:Mean as custard were too stern, and that User:Bbb23 review of the case was not per policy. Deleting large sections of articles may be WP:BOLD but should be done via discussion on the talk page (it was not). I also felt that editing to make the article WP:NPOV was a better course. I just wanted to see if my views held any water or were baseless. Bhtpbank (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Back to original issue: Well yes, although I would side with removing entire sections as being a better alternative than leaving them sitting around (for years in some cases I have seen) waiting for someone to clean them up be editing out the promotional buzzwords. Especially if just a long litany of products, since these tend to be the obvious way to get attention from search engines. They also go out of date if too detailed. Just explain what the company generally does in normal English, unless, for example, specific products get coverage from independent sources. My pet peeve now is all the companies who say they do "cloud platform solutions" for example. That can mean just about anything. I imagine a plinth with a jar that has some over-saturated solution, so has turned a bit murky. My guess is that in a couple years this terminology will either sound quaint or be unknown to most, with a new neologism that becomes more trendy. And clearly anything saying the company is "multi-national" "leading" or "award winning" etc. is a red flag, and anything uncited can be removed. W Nowicki (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Current wording at WP:IAR?#Use common sense currently has an addendum sentence, "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." (Original emphasis from page, not mine). Other than the obvious misuse of bolding, my problem is that common sense is no where listed as a fundamental principle, and in actuality the only thing above policy is consensus, principles really don't exist other than the fact that there is a bunch of pages that try to SUMMARIZE what our "principles" are as in what is common across all policies, guidelines, current way of doing things, and consensus agreements. I haven't seen "common sense" in the essay entitled WP:5P or User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, and it is not listed among the pages in WP:Principles.Camelbinky (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is someone suggesting that editors should not use common sense? Per WP:BURO, we do not have to worry unduly about Wikipedia's written constitution, and whether all possibilities are covered by the rules. BTW, the quoted text is at WP:What "Ignore all rules" means#Use common sense. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well... whether there is actual common sense that is common to all people is debatable. My problem is semantics, the sentence states something that does not exist. Common sense is not a principle, it does not trump policy; no principle trumps policy or consensus, whatever that word means in Wikipedia-speak. And of course the bolding is obnoxious. I just think it is superfluous and was probably added by someone with an axe to grind and prove something about common sense versus those that believe in "no common sense". It's a left over of instruction creep and should be removed.Camelbinky (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You linked the policy WP:IAR but you are apparently referring to the essay WP:IAR?#Use common sense. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays. This page is not intended to discuss essays. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you hope to turn an essay into a policy, then this is a fine place to talk about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion what Johnuniq is attempting to do by allowing that sentence to remain is to make it policy even though it is a sentence in a policy. There is no consensus or source for the sentence to say that common sense is a principle and above policy. It is not.Camelbinky (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

WP:IAR? is not a policy, so a sentence in WP:IAR? is not a sentence in a policy. The whole page is an essay. As the box at the top of the page says, "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." PrimeHunter (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not a policy, but it is a pillar. Chris857 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

He was talking about WP:IAR?, which is an essay, not WP:IAR, which is a policy and a pillar. WP:IAR? is an essay about WP:IAR. There has been confusion on this distinction from the beginning in this thread. postdlf (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

My point is that it is a sentence in an essay that purports to state a fact to its own question (improperly asked and bolded in the first place, which gives it even added weight to being factual). This "fact" states unequivocally that this sentence is above policy and is a principle. In fact it is not a principle nor enshrined as anything above policy. Yes, it is an essay, but it is not worded as an essay opinion, it is worded as factual statement regarding principle and policy !rules that supposedly bolster the opinions of that essay. It is dangerous in that you are bolstering opinion for something that is not factual. Even essays have to be responsible and bolster their opinions with sourced material if it is claiming something as fact and not opinion, which in this case the sentence in question is purported to be fact, not essay opinion as johnuniq claims.Camelbinky (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here's what that section says, for those who haven't read it:

Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't include a bunch of policy shortcuts. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment.

This seems to me to be pretty much a fundamental principle. You can't have a wiki that anyone can edit, and you can't have a formal policy whose second sentence says, "There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing", if you aren't assuming that people will act in good faith and with basic good sense.

