Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:55, 26 July 2013

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

• WP:VPP

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

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Sock-puppetry Statement

I am posting this question here, rather than at the talk page for WP:SOCK, not to forum-shop, because I am not a primary party anyway, but to get a quicker answer on a frequently visited page. However, the following statement was made: "For sock puppetry, seems there are many legitimate reasons for having sock puppets, and though usually you have to disclose that you are sock puppets, there are quite a few situations where you don't need to or even shouldn't disclose that you are sock puppets." Is it as bizarre as I think it is? Either an experienced editor has confused sock-puppets, a never permitted type of alternate account, with legitimate alternate accounts, which are used in special situations, or the editor is just confused, or am I mistaken? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The sock puppetry page is very clear stating While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the improper use of multiple accounts is not allowed. It then goes on to list what improper means. The editor or discussion you are talking about should be referred to that page. NealeFamily (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is exactly the same as my reading. The other editor had read the policy, but paraphrased it wrong, thus changing its meaning almost 180 degrees. I told him to re-read the policy again. By the way, he wasn't defending sock-puppetry. He was defending his question as to whether two of his opposing editors in a slow-motion edit war were sock-puppets. I had said that his question about whether they were sock-puppets was a serious allegation, because sock-puppetry is normally dealt with blocking the sockpuppets, and sometimes the puppet-master, and sometimes even banning the puppet-master. He was trying to defend his question/allegation as not necessarily a serious attack. That is what is going on. The basic problem is a slow-motion edit-war. Many slow-motion edit wars have to do with countries that may be six thousand miles from the United States (or from the United Kingdom or from India or any other Anglophone country). This has to do with a place that is ten thousand times as far away, that is, sometimes sixty million miles away. It is not a country because it is not on Earth because it is Mars. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We have a sock puppet from Mars? Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No. We had a question about there were Martian sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the ArbCom declined to go to Mars. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Threatens to Ruin Misplaced Pages

I have been a registered and active member on Misplaced Pages for 3 years. I created several articles a few years ago and used the wizard at first and from what I recall had no problem. Recently I wanted to create a new article as a “stub” and properly tag it and let the community contribute. I could not remember how to create an article and so I Google searched "Wiki Create New Article" and it gave me Misplaced Pages:Starting an article which gives 3 options Sandbox, User Page or Wizard. I was confused and also surprised when I was done to be “locked into” a review process. This process is not only unneeded but threatens to ruin what Misplaced Pages is. I logged into the IRC to ask what to do and no one was on. The next day after my article was denied (big surprise), I was able to login and find out how to use the old process but with a warning of how my article will probably be deleted. Total biased nonsense!

AFC is deceitful as it never provides the option or even a link for the user to bypass the review process. Even though this is supposed to be “optional” for editors, it never provides any way outside of it (except for sandbox and user page for testing). Many people (such as myself) get locked into this unwillingly and since it should be an option it outright deceitful.

With the exception of protected and semi-protected articles any user may freely contribute and edit Misplaced Pages. What if it was setup that it was not so simple to see and you did a Google search and found a wizard and then your edit was put into a “review” process? This is outright dangerous!

Additionally I fail to see how AFC has some how stopped or cut down on SPAM (as I am not sure what the whole purpose of it is) as I view and flag tons of newly created articles daily. You can look at the "thousands" we get and how many are flagged for speedy delete. The impact has little to no effect on intentional SPAMMERS as they are experienced to bypass it.

Also it is dangerous in that if "AFC Admins" have a conflict of interest OR lack the knowledge of the subject they can keep denying it. Again this threatens what Misplaced Pages is about.

In my opinion this AFC is not needed whatsoever since users have the Sandbox or User Page to create and test an article and thus AFC only serves to grant the AFC group “control” and “power” over what articles maybe submitted. For example why was my new article denied? Because it was a stub?

I propose that at the very least if AFC is kept that is not setup to be deceitful and “lock users” into it, the process should give users a clear option at the start or at the end or the article to opt out and proceed to post. As it is setup now, new users cannot use the wizard without being “locked into” a political biased and potentially abusive system. Tyros1972 Talk 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that if the purpose of not adding a clear and obvious option to “opt out of AFC” and proceed to post unreviewed defeats the whole purpose of AFC, or that users will not use the AFC process; then that clearly shows how AFC is not needed. It also proves that users are NOT using it willingly, that they (like myself) were locked into it. Tyros1972 Talk 18:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What is this “opt out of AFC” a rubbish? Any 4-days-old account with ten edits can directly create new pages in the main space. Is actually important whether a Misplaced Pages article will be created four days later or earlier? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that isn't obvious and as I explained when you do a search on Google or Wiki you get the AFC wizard. Once there you have no option to opt out of it, the way it is setup is to "trap" the user and "deceive" them. If AFC was purely an open option as it claims to be surely it would allow the user to freely use the wizard and at the end present them with 1) Have Article Reviewed or 2) Publish to Wiki. If your argument is if you did that no one would use AFC as I stated above this proves AFC is pointless and serves only one purpose for the AFC group to control what articles are posted. Articles in question should go through go thru the WP:AFD process were a single person isn't deciding if it should remain. Tyros1972 Talk 19:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have some specific suggestions as to what else needs to be said and where, to make it more clear to registered users that the Article wizard and Articles for Creation process are optional, and that at any point they can just ignore it and post an article directly? I agree that it isn't spelled out very clearly. postdlf (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that users should be able to use the wizard as it guides new editors and at the end have those 2 options. I don't recall in the past that the wizard was controlled by the AFC Group like it is now. All user should be able to use the wizard and at the end have the option for review or to post. Additionally if the article is rejected they should be able to ignore that and directly post it and if other editors have a problem it be submitted through the AFD process. Tyros1972 Talk 19:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So maybe something that states clearly that a rejection is basically just one editor's advisory opinion, and while it shouldn't be ignored, it's not a bar against posting it directly in article space? I agree it's a concern; recently I saw an AFC rejection that was actually contrary to well established (and I thought well known) notability guidelines, by a reviewer that was no more experienced (based on edit count) than the submitter. I don't know how common that kind of thing is, but it should be made clear all through the process that no registered user has to go through it, and can take the end result as just an opinion. postdlf (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you say about the rejection, the user "must" have the option to disagree and post to the community. AFC is bad from it's core, this is a pre-modded system that prevents the community from properly accessing the article. It should be purely an option, even if rejected have the option to post and let us decide not AFC group. Tyros1972 Talk 20:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Any registered user does in fact have that option. You can go ahead and move the page into article space and remove all the AFC stuff even after it has been rejected, provided it was not deleted. The main problem with AFC, in my opinion, is that it has been badly backlogged for a very long time and some reviewers may be being a bit hasty. Resorting to overblown hyperbole is not a way to fix any problems with this process. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Why didn't I see it? Why is it so hard to find? Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

AFC is only for brand new editors who may not be aware of notability guidelines and whatever else, any other editor can just modify a non existent page. -- Nbound (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I fail to see the point of "pre-moderating" new editors as we see new articles on a daily basis that are not notable. This should be up to us (the community) not the AFC group. The biggest concern is that one small group is controlling what goes on Misplaced Pages. If this is how Wiki should be, then we may as well throw out AFD and any of our tags since every article must be approved by the AFC group before it is posted. Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, it is not necessary for any editor reviewing an article or an edit to an article to have subject knowledge; all that is required from them is to have sufficient knowledge of policies and guidelines. This does not unfortunately presuppose that they are qualified in this respect; neither new page patrollers nor AfC Reviewers are vetted for these tasks. The one exception is the Reviewer right for Pending Changes, which is however is accorded on a low threshold of experience

, and is not related to the creation of new pages.

I agree with the comments that the title of this heading is overblown. Articles for Creation is broken, and possibly broken beyond repair, but it does not interfere with article creation by registered users. The least complicated feasible method of article creation by registered users is to create the article in user space and move it. (An article can be created directly in mainspace, but it is likely to be tagged for speedy deletion by a deletionist before the creator finishes adding the content and references. That is why it is better to create the article in user space and move it.) AFC is broken, but the idea that it threatens Misplaced Pages is an exaggeration. It only threatens article creation by users who don't know that it is broken. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Because this obviously effects new users and not experienced, the title is even more so appropriate. Wiki becomes a closed community like a "message forum". New users register and try to create an article and this happens and they leave. Additionally AFC is where it starts, if we don't nip this in the butt it has the potential for the group to gain more and more power to eventually it is standard. As AFC stands now it is a "dangerous idea" and I see it as a very serious threat. You have to look at the BIG picture instead of looking at what it is now. I see AFC as a "bad seed" but at this time it is still just a seed but given time the seed will grow. Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, neither AfC nor NPP will physically prevent the creation of articles by Autoconfirmed users.

Thirdly, there is absolutely no urgency for the creation of any any new article.

WP:ACTRIAL was an attempt by the community to address the problem of the creation of unwanted pages and significantly reduce the requirment for New Page Patrolling, and the AFC process by limiting the creation of new articles to autoconfirmed users. Although the idea was was supported by a healthy consensus, and the debate was heavily subscribed, the idea for a trial of the proposed process was rejected by the Foundation because it was thought that it would be contrary to Wikimedia ideology and would ultimately lose new users. The proposal of ACTRIAL (note trial) was to find out if such claims were justified, and to demonstrate the main purpose of the restriction before being adopted as a new measure.

In the immediate aftermath of the ACTRIAL rejection, the WMF nevertheless offered Article Creation Workflow as a solution. Misplaced Pages has never has a proper landing page, and this excellent proposal by the Director of Engineering would probably have addressed all these issues of page creation. However this development was shelved and archived as being of low priority, while instead, the Foundation developed and launched the Page Curation tool which although a superb piece of software, is only effective in the hands of sufficiently experienced users. Hence the core problems persist to this day. For up-to-date discussions, please see this thread and this thread. Maybe all this will help to encourage more development on the original Article Creation Workflow as proposed by the WMF, and ultimately address Tyros1972's concerns which are possibly echoed by many. 01:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs)