What does WP:Ignore all rules mean? IAR doesn't mean "feel free to vandalize all you want, because WP:VANDAL is just a rule and you can ignore it". It does mean "don't get hung up on who types the most shortcuts" and "do what improves the article, after considering all the facts and circumstances, even if that's not exactly what the average article would need".

Wikipedia has a British constitution system. It does not have a statutory code. We have certain WP:Principles, and the expectation that users will use common sense is one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Short of grounds for deleting an essay, the way to deal with an essay you disagree with is to write your own essay. Or you can be bold and edit it yourself, discuss it with its original contributor(s), etc., etc... I'm not sure a VPP discussion is appropriate for this kind of disagreement. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

User:WhatamIdoing I think you have mistaken what I am talking about, I never mentioned that section nor know exactly where in relation on the page WP:IAR? it is to the sentence I am talking about. Let me, again, state the specific sentence with its original bolding format (which is ALSO what I am complaining about)-

Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy

This entire rhetorical question and answer format is not up to what I am use to, even in an essay. The bolding is ridiculous. The answer to that question is absolutely false. Common sense is not above policy. Common sense is not a principle on ANY page, anywhere. Maybe if I bold things then it becomes fact.Camelbinky (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you continue to discuss your issues with that essay at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means, and then anyone watching this thread who is also interested in what this essay says can also jump in over there. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did and no one other than Johnuniq responded, and claimed it IS a core principle. It is not listed on WP:Principle, it is not in the wp:5P and not mentioned by Jimbo in his statement of principles. It is an outright lie to offer "authoritative" backing to an essay. It is ridiculous to allow an important essay about a policy be worded 1) in a way which looks retarded and 2) is an outright lie. Before you know it people will start claiming common sense is principle. Common sense is NOT A PILLAR IN THE 5P!!!.Camelbinky (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you continue to discuss your issues with what Johnuniq has said at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means, and then anyone watching this thread who is also interested in what Johnuniq has said can also jump in over there. postdlf (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

WP:IAR is a joke. All anyone ever does is yell at you about the rules. No help, no suggestions, no civility. Just you are outta line mister. Blah blah blah.. rules rules rules. Wikipedia should remove it and replace it with WP:ABSOLUTE BUREAUCRACY... Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is one of multiple post of this nature from you I have seen today - You seem to be having a bit of a meltdown - have you considered a Wikibreak?Moxy (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yup. Instead of attacking the argument or idea. Go after the person. In this case.. his mental health. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be having a problem - venting on numerous pages trying to invoke an argument is not how we solve problems here. Again perhaps best you take a break and evaluate your situation and how you can go about fixing it.Moxy (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

By then my page will have been deleted. yeah you solve problems by eliminating diversity. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The problem with randomly ranting is we have no clue what your primary concern is or problems you have encounter. All we know is your clearly upset - about what is anyone's guess at this point. Moxy (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am not upset. Really. Entertained a bit. Really confused. Maybe frustrated as hell with the editor which I'd like to call betamax but were still using it. Mostly worried. How is wikipedia going to work in the long run if it says edit me, you click the button, and it smacks you or shoots water at you. How can you even claim you could EVER even understand the word consensus? This is the tighted niche group since the manhattan project. You're like the copy with a comment box that has 1x1inch squares to write in and if you violate a 2 mm padding the form is invalid. Its like a game of operation but at taser voltages. So ignore all the rules but don't. And what a rule. No talking about other people's actions. Well congratulations Mr. 65000 edits. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The policy on whether musical groups (hereafter "bands") take the singular or plural form of verbs and pronouns in Wikipedia articles is one which meets the following criteria:

• It has been raised before (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_Q#Bands:_grammatically_singular.3F, for example)
• It was only partially addressed and assumed to be a difference in GB/US usage.
• In practice, the policy is still unclear and is widely inconsistent.

The conclusion in the previous discussion linked above was that the difference is cultural and depends on whether the band name is perceived to be plural, namely:

• The Strokes are a band = US English, plural band name
• The Clash is a band = US English, singular band name
• The Clash are a band = GB English, singular band name

However, a great number of the US English articles about bands with "singular" names then proceed to use the plural form of verbs and pronouns. Take these examples from the article about the Canadian musical group Arcade Fire:

"Arcade Fire is an indie rock band" [singular verb]

"The band came to prominence... with the release of their... debut album" [plural pronoun]

"Arcade Fire has won numerous awards... (they hold the distinction...)" [singular verb & plural pronoun in same sentence]

"The band plays guitar, drums, bass guitar..." [singular verb]

You can play this game for yourself by choosing a Wikipedia article about a US band with a singular name, and then seeing how long it takes before the plural forms of verbs and pronouns are used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Champ (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I really would think that irregardless of nationality, if the band's name implies plurality (eg how the name would be used if it wasn't a proper name), then we should treat them as plural, otherwise not. "The Beatles are", "The Rolling Stones are", "The Grateful Dead are", "Arcade Fire is", "Jethro Tull is", "Rush is", "Mike and the Mechanics are", "Dave Matthews Band is". etc. Basically, I'm using a "what sounds right when I speak it aloud" test, and these all are the most natural ways of speaking tense. Once you've established it is a band with multiple people, "they" is a proper pronoun to replace it, but when using the band name directly, the verb should match with the plurality implied by the name. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Or let me emphasis the key point: The right pronoun to refer to a band (any group with more than one person) is "they", not "it", and all verbs will be plural on that pronoun or the like. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

    Nonsense. "The London Philharmonic Orchestra (LPO) ...is one of the major orchestras of the United Kingdom." Eric Corbett 14:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

    That's doesn't break it. First, "Orchestra" is a singular word, so "The LP Orchestra is one of the major orchestras in the UK. They perform at several functions throughout the year." That's the point I'm making - when the proper name is used, the verb tense should follow the plurality of the name. When we then refer to the band or group via pronouns, it is "they" in the plural form irregardless of the proper name. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

    As I said, nonsense. Eric Corbett 22:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

    That's not a helpful response. Why is Masem's proposal nonsense? Interestingly, the article on the LPO starts in the singular and then proceeds to use several instances of "they" and "their", including the following: "In December 2001, Vladimir Jurowski first conducted the LPO.... He subsequently became their Principal Guest Conductor in 2003." For me, that rather makes Masem's point.Phil Champ (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

    That the LPO article is in error by being inconsistent is unsurprising and irrelevant. The distinction is very clear: the band is singular if you're talking about the band, plural if the subject is the members of the band, as in the "police have" and "Metropolitan Police has" example. Quite simple really and nothing to do with formality. Eric Corbett 16:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement has more detail on the national difference. British English usually uses notional agreement when deciding the correct verb form, which means that it depends on whether the author was thinking about the subject as a collective or as the individual members. American English, on the other hand, usually uses formal agreement, making the verb agree with the form of the subject. But the choice of pronoun is often notional rather than formal even in American English, and then in AmEn the verb associated with the pronoun would usually chosen formally rather than notionally. But see singular they for a complication there. Anomie⚔ 14:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • This discussion needs to be tabled. ;) Anomie⚔ 14:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Simple answer... it depends on the group. Blueboar (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

(ec) Are you using a UK table or an American one? A point about something above - 'The Grateful Dead' is not singular. Dead as a noun normally refers to more than one corpse ('the dead of centuries'), and when used as a group name definitely is plural. (A bit like 'sheep', but unlike sheep, when you have only one you use a different form - 'the dead man' or the corpse/cadaver/body or whatever it is.) Whichever pronoun is used for 'band' or 'orchestra', there should be consistency. Either call them them or call it it. All the way through. Mind you, there can be other problems. Take 'Them' (the band, that is). Does one say "Them is playing at..." or "Them are playing at..."? Neither sounds right, does it? Or is it "Neither sound right, do they?"? Isn't grammar fun? Peridon (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are a few off-cases, like Them and The Who. But here I'd argue that both terms beg for plurality. Of course, one can always rewrite these if the wording gets really wonky. Instead of "Them are a Northern Irish rock band...", we can always go and start "The band Them is a Northern Irish rock group..." --MASEM (t) 22:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link, Anomie: that summarises the problem well. It strikes me that there a couple of other factors at play here.

The signifier is the singular label (The Clash) and the signified is the plural entity (the four musicians from London who performed under that label).

I have heard both of the following on the BBC:

"The Metropolitan Police has announced..." (formal)

"The police have arrested..." (informal)

In formal speech, the singular label is used; in informal speech, the plural entity is used. It's not simply a cultural difference, it's a difference in the level of formality preferred by individuals and by cultures. That may be what lies at the heart of the disagreements here and the inconsistency of so many Wikipedia articles. Editors don't know what the appropriate level of formality is. (Read the article on the Canadian band Rush [[4]]. That uses the singular forms most of the time initially and sounds to my ears overly formal. It does slip into using the plural forms by the middle and end, though.)