• I've tested something at WP:WIZGO to add a button to allow them to create it directly. Right now, it adds {{unreviewed}} to it, this can be updated if people wish. Feel free to revert if you all wish. ~Charmlet 01:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Addendum - I think it'd be nice if someone with better knowledge of templates can a) make sure I didn't break anything too bad, and b) create a new "unreviewed" style template that can be used to add this to a category (say Category:List of articles created directly with the Article Wizard or similar) that'd be great. Just for a test run until we see how this affects the articles being created. ~Charmlet 01:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: That's a good start, obviously I don't object to it. Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Every single thing we can do to channel the majority of new users into AfC is a step for the better. The vast majority of articles created by new editors, in my experience having done both vandalism and new page patrol, are simply inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Most new articles are either so malformatted that having them in mainspace is non-functional, or, more often, don't even come close to meeting WP:N. I know that this probably sounds mean, and harsh, but I believe that barriers to article creation is actually a good thing. Our value, as an encyclopedia, rests on the fact that we take the immeasurably vast amount of info available online, in people's heads, in books, etc., and cut it down to the minimum critical information on only notable topics. That, after all, is what encyclopedias have always been for. I know that to many people this sounds antithetical to the idea of an open-sourced encyclopedia...but, after all, our goal is not to be "open to all editors", it's to be "open to all editors here to create an encyclopedia". Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: Until there is a policy (or guideline) that has site-wide consensus for this drastic change in how we operate (the principle of "registered users may create articles"), I don't feel comfortable supporting it. I think AfC is something everyone should take part in. But it's not your or my determination to make. I'm considering starting an RfC on this to determine the consensus for requiring or "strongly discouraging" not using the article wizard (such as is done for COI editing). At least then there's a policy/guideline basis for not having the button. Right now, there's the button that I added. ~Charmlet 02:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This whole discussion started because User:Tyros1972 read Misplaced Pages:Starting an article, chose one of the three methods listed there, and then was surprised to find that the article was under a review process. I have looked at this page, and it does indeed give three options for how to create a new article, with instructions for each. Only one of these three leads to the Afc, and it specifically warns that the article will go through a review process. Why choose that one if that's not what you want? Also, as soon as a new user successfully creates one article through Afc, an automated acceptance message is sent telling the user that they can create articles directly and don't need to have them reviewed, and points them to the instructions on how to do this. There are help message boards all over Misplaced Pages (including this one, the main help desk, the Teahouse, the Afc help desk). If User:Tyros1972 or any other autoconfirmed user found his or her article accidentally in Afc when the intention was to create it directly, why not simply ask for help in moving it instead of claiming to be "trapped"? Why not assume good faith instead of claiming that other editors are out to frustrate you and ruin the encyclopedia? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I chose create the new article and never saw any option to bypass AFC. At the end my only option was to "submit for review", that is why I said I was locked in. This has nothing to do with "assuming good faith" this is about using "common sense", no matter what the idea behind the AFC Review process is, it is dangerous and should be abolished. If it is kept as I stated multiple times, leave it as an "obvious option" for new users who want help. Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is the "lock-in", where I would agree with you that you can and should opt-out at any time. Then again, you may end up having your article reviewed anyway and end up going through the AfD process (where I find that almost all new articles with just a few exceptions seem to hit now if they don't go through the AfC process). I disagree that it should be a bilateral one or the other, and it does reflect poorly on the new article creation process in general, but it is the current state of affairs at Misplaced Pages. I've complained about this issue in the past, and have had personal attacks and other stuff happen that makes me just want to even give up entirely on Misplaced Pages as a result. The process can be salvaged, but it will take more than the support of just one or two editors to get it to happen. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As I had said on my talk page: "Then new users can use it as an option, the way it is set up now a new user cannot go through the wizard and opt out of review at the end, nor do they have the option to disagree with a rejection and post it to us for review. We should have the power NOT the AFC group, that is why we have AFD and our tags. We don;t delete articles that are not notable, we guide new users, post on talk pages and help them. We the Wiki Editors and Community are here to do this not one group. AFC has taken power away from us and we want it back as this is what Misplaced Pages has always been about." Tyros1972 Talk 22:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Only new or un-registered users are REQUIRED to use AFC or some other mechanism because of technical restrictions. Now, can we improve the AFC process to make it clear to autoconfirmed users that they can bypass this process? Yes. Should we? That's a fair discussion that should take place at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. I can think of two very good reasons NOT to encourage inexperienced-but-autoconfirmed editors to bypass AFC: 1) it's far better for them, their proposed article, and the project if their proposed article is cleaned up or politely rejected in WP:AFC than for it to go through the discouraging process of WP:AFD, and 2) you don't want to encourage paid/COI-editors using throwaway accounts to bypass AFC unless there is some other mechanism for denying them the "reward" of a mainspace article that search engines will index (AFC submissions are marked "noindex" and few if any major search engines index them). Having said that, we probably should encourage experienced editors to skip AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Comment: While AFC can certainly be improved on in many ways, I disagree that it's a detriment overall. You note that new contributors (and IPs) may be frustrated by semi-arbitrary rulings by un-vetted AFC reviewers, or less-helpful boilerplate AFC templates, but I ask what is the alternative? In a "free and easy" alternative, NoobX submits his article "Awesome New Band" directly after having been auto-confirmed, and excitedly goes on Facebook and forums to let all his friends know the band know has "Misplaced Pages coverage". A few hours later, NPP pounces on it and CSD's is quite justifiably for having no cites whatsoever. Now EditorX is just as disillusioned as if he was turned down by AFC, and quite possibly more so since there is no "Resubmit" option, there aren't nice clear listings as to which reviewers Delclined him, easy links to remediation sources like AFC Helpdesk and the Teahouse, etc.

Without AFC and NPP, Misplaced Pages would be subsumed with crap: garage bands, bios of your bestest school buddy, "companies" with two employees who made one single Android app, etc. While AFC could always use improvement (and more volunteers), at least it provides a process by which articles can be improved over time and with mentorship. I would strongly support improving AFC process (and I am myself a sometime AFC reviewer), but I would be very much against discouraging use of AFC, and while I recognise that Wikimedia wants to always have an option for people to submit directly, I think we should strongly encourage new users to communicate and interact with the existing community in order to help them get articles successfully published.

And as a minor sidenote, I strongly disagree with the implication that AFC is a "cabal" given that it is a purely volunteer endeavor that requires no vetting, election, or even membership. All AFC represents is an opportunity to have other interested people advise you on a draft. Editors can (and sometimes do) either Move of (unfortuntately) copy-paste their drafts into mainspace, though not surprisingly I estimate 95%+ of the time AFC submissions self-submit they end up being Deleted anyway. Let us fix AFC, but let's not act as though Misplaced Pages suffers from too much peer-oversight rather than not enough. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt here, this is the most insane thing I have ever heard. I am the one who removed the buttons to directly create submissions and mainspace articles, mostly because there were many submissions entering the backlog and mainspace that simply said "Subject of my article is...", which is the preload text from the wizard. The wizard is developed by AfC for new users. It always has been. If you wish to create an article directly in mainspace, search for it on wiki and hit the link to create it. I have absolutely no idea why you believe AfC will ruin Misplaced Pages and I honestly believe it does the opposite. There are currently 31,948 AfC reviewed pages in mainspace, 596 of which are B-class and above. You aren't roped into the system, there is absolutely nothing preventing you from creating articles in mainspace. You want change, petition the WMF to approve WP:ACTRIAL. </rant> --Nathan2055 20:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This is concerning both MatthewVanitas and Nathan2055 as they both feel AFC has cut down on SPAM. Unfortunately I don't see how AFC has stopped anything you mentioned? To prove my point try using Special:NewPagesFeed and setting the filter for new editors and new articles. AFC has had little to no effect on the daily crap we get, I have submitted TONS of speedy and AFCs for a company with 2 employees that just created an Android app, bands are indeed one of the most common. The point is once again is that AFC Editors should NOT have the final and only say as it has crippled the community. We have our guidelines, tags etc. and we don't need AFC. Tyros1972 Talk 22:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that AFC has failed to cut down on spam because people who aren't using AFC are still submitting spam? I can't tell if you're meaning "submitted TONS of speedys on AFC" or you're saying that you've submitted tons of speedys on directly-created articles that were spam and you also note that people often submit the same kinds of articles to AFC. All that aside, I'm really not seeing how AFC is some totalitarian system, how it's "crippling" anything, and how it's so much worse than people submitting crap (which lingers for days) and then gets CSD'ed with even less explanation/transparency/remediation than AFC offers. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

People will always submit crap to any open source, the only way to cut down on it is to close it for pre-moderation. AFC has the potential to become a politically biased and abusive system. I hate to use an example of US Politics but look at what happen to our rights and gov. spying, with that aside the people have "lost" power and gov. gained it. That is what the danger is with AFC that the group becomes bigger and bigger and eventually things change. The Wiki we had is gone. You have to look at this from the point of view I am. I am NOT saying it is good right now, it is still very bad with locking users in and having a single person review it and no way to bypass that - this is a change I am calling for right now. Tyros1972 Talk 22:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really buy into this slippery slope argument because there's no evidence that AfC is becoming some kind of centralized authority. Sure, editors will make mistakes when reviewing, and this is bound to happen sometimes when reviewers act alone and often when they are inexperienced. But this is not the same as AfC becoming an overpowering gateway for new editors. As for your comments about "The Wiki we had was gone," I hate to break it to you, but it sure wasn't any golden age back then, either. I think you are imagining an idealized past (that an AfC-less past was undoubtedly better) without all the actual problems that went along with it (e.g. Misplaced Pages likely had more spam that made its way to the mainspace, and fewer editors learned about what reliable sources were / how to use citations / and even a little MoS here and there, because these are often referenced in the AfC process). I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Before OP starts screaming that AFC is the cause of a catestrophic slight against[REDACTED] that OP familiarize themselves with what AFC does and how we go about it. To use an analogy: If you don't know the right doors to knock on when trying to get into an illegal gambling den and you blunder into a sting operation, your rights are going to be severely curtailed. If a user starts creating garbage articles in mainspace, their privileges of creation are going to be severely curtailed. AFC gets it's mandate from a Wikimedia foundation requirement (see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation#Brief history). In the perfect world, all AfC submissions would be perfect on the first submission attempt. In reality, 90% of all AfC submissions are declined at least once. The Manual of Style has evolved so much that even experienced editors have trouble making sure they pass all the requirements.

I also note OP's submisssion of New Media Rights and Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/new media rights. The mainspace article already has several "problem templates" on it and appears to have been a "I know better so I'm going to ignore advice from others" submission from the AFC version. If the OP would have asked questions or attmepted to remedy the issues then the article wouldn't be under notice that it is not sufficent for mainspace.

The goal of AfC is to get a submission into such a state that it has a 50% or better chance at surviving a AfD discussion. Personally, I'm very much a hardass in terms of what I'll accept out of the AfC process. Other reviewers may accept at a lower level, but I try to get at least a 85 to 90% chance at surviving an AfD. It wastes New Page Patrollers time, it wastes volunteer time to sit down and evaluate the merits of the AfD discussion, and it wastes the time of Admins to evaluate the consensus of the AfD discussion and take action on the submission. Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Concerning my article if you had looked you would have seen that it was I who added those tags. My objective was to create a stub and get the article going, AFC prevented that. Additionally everything you stated about how great and wonderful AFC is, that is your opinion as a member and supporter of the group that is fine. As I said sticking to the issues: 1) Users need to bypass AFC and submit it to us so WE have the last say. 2) AFC has failed it's purpose in cutting down on SPAM, as most AFC submissions are by honest users. The SPAMMERs know better. Tyros1972 Talk 22:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• comment. As both a new page patroller and a content contributor, I'm a big fan of AfC. Writing articles is a lot harder than it was five or six years ago - not only because user expectations of a website have changed, but also because our standards for what content we accept has changed I can point to academic works if anyone wants to debate this Frankly, if I was starting off today I have no idea how long it would take me to be comfortable writing new articles. I have no idea if I'd even survive the process. Whatever AfCs limitations, I consider the fact that we have people willing to help newcomers improve their articles before they release them into the wild and get bitten A Good Thing. It makes my life easier as a content editor, because I have more people who understand how to write good articles. It makes my life easier as a new page patroller, because I have, well, better articles to review. AfC and its maintainers do not deserve our annoyance or anger, they deserve a round of applause. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

1) No reason to "trick" users and "lock them into the AFC process". 2) AFC should not have the final say, even if rejected the option to disagree and submit to us should be available period. 3) There is simply no evidence whatsoever to support that AFC's "pre moderating" has cut down on crap articles. That's why we have tags and help new editors. All AFC does is give the group power and take it away from us the community. Tyros1972 Talk 23:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where those scare-quotes are coming from, since I've never made those statements - nor do I agree with them. Users aren't tricked, nor are they locked in; people are free to create articles however they want, whatever AfC says. AfC doesn't have the final say, unless I've missed something - what's to stop the creator of a rejected AfC article flinging it straight to mainspace? There isn't any evidence to support the idea that pre-moderating has cut down on crap, it's true. But I haven't seen any evidence from you that it's increased it, or driven users away, or caused any problems. As the person making the assertion, the onus is on you to prove it. And given that AfC contributors can be, well, anyone, AfC and the community can effectively be synonymous. Ironholds (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the OP has any understanding of AfC whatsoever. Just like NPP (the WE that the OP keeps referring to) AfC is simply a group of editors monitoring article drafts from IPs. In most cases, the only difference is the fact that it's not officially implemented into MediaWiki. I have seen absolutely no evidence to backup the OPs statements and this is getting to the point of being a flame war. Unless the OP can come up with actual facts to prove what he is accusing the project of, I think this section should be closed. --Nathan2055 23:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ignorance is stopping the "new user" you don't provide this information, that all they need to do is copy and paste into the name space. Why is that? What is AFC afraid of? The user wizard is a very good idea for new users, but the whole pre-moderation is not. Users can test on user space or sandbox, they can get their advice in your IRC channel but AFC having the last say and NOT making an obvious, clear option for "new ignorant" user to do so is outright wrong. The evidence is that a user that has been on Wiki for 3 years and went to create a new article got locked into it. Surely this effect is far greater on a new user this is a no brainer. Attacking me personally and calling me views ignorant does not address the facts and concerns I have presented and not a vaild reason to close this section. Tyros1972 Talk 23:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It's rather a strawman argument, again, to claim that AFC has "failed" because spammers still submit to mainspace. First off, there are plenty of spammers who submit to AFC, despite your comments otherwise. Are they stellar-ninja-pro spammers? No, they're just blokes who think they can write up an ad for their window-washing service in small-town North Dakota and post it for the world to see with a glowing recommendation and cell-phone number. It goes to AFC, we can tag it properly and delete it before it enters article-space.