I propose the following policy:

• Editors should use the informal, plural versions of verbs and pronouns throughout.
• If editors feel that the formal label is appropriate, they can refer to the label explicitly in the opening sentence of the article: "Arcade Fire is the name of a Canadian band formed in 2004." That would avoid any disagreements about whether "Grateful Dead" or "ABBA" is plural or not.

Just accept that there are different ways of referring to bands, teams, companies and other groups (per WP:ENGVAR) and move on (to other questions and issues that really matter). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

A lead should never start with "... is the name" unless the article is about the name. —Designate (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

A thousand times this. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Roger, I think you're making up a distinction formal/informal, where no such exists. The distinction formal/notional does however seem to be relevant, as explained above, and it's treated differently in American and British English. Attempts to erase this difference are doomed. As a South African, you think the American style sounds odd; to me, your style would sound British. But I have no problem with that. Dicklyon (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I am just wondering why shouldn't we set _NOGALLERY_ as default to all cats around the English Wikipedia, if it was possible. (Shows links to files instead of displaying it). I can't see any advantage of having the images visible in categories. Non-free images are allowed only in articles and copyleft images would be eventually moved to Commons (I may be wrong).···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 13:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Given that we can have galleries of free images, and that most categories don't include images, this might be the wrong way to go about it. It is probably better to have a bot generate a list of categories that include non-free media that are not colon-linked to have those reviewed and apply NOGALLERY where appropriate (most of these will but there are maintenance categories that we make exception for admin work). --MASEM (t) 13:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we can have galleries of free images, but should we? Thumbnails in Wikipedia categories serve no purpose, does they? One thing that contributes to the beauty of Wikipedia is her strictness towards copyright laws. (e.g., we don't usually link to Youtube videos, however helpful they are, because most of them are copyright infringements).···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 15:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, let's add another bother on users. Let them decode filenames and imagine what the file looks like. Perhaps we should hide the image on the filedescription and file history list as well. Just in case..... I find this totally stupendous. It's just one more step towards the 'let's abolish our fair use policy'. It's unfair on the average user, if this is what you want, come clean and simple open another RFC to stop the FU policy, don't bother us with details like these. I propose we don't abolish the images, but let's make them 10x10 pixels ! —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Even better would be a technical solution that blocks image files tagged with a non-free template from displaying anywhere but main article space. To the extent that category displays of thumbnails of nonfree images is even a problem we should care about, which I don't think it is. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's Template:Bug. Anomie⚔ 21:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

FYI, we currently have 11499 categories without __NOGALLERY__ that contain one or more files, and 4768 of those contain some file that is also in Category:All non-free media. Which means we have 6731 categories with only free files in them. Anomie⚔ 21:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you know if that count includes files that are colon-linked (not to display) vs those that are direct linked (will display)? --MASEM (t) 21:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

How do you put a file into a category and have it colon-linked? Anomie⚔ 02:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah, crap, yeah, you can't do that, as best I know. It's the nogallery tag that controls that. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to all of you. Thanks to Anomie for the bug, the list and Special:Redirect :) So, we have a list of cats with non free thumbnails, but no bot to place 'NOGALLERY' magic word on them?···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 07:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I could write such a bot easily enough, if there's a strong enough consensus that we want to blindly add NOGALLERY whenever someone randomly adds a non-free image to a category. Personally, I don't think that's such a good idea. Anomie⚔ 11:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I went to the article Muhammad hoping to discover why the spelling of The Prophet's name has been changed in recent years. I found nothing and asked on the talk page, where I was told the only spelling of The Prophet's name is Arabic, and the English spelling is a transliteration and no explanation is necessary for the change in the biography. I was referred to Muhammad (name). If I find what I am looking for, likely in a newspaper archive that I will have access to at a library later this week, I can add it to that article.

However, the "Mohammed" spelling is used several times inside quotes in the Muhammad article. Ordinarily this problem could be solved using "[sic]", but this is not an incorrect spelling. It was the correct spelling when the author of each quote spelled it that way. Is there some proper way to refer people to an explanation for this?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Although I provided Vchimpanzee with the initial response referenced above, this is an interesting question to me as well.