Also, you haven't rebutted the statement that AfC prevents turning off some users, in that it is somewhat less bitey than a CSD from NPP. There will always be some number of hurt feelings from people who can't stand one AfC decline, people who are writing poor articles about their boss or deceased uncle and are crushed we don't accept it, or decent folks who unfortunately just have a lot of trouble with getting an article together and get frustrated. But again, how are those folks going to be less upset when they "successfully" submit just to mainspace, only to have their article tagged to pieces and eventually deleted with no clear remediation? MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Tyros1972: I'm not attacking you personally. I'm attacking your platform. Comment on content, not contributors. Also, you were never locked into AfC. Just go create it in mainspace. The thing about stuffing mainspace creation in front of new users faces is that in AfC you get comments and help on your article. In mainspace you get issued a deletion notice. New users will obviously go for what gets their article in front of people faster, but that won't make them contributors. I was a host at the Teahouse during it's pilot phases, I deal with new user's comment son my talk every time I do any reviewing. I understand editor retention, and AfC has always given better results than NPP. Finally, you still haven't provided proof that anybody other than you is having these problems. --Nathan2055 01:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It is you who has failed to address any of the issues I have mentioned. Why must users who use the wizard have no option to disagree and post to wiki? Why does the AFC group feel that their pre-moderation some how contributes to SPAM? As for evidence anyone can go look at the frustration and concern about getting their articles rejected (perhaps for biased reasons) and not know they can bypass it. You have failed to address the issues I have pointed out and asked for IF AFC is kept. Give the users the ability to use the wizard but do make it an open option and the ability to disagree IF rejected and post it to the community. Tyros1972 Talk 01:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Matthew: You say "It goes to AFC, we can tag it properly and delete it before it enters article-space." That's wrong, and it's wrong in an important way. We generally tag articles like that, publish the tagged version as a declined AfC draft, and keep it forever, allowing it to be mirrored and valuable as a spamvertisement forever more. G13 has proven ineffective at making a dent in this. At some point, it would be better to simply give up on AfC if we're going to continue to permit this giant loophole for spammers. --j⚛e decker 14:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've said a lot about AfC from time to time, which I will summarize in one sentence: The insoluble problem with AfC is that the WP crowd sourcing method requires participation by multiple people to improve an article, but having just one random person give advice can work only when there's a very high probability that single person will be an expert, which is not the case at WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That is one of the best arguments I have heard. Very well stated DGG. Tyros1972 Talk 00:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:AFC is one of the best things we have here, if you don't like it, then fine, that's your choice and we can't do nothing about that.. But are you aware that we don't need AFC to create an article, rather create on manually and directly without the whole precess thing. Prabash.Akmeemana 11:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you read this discussion as I don't like to keep repeating myself, but as I said it is NOT obvious to users about using the name space. Also I fail to see why users are not permitted to use the wizard, and if rejected disagree and post it to Wiki. That is what I am asking for IF AFC must be kept as I think it is completely useless. Tyros1972 Talk 00:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment WP:Starting an article seems to be pretty clear about how to go about creating your own article. You said in your original statement that the article only gave you three options: Wizard, User Page or Sandbox. Well, I found this directly under the "How to create a page" section:

In the search box near the top right of a page, type the title of the new article, then click Go. If the Search page reports "There were no results matching the query. You may create the page...." followed by the article name in red, then you can click the red article name to start editing it. When you are done, press "Show preview" to take a look at how the page will appear. Try to fix any formatting errors, then press "Save page". Your article is now part of Misplaced Pages and may be edited by anyone.

It's clear that no review process takes place using this method. In regards to the Article Wizard, you said it's unclear about the namespace option but I don't see that. Under the "End" tab, it gives you the option to take it to AfC ("Create new article draft") or create it directly ("Create a new article directly"). Now, if you're arguing that WP:Starting an article doesn't make it clear that by using the Wizard you can submit an article directly to the namespace then I would agree with you because it states: "Create the article using the ‪Misplaced Pages:Article wizard‬. Your article will need to be reviewed before it goes 'live'". It doesn't mention the namespace option which should be changed. Otherwise, I really don't see where the confusion is. -- The Writer 2.0 03:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The second button at the "End" tab has been created two days ago after Tyros1972's comment, so he was right that the article wizard didn't provide the option to bypass the review process. The new button is an improvement; and I agree that a similar one (with a reminder about speedy deletion) should be added to the "Submission declined" template to allow new editors to bypass the review, given that abiding to it is not a requirement by policy. Let's keep our users informed on their rights, it's the ethical thing to do. Diego (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not looked into this but will when I get time, but that sounds like a step in the right direction. That is one of my main concerns about this, as you stated about "keeping ALL users informed of their rights" and that is what I failed to see. Instead I only saw the AFC group using deceit and locking the user into this "monarch" review process. If someone wants this and feels they need a possible "biased" opinion by a single person that's fine, but the issue is as DGG said best - you don't have the same input as AFD's have, you have 1 person deciding and that is outright dangerous. This is what is unfair about this who setup. Tyros1972 Talk 02:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a semi-regular at AfC, and am most active on the help desk. I've discussed problems with AfC recently on WT:WER - some of them are technical, some are social. However, to summarise to the specific incident here, I would like to make the following comments:

• In the case of the actual submission - Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/new media rights, I saw in-depth coverage in four sources, but was concerned two seemed to resemble press releases. Based on this, I thought the company's notability as presented in the source was tenuous and felt it could go either way at AfD unless I could find more sources. Given I'm not an expert on this topic, it becomes pretty easy for me to skip over this submission and leave it to somebody else. However, the younger and less experienced reviewers don't necessarily go through all this mental thought. When you consider the submission doesn't look that different (at least superficially) from a typical spamvertisment, it's not hard to see why somebody might decline it.
• I'm still not quite sure what Tyros1972's proposed change to the wizard procedure is. Is it simply the ability to skip the review and go straight to namespace. Sure, there's no reason you can't create stuff in mainspace, and I can tell you in the vast majority of submissions I reviewed, those articles would go straight to CSD, maybe AfD if you're lucky. You can then watch editor retention plummet like a stone as would-be editors say "hey, I created this article yesterday, where's it gone?", scratching their heads. AfD is newbie hostile, and anyone who thinks otherwise just has a thick skin from having been here long enough.
• Despite DGG's comment above, I would say the criteria for passing an article at AfC is quite simple - "Would you vote keep if this article turned up at AfD?" There are some special cases beyond the general guidelines, WP:NMUSIC and WP:NPROF being ones I am most familiar with, but they're not hard to grasp, if you hang out at AfD often enough.
• As stated on the WER thread, one of the key problems stems from new and inexperienced reviewers being quicker to accept or decline than more experienced hands. I suggested a possible fix is to make AfC reviewing a right at Requests for permissions, so you would not be allowed to review articles without a good understanding of our notability and verifiability.
• I don't particularly like canned responses with reviewing. Again, in the case of New Media Rights, I think a comment explaining the problem with the specific sources would be better received. You wouldn't start an AfD with a preloaded canned response, would you? I think we need to encourage more use of the "custom" decline box and reviewer comments, that explain specific problems to specific articles.
• Although I have my own criticisms of AfC, some of which I mentioned above, I think Tyros1972's anger at the system not doing what he expected have clouded his judgement a bit, and suggest he calms down and takes a deep breath, and chalks this one up as a bad experience. Ritchie333 10:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie333. Updating the article wizard to allow users to bypass the review process and even potentially allowing users to bypass declines would be great ideas. I'll look into trying to implement them later today. But, to the OP, I still believe he may have over thought this one. Let's calm down, move this over to WT:AFC, and start prototyping ways to make this better. --Nathan2055 15:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That will satisfy me personally, again I am not happy on AFC Review Process at all - but if it is kept then this will work fine. I don't see any problems with adding a possible warning about speedy delete etc. I think that's fair as well. To quickly comment on Ritchie333 the rejection of my stub is not an issue here and you said it best when you admitted you are not an expert on the subject. This is the concern I have, I should state I have been a little "hard" on the good intentions of the AFC Group, it is just the concern of the possible abuses that it can have (i.e. not all members are honest or fair) and if anyone brings up the "assume good faith" that isn't talking about common sense, I believe that is talking about editors. Tyros1972 Talk 02:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as a footnote, the user who declined your AfC submission, Techatology (talk · contribs) has been indeffed for sockpuppetry, so I really think you just got a bad apple on this one. An RFC has been opened, and I would like to propose that reviewing becomes a requestable right that requires a level of competence. Ritchie333 08:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That is evidence right there proving the danger and abuse of AFC, what more can you get? To assume all AFC members are honest and not bias is outright foolish. This is just 1 bad apple but the potential for abuse goes well beyond that. The only way to fix it is give user the option to post directly to wiki skipping the review, if they wish to submit and it is rejected to once again disagree and post. Otherwise it is dangerous and can ruin what wiki is. No one but the community should have the final say on if an article is notable that's why we have AFD.Tyros1972 Talk 00:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG but I'd also add that AFC is a much harsher environment for article creators because a lone person can decline on much more deletionist grounds than via speedy deletion. Some AFC declines appear to me to be on the basis that one person thinks that an article would probably be deleted at AFD - some articles get declined simply for being unsourced even if they are not BLPs. If the same articles had gone straight into mainspace then unsourced BLPs would get a sticky prod, but otherwise simply being unsourced is not a deletion criteria. My preference would be that we simplify our processes and feed AFC articles into mainspace - but make them all no index till they are patrolled. Then define the unpatrolled ones as some sort of draft article status that have not yet been accepted into the pedia. That way you please both sides - you rise the minimum standard of what we accept into the pedia and get a better, politer and more accurate process for new submissons. ϢereSpielChequers 19:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I was considering making a comment about a single editor deciding that something does not belong, but you covered that. I have seen thousands of articles in the area of buildings by going through and adding categories. While a small percentage, the number of unreferenced single sentence articles is noticeable. I have tended to not nominate these for deletion since most hospitals, lighthouses and so on are likely to be notable. Many of these could be tagged for deletion and would probably survive, yea, DGG may be surprised that I don't nominate the lot. But these made it into the main namespace and are not being deleted. So why are we preventing articles that are better written and sourced from getting into the main name space? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Another change AFC needs in addition to what we discussed, is a the backlog for unreviewed articles should NOT sit there forever until someone gets around to it. If an article remains in queue for 7 days it should go back to the author to decide to resubmit or to post it. The advantage to this is priority and that AFC members need to keep up with their backlog and not just ignore it. If the work becomes overwhelming as I said get rid of the whole process altogether. I won't specify that i think 7 days is best limit, I am open to whatever works but it should be forever the way it is now. Tyros1972 Talk 00:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• The criteria for rejection on notability ground (or others) should not be that the reviewer thinks it doesn't qualify, since it's way too subjective, it should instead be that the reviewer think that it would be uncontroversially deleted at AFD on such grounds, which is already much more objective. Opinions are way too divergent at AFD, setting the bar higher or fully relying on the reviewer's discretion isn't proper in a process where only one user makes the call (same reasoning as for CSD and prod). Cenarium (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Dipping back into this soapbox fest I'll answer a few questions:

1. If the submiter makes a concerted effort to remedy the issues raised with the previous review, it's an unwritten rule that a different reviewer gets to review it. If the submitter re-submits with trivial changes that do not address the issue, the same reviewer is able to re-decline the submission
2. Individual reviewers reputations are on the line, so some reviewers demand a lot from submissions before they will accept a article into mainspace.
3. Auto-promoting submissions out of AfC space into mainspace is a non-starter. If that were to occur then all that would need to occur is for an IP to wait and then by default, get a bad article into mainspace, effectively neutering any purpose for AfC. There have been cases where AfC was up to 3~4 weeks in backlog of reviews. We try to work the backlog according to age. Currently there's no backlog because of a backlog elimination drive.
4. We give submitters plenty of time to make attempts to improve a potential article before we read the CSD:G13 rights over it. Currently I'm working on a backlog back to November of 2008 and cleaning out submissions that were edited well out side the 6 months period. If a drive by IP or editor randomly tosses something at the wall, how long are we supposed to look at it before we can clean it off the wall?
5. The criteria I tend to use looks at all the potential reasons why a submission might be put up for AfD. 90% of the submissions would never pass muster at deletion discussions, yet we're being encouraged to create more work for New Page Patrollers, and contributers at AfD.