The Muhammad (name) article explains, in the 'Etymology' section that the name "Muhammad" is the strictest transliteration of the Arabic spelling. Therefore that is what we use, because it's the closest we can get to the original, using our alphabet. Reliable sources from history use other transliterations, commonly "Mohammed" but also "Mahomet" and variants. So when we quote a source, we quote what it says, but when we refer to the subject in Wikipedia's narrative voice, we use the closest transliteration to the actual Arabic name that we have.

We generally use [sic] only when we need to inform the reader that any errors in the quoted or transcribed material belong to the person being quoted. However, there is no need to identify alternative spellings of 'Muhammad' as erroneous, because there was no historical agreement on the correct transcription of Muhammad's name until recently, as far as I know. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think what I'm looking to do, then, is identify the spelling as correct.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Inserting a hidden comment in the article text (<!--spelling from original source-->)would at help least prevent editors from "fixing" it. Unfortunately I don't have any ideas as to how or whether to mark that in a visible way in the displayed article. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Consider wrapping the quoted spelling in the {{as written}} template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'll give that a try.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

WP:SPEEDY "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates. To qualify, the edit must have been made while the user was actually banned. A page created before the ban does not qualify. To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's block or ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are in some other topic."

During my seven-year history of writing articles for Wikipedia I have been blocked or banned at various times for my interpretation of the Manual of Style. As a result I resorted to using sockpuppets to make contributions. Now some of the articles written as far back as July 2011 have been singled out and deleted. I'm puzzled as to why these particular ones have been selected when there are well over 1000 to choose from. Personally I don't mind if the whole lot are removed, but what I do mind is the inconsistency in interpretation and application of G5, and in particular the lack of common-sense underlying the rule. I can understand the admins feeling that the perpetrator should be punished - what I don't understand is how Wikipedia benefits by deleting perfectly good articles. To be fair the admins I have chatted to are divided about deleting such contributions. Paul venter (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for the imperfections in our ability to detect sockpuppets. We do our best, but it is a difficult problem. If your first twenty or thirty attempts had been quickly discovered and reverted there is a good chance that you would have stopped abusing Wikipedia instead of going on to do it over a thousand times. As for you "minding" inconsistent applications of the rules, I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. When you decided to flout our rules you forfeited the right to criticize others for allegedly not following those same rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

No need to apologise for any flaw in WP's sockpuppet detection mechanism as I didn't criticise it. Your use of the word 'abusing' though is interesting and rightly applies to my sockpuppetry, but you imply that somehow that same abuse has contaminated my contributions, and it is exactly that point with which I disagree - an editor's social or anti-social behaviour is not necessarily reflected in his contributions which should be judged on their own merit and not seen as fruit of the poisoned tree. WP is far from perfect and the rules managing its creation should be seen as a work in progress rather than divinely inspired commandments. Issues like this help to spotlight problem areas and with sensible input may hopefully lead to an improved WP. Paul venter (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It isn't mandatory that we delete such articles, but what G5 does is give us the ability to do so when necessary. It's another tool that allows us to remain flexible in dealing with a disruptive Wikipedia user and in quickly stopping disruption, but the existence of such a tool does not mean that we must use it every time. --Jayron32 05:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to point out that the user G-Zay was one where good contributions were interspersed with bad and masked into the very articles that he worked hard on. This is a good example of a reason why G5 exists; valid and positive contributions which are easily verified can be vetted and remain, but any questionable or unsourced work can be promptly removed under G5/BLP/etc. reasons. If I go an make an FA article; the FA doesn't go in the trash because it is assumed it is peer reviewed and factually accurate and so forth. Wikipedia's real issue is that some editors create hoaxes and insert false material to get back at Wikipedia or damage its credibility; G5 exists for that purpose where there is doubt, but no other easily applicable reason as to respond. Its the "if in doubt throw it out" clause. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You are free to disagree with the Wikipedia policy that says that your abuse has contaminated your contributions, but that is our policy and this is unlikely to change any time soon. The community has decideded with an overwhelming consensus that material added to Wikipedia by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block may be (but are not required to be) removed by any editor. Of course consensus can change, and it might very well be that your agruments are compelling enough to cause a new consensus to form that this policy should be changed, but until that happens, our current policy is that your abuse has indeed contaminated your contributions.