I encourage all editors who want to disarm AfC to take a walk in the shoes of a AfC patroller before they make any further disarming suggestions. Hasteur (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a very nice promotion but fails to address ANY of the concerns and abuses. Additionally you are getting into "rankings now" what is this a web forum, with various levels? if anything should show the bad intentions of AFC it is total power hungry statments like proposed by Hasteur. Obviously his basis is "let AFC control everything and have various ranks of power etc.". My artcle was rejected by someone who was banned for socketing, that is 1 example of the abuse and danger this proposes. Wiki was never started to give a certain group "control" and "power" and various rankings to what articles are allowed on wiki by using "speedy deletion" and other scare tactics, remember we have tags and don't delete articles just because they aren't "perfect". AFD is wiki that is a fact however flawed it maybe, AFC is not it is a group trying to control articles on wiki. Tyros1972 Talk 11:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I just had a quick look at the AFC wizard, the only thing changed is an option for experienced editors to bypass into the search box. I don't see how this helps much? AFC still has their full power, no option to "reject" an article as I have tested with Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/test07113 only a "resubmit" etc. Tyros1972 Talk 12:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse the comments of Tyros1972. The title Articles for Creation seems quite Orwellian in that the process is about preventing creation rather than facilitating it. It should be retitled Articles for Rejection to better describe what happens there. Warden (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Warden, it's nice to see people with common sense.

• I have to agree with Hasteur's comments. I think you've made your point loud and clear Tyros1972 - you hate AfC. We get that. Please don't accuse other editors of being "power mad" - there's nothing stopping you from accepting or rejecting AfC submissions as well, is there? You can either help us fix AfC so it sucks less, or you can carry on shouting about how awful it is, but I fear the more you do, the less people will listen. I think you'll just have to come to terms that not everyone is in 100% agreement with your viewpoint, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 09:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• CommentThat's not all true, I like AFC and like to see it remain but unless you can allow users to disagree and post freely, I would rather see it gone. The wizard is a wonderful piece of software, but it is so crippled that if anyone uses it they are NOT allow to bypass review. Also AFC's rules and standards greatly vary from wiki, there is only 1 admin making the decisions etc. Simply having the options as I suggested would make it perfect, an "option based on wanting help" not an "option based on deceit and locking users in". Don't say I am not contributing to AFC, I have told you how to fix it since it is broke and you are refusing to change. You are running it like a private old bbs or message forum, which is fine if it wasn't wiki related! Tyros1972 Talk 09:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear editors: As a regular contributor at Afc, over the past three weeks I have reviewed about 180 articles and made improvements to about 30 more that were reviewed by others. Of these there were 2 hoaxes, 3 tests, 4 redundant, 4 not in English, 3 POV, 2 very confusing, 10 blank, 16 spam and 19 copyright violations (These 19 were deleted for legal reasons, not at the whim of the Afc).

Of the remaining, over half were people writing about themselves or their own books, bands, businesses, movies, etc. That's okay in the Afc, though, because we make sure that the articles are toned down and the references independent even though it sometimes takes a fair amount of convincing before they give up calling themselves “amazing” and “world famous”. I declined about 50 of these as “not demonstrating notability” and left an individual message for each to distinguish between those that really did not meet the guidelines and those who just needed to show it in the text and references.

I declined another 40 or so as “improperly sourced”. About half of these had no sources or just a link to the company or band web site. I left an individual message for each of these explaining what kind of references were needed.

On any of the above articles that I thought had a chance of ever being in mainspace I spent some time straightening paragraphs, adding reflists, creating appropriate sections, etc.

I accepted 15 articles and six others that I improved were then accepted by other reviewers. Only two of these were ready for mainspace before I or other Afc editors fixed them up. These articles were NOT required to be perfect, only to pass minimum Misplaced Pages policies of notability, not copyvio, independent sources, not spam, etc. You should read the complaints we get if someone sends an article out without these minimums!

Aside from two days in a tent at a bluegrass festival with no internet access, I have worked for several hours every day this month doing this and after all of this work I am disheartened and indignant to read that a number of editors feel that I am power hungry and am helping to ruin the encyclopedia. It is especially irksome to be told this by an editor who:

• arrived at Afc, which is intended for brand new users or those wanting a review, accidentally through misreading instructions
• had his article declined as needing more independent sources (nonprofit organization's own web site, one interview with the founder, one press release, and a link to the site of a company whose business is publicizing nonprofits)
• received two notices inviting him to the project help page and the teahouse if he had any problem
• chose not to go to one of these help pages and ask “ My article seems to be in the Afc, but I don't want a review. How do I move my article?”, as any autoconfirmed user could do
• chose not to assume good faith and start a reasonable discussion about whether page creation or Afc instructions need clarification
• chose instead to go on a rant accusing a whole group of hard working editors of ruining the encyclopedia, and keep it up for two weeks, still using inflammatory language today.

Now I will go back to trying help new users improve their articles so that they won't be deleted when they hit mainspace and stop feeding this discussion. If there's any kind of consensus that effects my work, somebody let me know.... —Anne Delong (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Anne, your work and dedication at AfC is exemplary, let's be quite clear about that. I don't even 'work' at AfC, but I do make 100s of the physical deletions when required, so I'm well aware of what goes on. Misplaced Pages maintenance areas are a magnet to new, young, and/or inexperienced editors - that's the immediate problem and the one around which some consensus appears to be forming. Other than that, this thread appears to be going nowhere, and I suggest that the experienced core AfC participants launch an RfC to introduce some minimum thresholds of competency for reviewing pages. There has recently been some serious abuse of the AfC system, and other reviewers are now being called to account on admin noticeboards for their quality of reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Where to go from here?

First, I will repeat my original statement that the title of this section by the OP is a wild exaggeration. Articles for Creation has problems. However, it doesn't prevent the creation of articles in user space, which is the usual approach taken by many experienced editors. I see two parallel paths from here. The first is changes to how Articles for Creation work, such as discouraging new editors from reviewing Articles for Creation. The second is an RFC concerning the extent to which to push editors into using Articles for Creation or to push editors into editing in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I will repeat mine, the title is very serious as it is harming wiki and the more power AFC gains the more damage it will create. AFC and Wiki have 2 totally different standards, this should not be. AFC is based on a single reviewer, wiki is not. The main fact you trick users into using it and never let them disagree and post etc. AFC is broke and it needs to be fixed or removed. Tyros1972 Talk 09:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we're going round in circles, but I'll summarise where I'm going:

• I've contributed to an RFC to reform the AfC process
• I've overturned quite a few declined AfC submissions where I don't agree with the decision
• I've hauled a reviewer whose quality is perceived to be problematic up to ANI for a potential, and unpleasant, banning
• I continue to hang out on the help desk and answer questions about submissions - the vast majority of which are "Why was my article declined?"

I think in any reasonable terms that I could be described as "doing something about it." The only other thing I would add is maybe making the links to the Help Desk or the Reviewer's talk page more obvious, ideally with equal prominence to the "Resubmit" button. If your submission is rejected, you should find it quick and easy to get help.

As far as this discussion goes, it looks like it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass all round, to be frank. Ritchie333 12:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, where to go from here is quite clear. When I co-initiated the massive campaign to clean up NPP a couple of years ago (that was why the WMF gave us the Curation tool) I had no idea how much worse AfC is. What I have learned about it over the last few weeks has made my hair stand on end. Allowing all these youngsters and totally inexperienced users (and it's a fair guess that some of them are not even native speakers) to mess with something as delicate as reviewing submitted articles is sheer insanity especially when PC Reviewers and Rollbackers need a special user right. Of course, the AfC project is partly to blame through its own aggressive campaigning for reviewers, and now something has to be done. First steps are a thorough vetting of all the users who are regularly involved in the process and rather than taking on the monumental task of trying to train them, show the under-performers the door like Ritchie and Hasteur have been doing when I've brought some issues to light. Next step is to get a task-force together to craft up some minimum criteria for experience and then apply them rigorously, and then clone the new WP:CVUA school I made into a similar version for AfC reviewers. It's a bit late for me to do anything about AfC at Wikimania in just over a week's time (although I haven't taken a close look at the programme yet), but if I do get a chance, I'll certainly speak about it as loudly as possible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WMF intends for Only VisualEditor to be usable on Talk pages.

Just a quick update: It would seem Jorm was acting on his own here, though no explanation has yet appeared as to why he was allowed to make statements about VE being the only editor for use in Flow, repeatedly and consistently up to the time the scandal broke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor&diff=prev&oldid=564282164

What. The. Fuck.

Was anyone consulted on this? What if you want to quote text from the article on the talk page? Or wanted to use templates?

Not to mention how many bots will need recoded. Goodbye auto-archiving bots. Goodbye the bot that handles Good article promotions.

Goodbye to this noticeboard having the same format used for discussions elsewhere.

Is the WMF insane? Adam Cuerden 22:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read the information about Flow, you will discover that most of this is wrong. Jorm has designed header space to permit templates (e.g., WikiProject banners) and other templates at the top of the page. Flow has its own built-in "archiving" system, so auto-archiving bots will simply be obsolete. The GA bot can be replaced by a Flow-based workflow, or it can edit the header space at the top of the page. Noticeboards will be capable of having the same format as all the other discussions (although those of you who hate scrolling through a dozen screenfuls in search of a couple of new comments will probably appreciate the option to collapse read messages, so that only the new ones will take up much space on your screen). The discussions will also be able to use more complex workflows, such as automatically knowing when the AFD is supposed to get closed. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as it is at least as quick as the non-VE environment, I can live with the clarification above. Right now, it is like molasses and I dread to think what it does for people in developing nations who have poor connections and/or people using mobile. Needless to say, I've turned it off for now. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The question remains, will it support full-featured wikitext, with inline templates, images, image galleries and the rest? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• If it is as slow as VE, I don't want it. I'd rather not edit talk pages. I'm on a pisspoor connection half the time, and anything that makes loading even slower essentially has the effect of making editing unbearable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Re the comment above, I concur. I've only not succeeded in avoiding being shunted into VE a few times, but I did not enjoy those few slow and painful VE editing experiences. I've made 55,000+ edits on WP, all but a tiny percentage of which were done from locations in the Philippines which are remote from international gateways and using connections which would be considered pisspoor by the standards of those who are accustomed to high-BW near-backbone access. WMF developers and policymakers (not only WM -- the entire IT industry) ought to be forced to use artificially BW-limited connections before deciding what to force on others who must use such connections. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. I was just reading about the Chromebook Pixel... a nightmare... that would not be practical in Indonesia, at all. Let's not make the gap between "first world" and "third world" country representation in Misplaced Pages even worse. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This does seem to be a bit of a sidestep, Whatamidoing. Supporting templates in a talk page header at the top is not remotely equivalent to supporting templates in messages directly. There's also the fact that we were told that the standard method of editing would not be disabled, and this brings the veracity of that statement into question. I don't want to use the Visual Editor. That's why I disable it. That shouldn't mean that I can't discuss things with other editors. The main header seems to be quite accurate: Jorm does not intend for us to be able to create messages as Wikitext. That's unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 00:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Look - one thing we know for sure is that Flow needs to be designed with the VisualEditor and HTML5 first and foremost in mind. We can't design it around all the legacy assumptions and affordances of wikitext. That doesn't mean that some kind of source or markup mode is necessarily impossible, but it may be different "under the hood" than wikitext as we know it. We definitely want to make sure that you can continue to post to Flow boards with older browsers, and since VisualEditor doesn't support them, we'll likely have to provide a fallback mode.

As for templates, one of the goals of Flow is to offer a more user-friendly method than {{subst:}}ing templates into talk pages for leaving standard messages or enabling more complex workflows. That doesn't mean that templates within a Flow message will necessarily be unavailable (clearly some support for templates will be required), but we want to make sure that we can offer intuitive interfaces for the most common and most important tasks without forcing users to manually find the right templates.

Flow is still in the prototyping stage, and we're continuing to analyze these use cases. As we do so, some requirements will increase in priority and others will be dropped. But Flow will representa big and dramatic shift from talk pages as we know them, and we want to make sure that we let users know early that change is coming.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Arguably the worst problem with current talk pages is dealing with edit conflicts. If the new editor isn't going to fix this, why bother? If dealing with edit conflicts will be harder, the new editor is a non-starter. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflicts in Flow won't be a problem. That's not a function of the editor, however; it's an artifact of how the Flow board gets constructed.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to be listening, Jorm. Your highest priority should be to be fully compatible with both VE and raw wikitext editing. Visual Editor is not generally recognized as an improvement, and will never be universally recognized as an improvement. I disable it. I doubt that I will ever enable them except for debugging user problems. I don't want VE buttons. When I disable VE, I intend to disable VE for all functions universally, including discussion. I expect you to honour that.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Jorm. "Legacy assumptions and affordances of wikitext"... You're not helping your position here. That's possibly the worst thing you could have said. Judging from how you've characterized this, and from how the VE debacle has gone, if the Foundation is trying to alienate existing users and cripple current Misplaced Pages functionality, then it's on the right track. Offer new things as options. Don't pull the rug out from everyone already working here, and don't take away the features that editors are already capable of using. That would not be an improvement by any rational standard. postdlf (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost, Flow should be designed with consideration of the functional requirements and usability needs of present users and potential new users. Those requirements are many and vary across a wide array usage patterns and experience levels. Once we decide what it needs to be able to do, then we can discuss about what technology should be used, and whether it should leverage new technology (e.g. VE), old technology (e.g. wikitext), or a combination of the two. The application should lead to the choice of technology, rather than the technology defining the application. Dragons flight (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with that. However, minimal functional requirements include the ability to copy sections between articles and Flow messages (including sections with formulas and templates), the ability to edit such on the Flow side, and that the rendering should be the same in articles and in Flow messages. I don't see Jorm considering that as even desirable, while most of us think it is a requirement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, he's development staff, right? An employee, not a spokesperson or board member, so it isn't clear how his goals or set or if he's just running unsupervised under some broad directive or misspeaking. Who does he report to? There needs to be some kind of WP community resolution directed to the Foundation board or some formal channel of communication set up so we're not just shouting at each other about how all of these software changes seem to be made without any regard for current functionality or the concerns of the community. postdlf (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am absolutely opposed to this and wish that WMF would quit screwing around with the interface as if they were MS Word. Bad behavior is the core of every problem Misplaced Pages has, and a "better" interface isn't going to fix any of those. And never mind that at least for me the new interface is worse. Mangoe (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Jorm, will you please make a binding commitment to this community, here, that activities like the following will remain possible in user talk space:
  1. Creating a mock-up of a paragraph of an article, in order to discuss an intended edit, by copying over material from an article, and keeping it editable for participants in the discussion;
  2. Creating a mock-up of an infobox or a table in a similar way;
  3. Creating and discussing a list of references, by copying the "<ref>" items out from an article and creating an ad-hoc <references> section on the talkpage;
  4. Creating an image gallery;
  5. Inspecting the contribution history of an editor in user space, previewing each of their contributions in a manner that is at least as quick and simple as the hover-over offered by the present navigation popup scripts, and generating citable diffs for each contribution.

  Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Another issue, in addition to those raised by Fut.Perf., is whether it will be possible to "watch" the equivalent of a user talk page for a problem user. mw:Flow Portal/Basic information#User subscription and permissions suggests that if user X subscribes to user Y's board, then Y is notified, and Y has to approve X's subscription. I asked about that on 11 June 2013 at WT:FLOW but received no clarification. There are plenty of good reasons, totally unrelated to stalking, to monitor some users, and notifying or asking permission are both very inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That is very concerning. Also, wouldn't one have to not be blocked to accept it? How can we watchlist pages of users we've blocked to see if they make an unblock request? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  There is a major problem with the approach taken by the Flow development - they're designing for a limited set of use cases; every use case not explicitly predicted by the developers will not be supported and either difficult or completely impossible to achieve.

  The power of Wiki software is the flexibility it provides - a set simple tools that can be combined to every workflow, Unix-style. The project's community has relied for the past years in this to construct and update their processes. But the new GUIs are being developed with only the needs of new users in mind, without a fallback to keep the existing the workflows working. Every time an experienced user asks "what about case X?", developers say "sure we can add that" - but how they will manage to support every possible case that is possible and actively depended upon now? Diego (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq and Crisco 1492: See mw:Thread:Talk:Flow_Portal/Basic_information/User_subscription_and_permissions/reply_(6) - That "subscribe" feature is just an "exploration", a conceptual possibility. As with a lot of the documentation, there's a lot of ideas that aren't rigid descriptions of the 'way things will be', but rather a set of notes on 'the features that might be possible' (and/or that might be applicable to Sister projects, or other mediawiki installations). –Quiddity (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have a positive image of LiquidThreads, but I didn’t see anything but a traffic overhead and glitches from Visual Editor. The day I loose an ability to speak wikicode in talk pages will become my last day in this (or whatever) wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with the feelings above. "We can't design it around all the legacy assumptions and affordances of wikitext." - Well, Jorm, you must design it around legacy assumptions and wikitext, unless of course you just want to throw the whole idea of Wikipedia in the rubbish bin. Please don't break what already works, and especially don't throw it down users' throats. -- cyclopia 14:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I had intended to support VE up to and until this occurs. Now that the option for standard editing is set to be removed, I am withdrawing my full and complete support from this nightmare of a project. --Nathan2055 15:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• At least, I'd like to see the Flow pages implemented as a separate namespace (like Flow:), so that we who want to remain with the stable, fully functional and extensible WikiML environment can do so easily. There would be a temporary dichotomy, with talk going on in both namespaces. I'm sure we will be more likely to slowly try using Flow if we can do so at our leisure instead of having it forced upon us. Eventually, if it's better, everyone will move to it and the temporary dichotomy will disappear. Personally, I'm not interested in helping debug new features – I've done way too much of that in my life – I'd rather spend the time on actual article work. I don't mind adapting to new technology once it's stable. —— 17:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• No no no no no no no Oppose to VE-only talk pages.

Flow is replacing talk pages

Jorm (WMF) said "the only editor for Flow will be the VisualEditor".

Ergo, the only way to edit talk pages will be Visual editor, and it is at best a completely ignorant mistake to say otherwise. That some templates will be enabled for some parts of the page does not fix the very serious problem that for editors who know wiki mark up, VE is less useful than a sack of dung (because the dung could at least be used for fertilizer!). Whatamidoing (WMF) misses the point there, and all the advertising for Flow doesn't address that core problem.

Jorm (WMF) seems dismissive of the idea of allowing the older method of editing to remain: "We can't design it around all the legacy assumptions and affordances of wikitext." And yet, when asked if Flow will allow native code, Jorm (WMF) told Patrick87 "You'll have to talk to the VisualEditor team about their functionality, I'm afraid." So, he's gonna force something on us that he doesn't have control over? That's responsible?

Do the WMFs just not listen to anything people say anymore? Do they not care at all about the mainstay editors? Or are they more concerned about making changes to look like they're doing something? This is not Facebook, we don't need to have constant change for the sake of change, we don't need to screw over the people who know what they're doing to help the people who might not even edit or edit positively with a more idiot-friendly interface. Misplaced Pages's problem isn't that my granddad isn't editing, it's that a lot of people seriously believe you don't need to cite sources, don't know how to find reliable sources, or cannot distinguish between their own POVs and "the Truth(tm)". The first might be fixed through requiring citations for any information over a certain size, the second through having a Google books search prompt for such edits, and the third can only be fixed by public education. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• You need to support full featured markup. To give a common example, when you're designing Lua or template markup for one or several other editors, you want to be able to post the raw #invoke and/or template code to the talk page thread so that people see what the output looks like, and it should look the same as it will in an article once it's used there. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• If true, Oppose and I hope it is not true. If this goes into effect, someone needs to update policy and guidelines requiring talk page discussions since many editors, admins included, will have a valid reason for not using talk pages. I may try VE again in about 5 years to see if they have something useable. But given the piece of $%^*((^$#^ I saw every time I tried to use it, proposals like this appear to be extremely misguided. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose but I suspect that yet again the established user base will be ignored. Can you imagine all the automated tools that will rendered useless by this? "Well, they will have to be rewritten" is not an answer. I really enjoy working on stuff round here, but this may be the end of the road for me.--ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Get the word out, if enough users complain here, Village policy (technical), WP:VisualEditor, WP:Flow, (and when he comes back, Jimbo's talk page about the WMF speaking out of both sides of their mouths) someone has to listen. If that doesn't go through, we have to change our signatures to include profanity directed at VE and Flow, even if we have to start manually signing. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I pointed out at WP:VisualEditor that Flow will force all editors to use VE on talk pages, and I was reverted and accused of making bad-faith false edits. WMF has no idea what they're doing, and we need to make it known to them. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't want to be precipitous – I will need to see the end result – but it's not unlikely this will force me to leave Misplaced Pages. I wonder what it would cost Misplaced Pages to hire someone like me to make 65,000 mostly non-automated edits, and if there are many people in the pipeline at all who will do so voluntarily after I and others like me are driven away. I doubt I'll be alone.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Only 65,000? No negative in this comment since you are well above the norm and thank you for that. I'm someplace north of 200,000. Even when I use some automation to assist, I try and glance at the article and see what else might need touching up. There are a lot that bots don't see or cases where a human actually needs to look at something to decide that a change probably should be made. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

If the WFM are going to force VE and Flow everywhere (it says just on talk pages, but give it time), then good luck finding editors to replace the ones that are going to leave. I've tried VE a few times and it's still a pain to use, though it thankfully no longer takes ten seconds to load if I accidentally click edit instead of edit source. Wizardman 22:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose- Terrible, terrible idea. I turned VE off because using it was a tedious ordeal and I do not want it imposed on me anywhere without an opt-out. Reyk _YO! 23:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - The talk page system right now is fine. Please don't mess with it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, because replacing a working system with a new system written from scratch is the worst strategic mistake you can make in software design. The new tool will take ages to be as powerful and flexible as the old one (if it ever reaches that level). Make the new tool backwards compatible with the old one. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

WMF Statement

We've just added a question about this to the FAQ for Visual Editor. Brandon read and approved the text, just to head off that question.  :-) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That didn't say much. Can you give us an example of a messaging feature that it would be reasonable to deprive someone of because they aren't willing or able to use VE?—Kww(talk) 04:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but many people here are technically skilled and saying "there are no plans to disable the wikitext editor" without elaboration is not helpful. Is this saying there will be an "edit wikitext" button next to each post, or that there will be a way for a "no script" editor to comment in a separate section, or what? We understand that there is no product yet, but surely it is time to prepare some plans with more meat than what appears at WP:FLOW. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

And, if I found what you are talking about, that is the problem. The statement is in gibberish and not simple English!

Q: Will the current editor and supporting tools be available forever?

A: Yes.

Now how about adding something like that? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It might help if you defined "forever". For the foreseeable future? As far as the WMF can see, which is a period measured in years rather than months or centuries, yes. Until the heat death of the universe? No. Will the 2002 editor be available when the world wide web itself is superseded? I doubt it. Will it last until you're dead? Maybe. Will it be in use one or two hundred years from now? Who knows? Who knows if it would even be wanted then? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This piece of non-denial denial is very far from sufficient to allay the concerns raised here. So, "to get the benefit of all the features of Flow, you'll need to use VE"? That implies we'll be confronted with a choice, of either using VE or having our means of user-space communication reduced to something that lacks important "features". So, please elaborate, what "features" of the Flow system would these be that non-VE users would not benefit from?

I'd also still like an answer to my question in the thread above. I'll put it in a simplified form here again: will it be possible to copy-and-paste feature-rich text including wiki-markup, ref footnotes, tables and templates between articles, Flow messages and traditional talkpages? Apparently VE can't do that even between article pages right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone knows how many or which features will be editor-dependent. There are also features that will only work if Javascript works for you, which is separate but related (because VisualEditor requires Javascript to work). However, I'll give you a plausible guess at a feature that might work with VE and definitely won't work without it: VisualEditor might (someday) make it possible for you to copy text from a non-WMF webpage and retain formatting (e.g., to copy a pre-formatted bibliographic citation off another website, and keep the title italicized or the URL linked automatically). That feature does not exist in the 2002 editor, and is extremely unlikely to be added there. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

And that would be an editor feature, not a flow feature. I don't think anyone is complaining or questioning that kind of thing. What keeps being implied is that there will be messaging features that will only be available to VE users and that our ability to use wikitext in messages will be limited (accompanied with vague statements about templates). Again, what I would like to see out of WMF on this topic is something along the lines of WMF recognizes that it has assured the English Misplaced Pages community that current wikitext will be supported, and that the use of the Visual Editor will not be made mandatory. No version of Flow will ever be released for use on English Misplaced Pages until it has full and complete support of wikitext and does not rely on the Visual Editor for any portion of its functionality. That's such a simple assurance to make. Why won't WMF make it?—Kww(talk) 17:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Kww, you're actually asking for a reassurance that extends until the heat death of the universe ("no version of Flow will ever be released..."). Don't you think it would be irresponsible for them to make promises that they realistically have no ability to meet? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF):: So strike the "ever", and restrict the promise to the initial release. WMF recognizes that it has assured the English Misplaced Pages community that current wikitext will be supported, and that the use of the Visual Editor will not be made mandatory. Flow will not be released for use on English Misplaced Pages until it has full and complete support of wikitext and does not rely on the Visual Editor for any portion of its functionality.. I think that eliminates any "heat-death-of-the-universe" complaints.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It's been three days since a response from the WMF. I don't care how you form it. I don't care what legalese is in it. I just want to be reassured that Flow will NOT be pushed until it has full wikitext support. This is one of those little things that will cause many big editors to leave, and I don't see what communication tool is worth that. --Nathan2055 16:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nathan2055 and Kww: The short answer: You'll be able to use wikitext in Flow, but not necessarily every single feature of it, and it won't be the default experience when posting or editing a comment. It's self-evident that some support for templates will be needed. Where we can improve upon template-based workflows, we will seek to do so.

The longer answer: As part of the development of VisualEditor, we're overhauling some of the foundations of our software. A new parser, Parsoid, is already in use to round-trip wikitext to HTML5 for use in VisualEditor. The Parsoid team is investigating the development of an HTML5-based templating system, as well. For Flow, we're assessing HTML5-native storage of comments as an alternative (or complement) to wikitext storage. In such a scenario, we can still support wikitext, using Parsoid to process it. However, there are aspects of wikitext that are pretty problematic to support well in any visual editing mode (e.g. the ability to basically add inline CSS anywhere, or to insert templates that produced unbalanced HTML), and we may need to restrict some of these aspects of wikitext input to future-proof Flow from the start. We may also not be able to support every single feature of wikitext. Similarly, we may not end up using the existing wikitext editor (the one you used to post here), but a source editor that's integrated with the VisualEditor/Flow codebase.

All of these architectural question are still under discussion. This comment hopefully makes clear that there are complex trade-offs involved. We do want to work under the assumption that the vast majority of users will want to use the VisualEditor mode to compose comments/replies. Before you reject that hypothesis, keep in mind that comments are both typically simpler in nature than articles and typically shorter, and that each comment represents a new document, whereas VisualEditor adoption on existing articles is hampered by their length and markup complexity. Performance issues in VisualEditor on large documents will be less relevant in the context of composing a new comment or response; in fact, we should be able to create a much more responsive experience than wikitext due to time saved that's currently used on reloading the entire page, positioning your cursor, indenting each paragraph, and signing your comment.

That said, as stated before, we recognize the need to provide a fallback mode, if only because VisualEditor will only work in recent browsers. Jorm's comments need to be understood in this context: Flow is being built on the most recent technological foundations (VisualEditor/Parsoid); it needs to be future-proof from the beginning. That doesn't however support some of the conclusions that have been drawn. And once again, Flow is still in the early prototype stage, and part of the point of Brandon and others talking about early is to identify precisely the areas of contention so we can communicate now rather than when the code has been written. :-)--Eloquence* 08:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a welcome clarification of the Foundation's vision on Flow, Erik. It would have been even better if it have been provided from the start, way before announcing that the WMF intends Flow to be a complete replacement for Talk pages as a fait accompli.

As a matter fact, in some of the interactions with the developers involved with Flow, they have been quite dismissive of the wikipedians' requests to support backwards compatibility with the current system and several of the advanced functions that veteran editors use in a routine basis. The initial focus on supporting mainly newcomers' use cases, and the current approach to creating a brand new tool from scratch instead of building it on top of the existing platform, still leave a lot of uncertainty on how well Flow will be able to support the flexibility that we've grown accustomed to.

It would be great if you could clarify to what degree the WMF plans to support the various fallback modes to make them compatible with as much of current community practices as possible. The guys from Parsoid indeed seem to be taking great care to provide full backwards compatibility with the existing corpus of content, but as of today it's unclear how that extends to the user-friendly tools planned to be built on top of that. Diego (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Eloquence, you are starting from false assumptions. At this point, roughly 90% of edits are made using the source editor. WMF's own studies have shown that new editors are 43% less likely to complete an edit with the source editor than with the wikitext editor. Your comment that talk page messages are shorter is true: that will mitigate the problems introduced by using that editor, but it will not change the fact that even a year from now, there is little reason to believe that most Misplaced Pages editors will be comfortable using VE. Most of us will have shut it off and never looked back.

The assumption you should work under is that individual editors will be pretty much wedded to their editing style of choice. There will be a small population of younger editors comfortable with the Visual Editor, but most of us won't use it. Those of use that use wikitext will continue to use wikitext. We aren't something to fall back to or to think of as the past, we are and will be the largest group of editors.

If you need to make a basic restriction such as "each message will be balanced", great. If there are other things that are difficult to support in any "visual based editing mode", well, fine. Except for the period when an actual message is being created (which can be done in a frame or subwindow of some kine), there's no driving pressure to have a "visual based editing mode".—Kww(talk) 14:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but by now there are two things that should be said by WMF representatives: 1) "We're sorry..." and 2) "We have learned that .". Otherwise we get the idea that WMF has learned nothing and there is still some sort of "groupthink" that prevents you from seeing flaws of your work.

Just think about it! "VisualEditor"! How could WMF turn that to such a disaster? For example, I have told some editors of Lithuanian Misplaced Pages about Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/RFC (no, it is not canvassing - they didn't participate, nor did I expect them to). The first reaction was more-or-less "What do you dislike in it? Well, it is not the most necessary thing, but it won't make much harm...". And afterwards: "OK, I have found the answer in that link..."...

That is one reason why you didn't get much criticism before the deployment - no one expected that the project will be developed badly, deployed in the way that is worse, and "defended" in the way that can completely infuriate even someone who was mostly indifferent.

So, you (WMF) have failed with a simple project ("VisualEditor"). And now you want us to trust that you will not fail miserably with "Flow", that is going to be much more difficult..? You have already been told the requirements that must be achieved whatever the cost, and you create an impression that you do not even intend to try to do so that hard...

So, do you have a plan? How will you know that the project is a failure and what are you going to do if (when?) you will find that out? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

General comment

Myself, I oppose the implementation of the VisualEditor (or anything similar to it) anywhere on Misplaced Pages. My reason is simple: it is a magnet for stupid people. If somebody can't learn the editing of infoboxes or citation templates, that person is extremely unlikely to be capable of organising information within an article well, determining what is and isn't trivia, keeping in mind Misplaced Pages's vast ], or understanding Misplaced Pages's numerous policies and guidelines. Misplaced Pages is becoming flooded with people who can't be bothered to use either the "Show preview" or "Show changes" button, and this is the result: . Toccata quarta (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Toccata quarta.

VisualEditor doesn't have a 'Show preview' button. The whole thing is a preview.

What happened here is that someone tried to blank a section. He managed to remove everything except the blank line where the header used to be. You have probably experienced the same thing in a word processor: You remove the words, but the font, formatting, and other style settings stay there, so when you start typing again, it's not what you were after. There's a bug report for that, but it's not really the user's fault that he didn't know that the section heading style would be preserved unless he took careful steps to prevent it—just like it's not your fault if you delete all the text in your word processor, and still have the font settings in place. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That still is a bug (perhaps needs to be reported) and something that IMHO makes the Visual Editor inferior to the Wikitext editor. Cleaning up these kind of messes is something that is annoying to me when I'm editing articles. Don't get me started on tables and other similar kinds of more complex structures. Face it, adding the Visual Editor simply isn't very popular and it is up to the developers of this interface to convince the regular editors that it is useful.... not the other way around. I've seen this kind of behavior in word processors as well, and I consider it a bug there too. Well designed word processors will clean up after stuff like this happens. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The bug report was filed a few weeks ago. It's Template:Bug if you'd like to read about it or comment on it. Toccata is using this bug to unfairly impugn the editor as being "stupid" or uncaring. That little mess was entirely VE's fault (for not cleaning up the blank section heading properly), not the IP's fault. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiLove in the name of hatred

You know, my conversation habits frequently border the domain of personal attacks, but when somebody posts to my user_talk with a primary intention to attack a third person (not myself), I simply remove that stuff. So, I was astonished to see this “gift” not only posted, but not deleted by the owner of this user_talk. Are there some special provisions, or were there some special discussions, about attacks made at irrelevant talk pages, concealed as gifts, or in other slanderous ways? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The only "provision" that applies is to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --85.197.3.203 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

MOS and conflicts with WP:COMMONNAME

We seem to be getting a lot of contentious RM discussions recently that are highlighting a conflict between various MOS guidelines and WP:COMMONNAME... especially when it comes to music artists. I think we need broad community consensus on this conflict, and though I would raise it here for discussion. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The conflict is resolved in the same way as any other policy vs guideline conflict; the policy (WP:COMMONNAME) overrides the guideline (WP:MOS). PantherLeapord (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but some people disagree so maybe an RFC is in order. Ross Hill 03:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

COMMONNAME isnt actually a hard and fast rule, though alot of people interpret it as such. There are many times when the most common name is actually rejected for reasons like ambiguity, inaccuracy, non-neutrality, etc. All the guidelines I am aware of are used as guides when always using the most common name in every instance would present problems. -- Nbound (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is part of the policy WP:TITLE. Whether WP:MOS applies to punctuation, and Capitalization, in titles is another matter, as WP:TITLE seems to be explicitly silent on that matter. Furthermore, "consistency" (one of the criteria in WP:TITLE) may sometimes apply where @Born2Cycle: might not believe it should apply. I'm not familiar with the dispute in question, so my comments may not be completely on-point, but the first sentence is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It not just one dispute... the conflict between COMMONNAME and MOS guidance has been at the heart of several recent RM disputes over what to entitle articles on music performers (for some examples see: Talk:Sunn O))), Talk:Deadmau5, Talk:RZA, and Talk:Tech N9ne... but there are others). While the specific MOS issues in each RM were slightly different, what they have in common is a fundamental disagreement over whether to follow COMMONNAME or MOS guidance. I think this conflict needs to be examined, discussed and resolved... but since it involves multiple (equally important) policy/guidance pages, any discussion needs to be centralized at the community level. We need to get a broad community consensus that will last. There are valid points that support both sides of the debate, and the community needs to discuss them if we are to resolve the conflict. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. The disputes were over how to apply MOS provisions such as MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM; they don't conflict with WP:COMMONNAME, which is a strategy for choosing a title, not how to style it per WP's style. Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If the disputes were purely over MOS, then why were so many editors citing COMMONNAME in those disputes? I respect that you may not want COMMONNAME to apply to such disputes, and that you would like to define such disputes purely in terms of MOS... but it is clear that a lot of other editors do think COMMONNAME applies and that it is directly relevant. There is a conflict, and pretending that there isn't one will not resolve it. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Editors who don't like the styling specified by the MOS often try to say that we should let the styling of titles be driven by outside sources. But they are wrong. COMMONNAME has never meant that. And it makes no sense at all to have unique styling provisions for titles, different from what we have everywhere else. The 4 cases you linked are all about MOS:TM, how to style trademarks, which of course would not involve any title-oriented arguments if we could agree on what MOS:TM should recommend. Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"But they are wrong. COMMONNAME has never meant that." That's the conflict right there in a nutshell... I (and many other editors) think it has always meant that. When styling is part of a name, the entire name (including the styling) is (and should be) driven by outside sources. As for your concern about the title being different from the usage in the body of the text ... why would that even occur? The names we use in the article text should (speaking in broad terms) also follow the predominant usage in the sources... per WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically then you're agreeing that it's not about titles, but about whether we should style our articles by "follow the predominant usage in the sources" or by following our own house style, as worked out by consensus and documented in the MOS. This idea of overthrowing the consensus style by invoking COMMONNAME, which got stuck into a policy page in the great title turmoil of 2009, is really bogus. Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that these RM disputes are indicating that "our own house style" (as it currently stands) doesn't actually have a consensus? It may be that the reason so many people are pointing (correctly or incorrectly) to COMMONNAME is that that COMMONNAME is the closest policy/guideline statement to what is the actual consensus. Perhaps we need a WP:COMMONSTYLE guideline for names. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, COMMONSTYLE would be a helpful policy. Ross Hill 15:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

deferring to another editor for one's own edits

Can an editor defer to another editor? Let me explain. If I challenge material which an editor has added to an article as not being supported by the source provided, can the editor then turn to me and say that I have to take this up with yet a third editor—an editor who suggested that edit to the person I am discussing this with? Obviously anyone can say anything. But is there any basis in policy for a person not being responsible for their own edit(s)? The third editor has been present as recently as a couple of days ago. I would think it likely that they will rejoin the discussion eventually. That third editor is being characterized as an "expert" by the person I am in discussion with. I also find the designation of "expert" somewhat questionable, as it should still be necessary to support material by sources. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Experts are valuable but ultimately edits, and their sourcing, need to stand on their own. If a source is cited and it does not verify the material it is purports to verify, it should absolutely be removed. The burden is always on the person wishing to keep challenged, unsourced material, by adding reliable sources (using inline citations). This situation is different because there is a putative source, but the policy is applicable by analogy, because a source that fails to verify is little different than no source at all. Anyway, instead of outright removal, you might tag with {{failed verification}} and discuss on the talk page and then wait a while for the third party to show up. This I would characterize as a concession to diplomacy and a method to avoid unnecessary drama, despite outright removal being warranted. On the other hand, be damn sure you're right about your underlying claim that the source does not actually verify the material it is cited in support of.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... Unless this is a BLP situation, I would agree that the best approach is to tag the material and seek out the third editor (who hopefully can shed some light on the issue). It is rare that a content dispute needs to be settled right this minute. It often helps to put it on hold for a few days, while seeking third party opinions. This may not end the dispute... but it does tend to make it less contentious. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

When the third editor appears, perhaps this may need to go to WP:OR/N as it seems on the surface that the editor who added material based on the expert's knowledge of the source is doing so based only on the expert's "inside" knowledge expanding on what the source says. We cant expand on sources using information that the average editor does not have access to from general education. If the third person had added the information him(her)self then it would have been labeled as OR if he/she said it was because he/she knew because they were an "expert".Camelbinky (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Pages with just a Soft Redirect to External Websites

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are pages like Ginifer King,Kayla Maisonet, Breanna Yde, Curtis Harris (actor), and Amber Montana allowed under Misplaced Pages policies? They are all just redirects to IMDB. I am not too sure about Wiki policy on this. According to the creator the aim is as follows: " I am adding the links to avoid redlinks to personal names for actors in an TV series article mainly to identify the actual person and avoid inline external links in article. This should be a valid use for soft redirects.". I would like some more feedback on this. -- TOW  talk  21:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think those are a valid use of soft redirects at all.—Kww(talk) 21:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to take this to Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion to get them deleted, as they don't fall under any of the acceptable categories for speedy deletion of soft redirects (and there isn't actually anything I have ever seen in policy regarding this), and as this isn't technically the best place for this discussion being the policy VP. I agree with Kwww that they should not exist, however policy is silent on the issue and should be re-written.Camelbinky (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of any sense in that rule about soft redirects being excempted from WP:CSD#A3 except if it is meant only for Wikimedia-internal soft redirects – which, in my understanding, is the only valid use of soft redirects. What we have here is simply an external link wrapped in a fancy template which was never intended for this type of use, and I don't see why misusing a template should make the page exempt from A3. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Future Perfect deleted them, but in absence of a specific rule, WP:IAR seems like it was appropriate in the case. Chris857 (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

While it may have been an appropriate use of WP:IAR I suggest User:Future Perfect at Sunrise familiarize him/herself with WP:Soft redirect#deletion which states:

"For purposes of administration, particularly deletion, soft redirects are subject to the same administration processes as regular redirects, and should not be handled by processes that are intended for articles. For deletion this means that soft redirects are subject to R2 - R3 speedy deletion criteria, and are not subject to A1 - A10 speedy deletion criteria. For more deliberative deletion, soft redirects should be handled through Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion, and are not subject to either Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. They are also specifically subject to G8 deletion if their target does not exist, as this has replaced the old R1 criteria."

This obviously makes what Fut Per did incorrect on a technical basis, though I agree with the use of IAR in this particular case. I just think everyone needs to bone up on soft redirects before working on the basis of this discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The pages were inappropriately deleted and should be restored until discussion at the RfD discussion is completed. They are soft redirects being used appropriately as defined in WP:Soft redirect. There is no policy reason to delete them and CSD A3 is definitely not appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. There seems to be no intent that soft redirects should be allowed to other than MikiMedia projects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll paste the appropriate sentence from the second paragraph of WP:Soft redirects but please everyone read from top to bottom the page so I don't have to keep doing this-

"The technique is particularly likely to be used when redirecting users across Wikimedia sister projects."

"particularly likely" means that it is just one example and not the only use. Geraldo is correct in that speedy was definitely not appropriate under CSD A3 because that deletion category is specifically declared not valid for soft redirects. As I first commented, there is an appropriate discussion board for this very discussion, please send it over to there if you want to delete a soft redirect. Speedy based on "it's an outside link" or "I don't like it" is not allowed.Camelbinky (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In further investigating all this, I find it bad faith for this discussion to have even begun while those actually were brought to the correct noticeboard, where a discussion should have continued. Forum shopping to get around proper noticeboard procedures occurred and this was just wrong, wrong, wrong. And to speedy delete something when a process at a proper noticeboard was ongoing is not something that should be encouraged or allowed to stand, especially when it was accomplished with a "reason" that violated policy wording outright. Policy wording specifically prohibits deletion on those grounds, there is no wiggle room.Camelbinky (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 22#Ginifer King --Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Australian Images - Copyright

Im not sure the existing guidelines are clear on what constitutes PD in both the US and AU are entirely clear (either on the PD-Australia Template, or elsewhere). Most editors seem to think that anything pre-1955 (PD in AU date), pre-1946 (URAA date -50yrs), or even pre-1923 (published PD in US date) is fine. When none of these is necessarily the case. Unpublished works can be be covered by copyright in the US upto 120 years. Many AU images are taken from government archives and likely never saw the light of day (at least provably) prior to being made available on websites in the last 10-20yrs. And are possibly covered under these provisions. This could be something to be worried about? Perhaps Im misreading... Perhaps this has already been discussed? Hell, I'd like to have a better idea even so I know what I can upload. -- Nbound (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't give you any concrete discussions, but from a Canadian perspective, I've generally seen it held that something created before 1946 can be safely claimed as PD in the US. I think the same would be true for Australian images. Resolute 15:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

USA and Australia have very different rules for Australian works.

• Australian copyright status: use terms in {{PD-Australia}}.
• US copyright status: PD in the following situations, not PD in other situations:
  1. PD if the material satisfies the terms in {{PD-US-unpublished}}, regardless of the copyright status in Australia.
  2. PD if the material was published before 1923, regardless of the copyright status in Australia.
  3. If published for the first time between 1 January 1923 and 28 February 1989 (inclusive), and the copyright already had expired in Australia by 1996, then check Commons:Commons:Subsisting copyright for subsisting copyrights. If there is no subsisting copyright, then the material is in the public domain in the United States, but if there is a subsisting copyright, then the material is copyrighted in the United States. For the Australian copyright status in 1996, see {{PD-Australia}} but substitute 1954 with 1946.

I see that {{PD-Australia}} doesn't tell when literary works (such as books) enter the public domain in Australia. I assume that this is an omission in the template. The problem is that USA doesn't use the rule of the shorter term and that US copyright terms are very different to Australian copyright terms, so a work is often in the public domain in USA but not in Australia, or vice versa.

You can find the above information by carefully reading Rule of the shorter term, WP:Non-U.S. copyrights, Commons:COM:URAA and URAA.

The problem with the US copyright law is that it heavily depends on when something was published for the first time. The publication history of a historic image is often not easily available, so it is often difficult to tell whether a photo has been published at some earlier point or when it was first published.

Also, if they were first published "10-20 years ago", then beware of the provisions in US copyright law which say that Australian photos taken before 1978 but first published between 1 March 1989 and 31 December 2002 are protected by copyright in the United States at least until the end of 2047 (see Commons:COM:HIRTLE), without any regard at all to the date when the photos were taken (i.e. this rule also applies to photos which are several centuries old but remained unpublished until the period between 1989 and 2002). --Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont know exactly when these internet archives came online, and individual images would obviously have different dates anyway. Many AU images are unpublished (at least provably), and much newer than 1893, this could present a serious copyright problem for Misplaced Pages/Commons. Even on an article like Sydney Harbour Bridge, theres a lot of old photographs that are definitely PD-Australia, but not provably PD-US. Similar issues exist on any article containing photgraphs form that era (and there is alot of them) -- Nbound (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

How were the images stored before they were published online? Many images are kept in physical form in a public archive, and if anyone was allowed to walk into the archive to see the physical photos, then the photos would probably count as "published" (according to the US definition) on the first date that the general public was allowed to do this, at least if you were allowed to obtain a copy of the photos (using a camera, a photocopying machine or whatever). See Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US which tells that exhibiting a painting at a museum or a statue in a park sometimes constitutes publication, in particular if this happened before 1978 (when the meaning of the term "publication" changed slightly in US law). On the other hand, if the photos are private photos stored in a private photo album, then we have a big problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Its going to be very hard to prove when they were made publically available, as they dont usually say when they were made available to the public. Some are govt works, some are purchased/acquired private sets. Next to none state any publication information whatsoever. I would presume the onus is on us to prove the images are PD or remove them from WP?. -- Nbound (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In some way, yes, that's probably how it must be. There have been numerous discussions on Commons about the problem of establishing publication (especially with regard to paintings but photos suffer from the same problem), but people try to avoid and disregard this problem due to the disasters a strict enforcement and request for prior publication might cause, acknowledging that it is usually very hard to find the information. I'm not sure what would happen if someone would sue you and claim that a work is unpublished if you can't provide proof of publication in court. The person suing you might not be telling the truth, but you have no way to prove this. I would concentrate on photos taken in 1946 or later as those are much more unlikely to be in the public domain in the United States and leave the rest for now at least, unless you have a good indication that the photo is unpublished.

For Australian paintings, the problem is usually that you need to show that the painting was exhibited at a museum before 1923 and that the museum allowed people to take photos of the painting. If the painter died before 1946, it is enough if the exhibition was before 1978. This first requires us to know when and where the painting was exhibited, and also whether the museum allowed people to take photos at that time. Even if you find out that a painting was exhibited at a specific museum in 1920, how would you determine whether the museum allowed people to take photos at the museum in 1920? It's usually easy to find out whether a museum currently allows people to take photos, but it is much harder to find out what the policy was 90 years ago.

For Australian photos, the task is usually to locate a newspaper from the 1920s or 1930s in which the photo was published. However, there were thousands if not millions of newspapers published during that time, and you can hardly search through them all. A good thing, though, is that you can use newspapers as your source for the photos. If you find a photo in an Australian newspaper from 1930, then you know that you can scan the newspaper and upload the photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Trove, searching newspapers is actually easy, unfortunately, there arent too many images in newspapers of that age. In general though, the answer for the majority of these images (100s/1000s) is essentially the Misplaced Pages version of cover our ears and say LALALA, and hope nothing happens? :S. This seems very odd especially when we goto so much trouble to state why we think other images are fair use. -- Nbound (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Further to this... overseas publishing actually doesnt count at all

Looking into this further, these files are all counted as unpublished by US copyright law even if they were published overseas (unless they were published by a US citizen). Meaning vast swathes of these files are copyvios, likely the great majority. I could grab an image from 1894 that was published (say in a newspaper or a book), and it would be copyrighted in the US. -- Nbound (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I follow... an image from 1894 would not be copyrighted.Camelbinky (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

They are considered "not published in the US", not as "never published"; the law distinguishes between these two cases. Barring a few special cases, material published outside the US before 1923 and never published within the US is in the public domain. Material never published anywhere is life+70 or creation+120. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking into this Ive found that apparently foreign national has a different meaning in the US that the rest of the world, skewing my interpretation of the chart! -- Nbound (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Citing from Kindle version of a book

Hope this is the right place to ask this question - if not,please redirect me. I want to cite a source from a book. I have it on Kindle so the traditional page references aren't feasible. So can I give the Kindle location number instead of page reference?--Smerus (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Page numbers. I would include the location number and identify the edition. --NeilN 21:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a Kindle, but I know that some Kindle editions do have page numbers which match with a physical edition. If they are included, you can tell what page number you are at by pressing 'menu', and the page number should display with the progress bar. The standard way to cite would be to list chapter (if applicable), section (if applicable) and then paragraph number. There's certainly nothing wrong with including the location number, however. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

On a more general note, I think that while we should not of course exclude cites to Kindle versions or other e-books, we should nevertheless openly prefer cites to hard copy/print editions, and migrate cites from e-book editions to print editions. Many Kindle editions of books have conversion errors (at least in my experience) or are lacking supplemental materials such as photos or maps due to licensing or tech limitations; Kindle editions remain alterable or removable by Amazon, and so at least have the potential for instability regardless of what their current policy says they might do; it is arguably easier and more clear to cite to a print book's page than to a location in an e-book; and no matter what people say about "the death of print" a hard copy will continue to exist and be locatable in libraries, while we have no way of knowing if the Kindle format or other particular proprietary e-book formats will become obsolete or what would happen to support for and accessibility of a particular format if it does. postdlf (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to all for these guides and opinions.--Smerus (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If the eBook doesn't have page numbers, my strategy is to type a phrase or a sentence into google books. Usually you'll get the corresponding page numbers as part of the search results. GabrielF (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Plot Summary" (redux)

Long and oft-discussed topic I know, but honestly, people, this article does not present a plot ""summary"", it presents **the entire narrative**.

Can we please do something properly about articles where "plot summary" means "breathless retelling of the entire story in the style of an eight-year-old girl"? doktorb _words 22:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I'd simply remove the section: plot summaries aren't an important part of an article. Your example is nothing compared to this.—Kww(talk) 22:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Holy rambling plot summary batman (abut Kww's other example).--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC on accepting a partisan site as a newsblog

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_ThinkProgress --Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC regarding the titles of articles about queens

There is a request for comment regarding the titles of articles about living queens. Should articles about them be titled according to the format "Queen Mathilde of Belgium" while the articles about kings are titled according to the format "Philippe of Belgium"? Should articles about the wives of kings be titled according to the format "Queen Sonja of Norway" while the articles about female monarchs are titled according to the format "Juliana of the Netherlands"? This involves changing the WP:CONSORTS guideline.

I started the RfC mainly in order to get opinions of uninvoled users, i.e. those who do not normally edit royalty-related articles. Surtsicna (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocking Policy

In the recent mess over a controversial editor, issues around the blocking policy arose but were not addressed. I would like to see the policy issues (not the editor) discussed as I think the current interpretation is unreasonable. As I see it, the issues are:

• an editor can be controversially blocked by an (hopefully at least technically uninvolved) admin and then run to a noticeboard for review, knowing that a consensus is not required to uphold the block, merely that there not be a consensus to unblock.
• a blocked editor can be controversially unblocked and the block restored unilaterally which is not considered wheel-warring.
• an editor unblocked and the unblock brought to a noticeboard gets argued to need a consensus to remain unblocked.

I can't see how these practices support anything but a strong perception that the policy goal is to block as many editors as possible, rather than to keep editors editing, and that the idea of blocking as preventative of disruption rather than for punishment is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. As I recently noted at WP:BN, Misplaced Pages is really discouraging and demoralising at times and I believe issues like this do vastly more damage to the editor community than does the occasional piece of direct language. EdChem (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's very clear that the intention is to make blocking far easier than unblocking, no matter what the rights and wrongs of the case. One day soon I expect that the administrators will succeed in their quest to drive away all the non-admin content creators. Eric Corbett 02:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a problem if we make all the content creators admins though, right? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

What addressing my main point? What's the logic in making blocking far easier than unblocking? Eric Corbett 02:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps for the same reason that a revert requires more justification than making an edit in the first place? Undoing another's actions is not something anyone, admin or no, should be doing without good reason. I think we all know that Eric is somehow the exception though. The normal rules don't seem to apply to anyone taking any action in any incident involving you. I'm not trying to blame you for that, just saying that seems to be the case. You've become a sort of football being kicked back and forth by opposing sides in a game that nobody wins. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The game will inevitably be won by the administrators, who once they've succeeded in driving away all the content contributors will turn on themselves. As in fact we're beginning to see already. If you count that as a win of course. Eric Corbett 22:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The goal is not to block as many editors as possible. The goal (at least my goal) is to, as closely as possible, allow all editors that are both capable of and willing to follow our content and behavioural guidelines to edit freely, and to block all editors that are either incapable of or unwilling to follow our content and behavioural guidelines. Is there a part of that goal that you find objectionable?—Kww(talk) 21:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean apart from the fact that you act as judge and jury? Eric Corbett 21:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not true at all, Eric: the very fact that you were able to make that comment shows that my actions are subject to review by others and being overridden.—Kww(talk) 22:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow that all. In what way does it show any such thing? Are you suggesting that in your universe I ought to be banned for even questioning your motivations, and if there weren't others present you'd ban me? Eric Corbett 22:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you have stated that you are unwilling to abide by behavioural guidelines, the last block I placed against you would still be in effect if it hadn't been lifted over my objections. Unless, of course, it had been allowed to take effect and you had finally decided that you considered editing here to be rewarding enough that you were willing to follow behavioural guidelines in order to have it lifted.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Until you and your admin colleagues abide by the rules you claim to enforce then you can go swivel as far as I'm concerned. Eric Corbett 22:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• a blocked editor can be controversially unblocked and the block restored unilaterally which is not considered wheel-warring. That's incorrect. Restoring a block is definitely wheel warring. Salvio 22:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Quoting self-published sources

This pertains to this discussion, which is prolonged, but seems to be coming down to a rather simple question:

Are we allowed to quote self-published sources?

This is of course assuming the quote is relevant and we're not claiming their contents as fact. WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't address such a thing specifically yet. Without revealing my personal take (though you can see it if you care to read the discussion), I'm wondering if I could get some outside interpretations. Thanks. Equazcion 05:48, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Yes; see WP:SELFCITE. Deadbeef 05:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- The language there seems to be aimed at Misplaced Pages editors who wish to quote themselves though. Does it pertain to cases where the quote's author is not involved in editing the article here? Equazcion 05:53, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused—you seem to be asking about a case which is different from your question. Are you asking about quoting a source which you published (webhost/print/etc.) but did not personally write? If that is the case, I don't think that would be a WP:COI, if that is what you're asking. (Full disclosure, I have not read the thread you linked to.) Deadbeef 05:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize -- By "self-published source", I mean as defined in WP:Self-published sources, ie. using someone's own publication, not necessarily MY own. Equazcion 06:02, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify this, as my initial question may have been too vague: If we're talking about a person and want to quote him, may we use his own self-published website to quote him? Equazcion 06:07, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

The pertinent guidelines appears to be found in WP:Identifying reliable sources:

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.

Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)

I hope this helps.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Beat me to the punch, I was hunting the section down. In any case, if you or someone else has questions about a specific source, the folks at WP:RS/N might be able to help. Deadbeef 06:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those -- The quote is accurate, appears in quotation marks, and its source is clearly stated (WP:OR is satisfied), but we're not quoting an expert in order to source facts. We're merely quoting a person close to the article topic, because he made a public statement using his own website (I guess I'll ask over at RS/N soon, but if anyone has further opinions to share, feel free. Thanks for the responses!) Equazcion 06:27, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines for redirect policy?

As a reader of Misplaced Pages, I often find that redirecting gives me only the most basic article and eliminates detail and nuance. Repeatedly I've followed a link about some variety or special, local example of something, only to find that it now redirects to a basic definition of the main noun.

Example: Berea, Ohio, U.S.A., calls itself "The grindstone capital of the world" as its sandstone deposits are used to make grindstones and dimension (building) stone. Yet the former detail article on Berea sandstone now goes to "Sandstone" and frustrates the original intention to add geological, historical, and economic information about Berea. If you think that someone looking up a locale needs a refresher about basic definitions, change the link to the basic noun (Sandstone). This is just one instance among many.

It would make the Misplaced Pages experience richer if an article had further links to particular variations around the world rather than redirecting to basic articles which will never encompass all the detail of the subject. It appears that some people are splitting up articles because they are "too long" (what's wrong with subheadings?) and others are redirecting because the topic is "too fragmented."

What say you all? Is there a coherent policy or guideline? If so, what is it? I came here because I can't find one. Monado (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:REDIRECT would be a starting point, but if you question the wisdom or utility of a specific redirect, either re-target it yourself or take it to WP:RFD for discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as a point of reference, Berea sandstone was always a redirect and never a detailed article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

PROPOSAL related to NPOV; Deleting "dormancy" as a reason for tag removal

SUBJECT

Instructions for removing a POV tag

CURRENT STATUS

Currently, there are three occasions when it is recommended to remove this template: when -

1 No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.

2 Discussion about neutrality issues is dormant.

3 There is consensus in the discussion that the problems have been resolved.

PROPOSAL:

Drop #2 (dormancy) as a reason for tag removal.

(To avoid confusion, please note I am opposed)

BACKGROUND:

With different wording, Dormancy was added to the template instructions in late 2010. It has been a part of these instructions for 2 1/2 years.

RESULT IF APPROVED:

As I understand it, an ed wishing to remove a tag after conversation has long been dormant will be obliged to first assess the article for POV issues; if no one is willing to do that, the tag would have to remain despite the dormant conversation.

LOCATION OF DISCUSSION

Please join the discussion at the template instruction talk page.

Please join the discussion at the template instruction talk page.

Please join the discussion at the template instruction talk page.

Please join the discussion at the template instruction talk page.

Repetition intentional, to hopefully forestall starting a 2nd competing thread here.

Thanks for your interest NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Before posting a reply here, please be sure to read the last section of the opening post above. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

One minor correction: it isn't really "recommended to remove this template" when there has been no discussion about alleged POV problems for a long time; it is only "permitted", and you may or may not choose to do so, depending on your judgment of the situation.

And I'll repeat that handy link to the discussion at template instruction talk page, since NewsAndEventGuy was so kind as to provide it in a way that made me smile. A single conversation in a single place is so much easier to understand. Please come. This is actually a friendly conversation that anyone is welcome to join and express an opinion on. We actually do want to know what you think should be done with old POV tags that nobody has discussed for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links