Removing the incentive for abuse is in itself a desirable goal. Consider the widely held "we don't negotiate with hostage takers" policy. The logic is that, while negotiating is likely to benefit those particular hostages, it also sends a message that taking hostages works and thus leads to many more cases of taking hostages. Now of course I do not want to imply that there is any sort of equivalence between sock puppetry and hostage taking, but my first draft of this comment, where I used the analogy of a two-year-old throwing a tantrum, was even more offensive. The point is that if you reward a particular behavior you get more of it. Clearly you did not evade your block just because you wanted typing practice. The fact that those contributions actually modified the articles instead of being instantly reverted was your reward. Denying you that reward in order to discourage your behavior is a legitimate goal, irrespective of the actual content of your edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The fundamental flaw in the policy you outline above is that it assumes something sinister akin to terrorism in sockpuppets. What does it matter if an editor chooses to contribute under a score of different names so long as a contribution adds to the value of Wikipedia. On the other hand if false information is included in an article, deliberately or inadvertently, it will inevitably be corrected. To assume bad faith and blindly throw out contributions without having examined their merit is just plain silly, and flies in the face of the constant reminder that the most important consideration when weighing an issue is whether it improves Wikipedia. Paul venter (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

if false information is included in an article, deliberately or inadvertently, it will inevitably be corrected. This is where your argument breaks down, as that's far from inevitable, particularly if cleverly done, and there are some very clever people out there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The entire point that everyone is missing is that we're allowed to delete such articles, but we are still not forced to delete such articles. Discretion is allowed, and many factors including the quality of the article, later good-faith contributions by other editors, and the specific nature of the block and/or ban in relation to the article itself can all be considered. At no point do we automatically purge Wikipedia of every contribution of every blocked or banned editor; but we have the option of doing so if it is necessary. Every case must be judged of its own specifics, and no general statement about if or when G5 would or would not be invoked can me made except in relation to an actual specific article and an actual specific banned user. --Jayron32 02:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Giving admins discretionary powers to delete or not delete articles in this type of situation is vague and leads to the chaos that may be seen here, where it is obvious that deletions can become very arbitrary. This is not a good basis for consistent and sound policy. Paul venter (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've seen people persistent that an article keep an ancient image of something up rather than a better, free image that's in color. I get that Wikipedia is pedantic when it comes to images, but why not have some sort of clause permitting replacing images? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You will need to be more specific - there is no policy against replacing images as such. Where and why do you think there is a problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it's difficult for your average person to upload an image to Wikipedia. The Wizard is pretty much a mess and there's such a huge preference on free images that there's always requests for deletion on fair-use images. I think most of the images on articles concerning major events are there out of pure luck. Am I just wrong? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The rules regarding images have to be 'pedantic' - we have to obey copyright laws. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This appears to be about Edward Snowden, a biography of a living person. Our rules are pretty tough for these kinds of topics. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The image is widely circulated, but without clear public use or licensing documentation, I've even regularly seen media use "test footage" with watermarks for "Not for Broadcast" on things like the Stormchaser video for that tornado story. Wikipedia has to be held to a higher standard on image because our coverage is long lasting, not backed by a major business or journalistic. The last thing we need to do rush to put media photos on Wikipedia articles when the rights to the interview is well-known and currently in use. A public domain image is really what is preferred, but a NFCC rational can be provided and challenged by editors easily. Its just the nature of the system and the law. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The wizard is a mess. The last time I used it it would never highlight the upload button, and I wound up clicking the option to return to the earlier version of the tool just so I could make progress. There's no doubt that the issue is complex, but that wizard seems more like a hindrance than a help.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Part of that is the underlying HTML5/scripting limitations (the upload button thing, I found, you have to tab off the last required text field, at which point it will highlight assuming all other required elements are filled in, this because the script cannot detect the text field change until focus moves). It is, unfortunately, better than just dropping the user off at Special:Upload. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've often wondered why we don't just import the Commons Wizard to Wikipedia. It works very well, and I can't figure out why we don't use it here. --Jayron32 02:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please look at WT:CITE#RFC: Limit citation style choices to recognized guides and discuss whether citations in articles should be based on recognized guides such as Citation style 1, APA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, or The MLA Style Manual rather than ad hoc styles invented for a particular article. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:File names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply