Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:20, 30 April 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

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

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

Notability of deaths and dead people who become notable after death

After failed move requests in Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans and Talk:Chandra Levy#Requested move, how are policies conflicting each other, like WP:CRIME, WP:PRECISION of WP:TITLE? Technical 13 wants titles to be just names of people, but others believe that events are more notable than non-notable people. --George Ho (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have read through some of those articles briefly and believe that due to the fact that these people have laws / trust funds / parks / movies / and/or scholarships named after them, they are indeed notable on their own despite the fact that it was the incident of their suicide or murder that led to these things. It's not "Rats & Bullies: The Bullycide of suicide victim " or "suicide victim's law" or "murder victim sports park", instead it's "Rats & Bullies: The Bullycide of Dawn Marie Wesley" and "Megan's Law", and "The Jason Spencer Sports ground." Doesn't having these things of general notability imply that the person they were named after is notable? Technical 13 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think George is simply bothered by there not being a simple one-size-fits-all solution, not the first time he's found "inconsistency" simply where different subjects that share one factor in common have been treated differently on the basis of other factors. postdlf (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • This is my reading as well. Remember, there are a lot of reasons why a subject could be considered notable, unless you reduce them all to WP:GNG, which amounts to "do we have enough good source text to comb through to help us write a decent encyclopedia article". There's absolutely nothing about the trivial facts of a subject that either exclude or include it based on GNG, which is why it is so elegant a solution. Forget trying to decide if all XXXX should all automatically be notable, or if they should all automatically not be notable. Instead, focus on how much source text exists to use as references in a really good Misplaced Pages article. If the sources exist, the Misplaced Pages article should. If the sources do not, the Misplaced Pages article should not. --Jayron32 05:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• This has been discussed many times. Each time the conclusion has been that, where the person is not otherwise notable, the event of their death, if it is notable is the topic and thus the title of the article. The article is then not drafted as a biographical article, nor a memorial article (which we may not have anyway), but as an article about the circumstances leading to their death and the aftermath of their death, but only insofar as it is relevant to their death at all. The person who died does not become notable because of their death. It is the death itself that is a notable matter. This is a distinction that can sometimes cause people to perform mental gymnastics until they understand completely. It appears to be a paradox that, with an article Death of Foo, that Foo is not notable as Foo, but is only notable for the fact or manner of their death. Apparent paradox or not, Misplaced Pages is already clear on the matter.

Had Foo been inherently notable already, this discussion does not apply at all, and their death is covered in an ordinary biography.

Even when Foo's Law is created as a result of the Death of Foo, that law oes not make Foo notable. It is the law that is notable, not Foo. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

One could argue that if a national gov't passes a law named after a victim of a crime that likely that person or their death is notable, but I would figure if that discussion is happening at the national level, sources should be abundant. But at any other level, I completely agree that just having something named after a victim is not evidence of notability, though there's likely to be reasons why that object or item was named for that person that can be used to justify notability (but one needs more than just that). --MASEM (t) 21:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

While one might argue it, and such things are often argued, in the end it is the death of Foo that creates the climate where a thing is named after Foo. Usually it is a popular sobriquet for a more formally named item. Having a thing named Foo's Thing does not create notability for Foo, who cannot inherit notability from Foo's Thing. The name Foo's Thing is just the name of the thing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• That is partially what I am arguing Masem, the rest of it is that it makes more sense to have one article Jason Spencer that has sections mentioning the Murder of Jason Spencer, Jason Spencer Trust Fund, and The Jason Spencer Sports ground. WP:PRECISION specifically says "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. For instance, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic." What I'm arguing is that Suicide of Foo is too precise, as Foo is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. We have WP:BAND, WP:NCRIC, WP:NUMBER, WP:NASTCRIT, ... so why can't people that have died as result of a crime or suicide (1st notable thing), have a trust fund named after them (2nd notable event), and have a sports park now named after them (3rd notable thing) surpass WP:CRIME where even that guideline says "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Misplaced Pages article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Misplaced Pages article only if consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role."? WP:CRIME even offer the link to an example of EXACTLY what I am talking about here with Matthew Shepard, so I don't see why it is an issue with the rest. Technical 13 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Masem, you wrote: "just having something named after a victim is not evidence of notability".

  It is relatively rare for an individual to have their notability establshed by a single factor. The notability of almost everyone for whom we have a BLP was established by considering a variety of factors. I don't agree that having something named after one ever confers zero notability.

  Several months ago, several individuals from the military history wikiproject, tried to argue for the deletion or renaming of the article on Richard Dixon (USCG), claiming that the Coast Guard heroism medal he was awarded was not a medal at the highest level, like the Victoria Cross or Congressional Medal of Honor. They dismissed that Dixon had his heroism further recognized by been chosen to be the namesake for one of the Coast Guard's recent class of cutters.

  So, I disagree that having something named after someone ever confers zero notability. I ask you to think of offering a counter-example -- a naming, mentioned in a WP:Reliable source, which nevertheless, confers zero notability. Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Please count me as opposing a change and supporting the status quo, at least with respect to "Suicide of..." pages. As already noted in this discussion, the issue has been discussed many times before, and it should probably be at WP:PERENNIAL if it isn't. There are very sound reasons for treating events as notable, whereas people who are noted only for the event are not otherwise notable. I recognize that there are gray areas, and those gray areas can understandably annoy editors who argue that it it logically simpler to always name pages for the person; I also am familiar with arguments that biographical pages about the person are more "respectful". I've tried to think very hard about these arguments, and to see them from both sides. But I've come down on the side of "event" pages, because I think that it's actually less honest and less respectful to treat a "regular" person, who would not otherwise be the subject of an encyclopedia article, as though they should be the subject of what would end up being a sort of hagiography; see also WP:MEMORIAL. I can illustrate this view with a specific example. I edit a page about the suicide of a person who happened to be studying the violin, and once had to revert an edit that tried to make the lead paragraph about this person's violin playing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• In case it is not obvious from the content of my posts in this thread, I wish to be logged as opposing any change. I cite my posts as my rationale. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose change to our current practice. Technical 13, you seem to be grasping at straws to support an argument apparently based on a misunderstanding of the logic behind the way we've been doing this for years. Notability guidelines represent a bit of a minefield; as Misplaced Pages has grown by leaps and bounds, so have those guidelines, and they certainly can be confusing and even contradictory. But please keep in mind that the guidelines don't determine the way we operate; rather, the reverse is true. Our naming conventions on articles about notable suicides are what they are because they have broad consensus, and the wording of the guidelines reflects this. Yesterday, in another discussion, I provided for you a link to the most relevant part of the guidelines—the part that most directly addresses the question you've raised—and now you're apparently trying to find some sort of loophole to negate that, and I don't really understand why. Regarding what you've said in this thread, Suicide of Foo is not "too precise" because it is precisely that—Foo's suicide—which created any notability surrounding Foo in the first place. If not for Foo's suicide, there would be no trust fund and no sports park; those entities exist because Foo's life came to an untimely end in a way that garnered the sort of widespread, sustained public attention that leads to notability, as Misplaced Pages uses the term. One more point: you mentioned Matthew Shepard—a rare exception to the rule, and a controversial one. I don't want to get into that here because its specifics are beyond the scope of this discussion and it has been thrashed out ad nauseam, but suffice it to say that the occasional rare exception shouldn't negate the rule. Rivertorch (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm feeling like there is some confusion about what I am trying to get at. I'm not saying this is an all or nothing proposal, but surely some of those articles now have as much to them, or are just short of being another rare exception as Matthew Shepard. I have no intent to debate this issue back and forth until I am blue in the face. It was just something that had occurred to me that it would make more sense. Rivertorch, your own response counter acts your own logic in my opinion whereas "If not for Foo's suicide, there would be no trust fund and no sports park" and to which I reply, If not for Foo's life, Foo wouldn't have existed to commit suicide, and there would be no trust fund and no sports park. Also, I want to make clear, I don't expect that all of these suicide/murder articles should be moved, and I was misinformed about the process of the multi-move template. I was under the impression that a bot would come through in 30 minutes and add a move requested/dated template on each of the articles and each would be discussed separately on its own merits. Had I known the template is intended to be an all or nothing, I would have applied the template to each page manually. Also, I want it to be clarified at this point that I don't expect any one of these articles to be moved simply because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with the rare exception of Matthew Shepard, but noted that since there was some kind of consensus in the exception of that article, that WP:SNOW would not apply to any of these. Technical 13 (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• The issue is, as always, about what is and is not notable. That is, or ought to be, always reflected in the title of the article. Mr Shepard is probably not notable in Misplaced Pages terms, but items created in his name probably are. A news opinion piece appears to find that his slaying was not even related to his sexual orientation, so the law created after his death was a great by-product of his death. An excellent argument can be made for a non biographical article about the topic, but not here.

There is no sign of clear evidence that the status quo Notable circumstance surrounding Foo should alter. It is probably time to close this discussion under WP:SNOW, though others may disagree. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fiddle Faddle argues (near the top of this discussion): " where the person is not otherwise notable, the event of their death, if it is notable is the topic and thus the title of the article. ".

  For a variety of reasons some people become notable only after they die, often due to the notability of the circumstances of their death. That is, after they die, because of how they died, the person, not just the event of their death, becomes notable. In such cases the topics of articles about such people is the person in question, and the title should reflect this. Matthew Shepard and Chandra Levy are both examples of this.

  As always, what should determine whether a given case falls into this category is coverage by reliable sources. If the material exists in reliable sources about the person, even though it may have appeared only after the person's death, it's there and justifies notability of the person, and an article, titled accordingly. --B2C 16:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Use just names and change past guidelines: If the person is notable enough to have a standalone article on WP, even if mostly about their shocking death, then they meet WP:NOTABILITY, period. If they are notable enough, (and the threshold is low, we have Lawnchair Larry in here) then dignity demands that the article about them, even if mostly about their death, be dignified by their own name Foo and not any variant on sensationalistic thing about Foo. Anything less dehumanizes the person and is tabloid-ish. Matthew Shepard is a case that proves the rule-a person's death can become itself enough to make them quite notable. Now clearly, in some case there is enough material for BOTH a biography AND a spinoff article on their death, such as Assassination of John F. Kennedy, but that's a different situation. Conversely, as in the witness to the Rodney King beating, if they truly are involved in only one event that wasn't about them but where they had their 15 minutes of fame, then the mention of that person is properly merged into a larger article. If it's a standalone article, then name it after the person, not their death. Montanabw 17:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Would that make Tyler Clementi notable enough to be titled after him? --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Per a recent previous discussion, I think not. I think it's especially useful to see what Montanabw and I discussed about respect for the person (and also Mr. Lawnchair) there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Respect for the person is not a sound reason to decide how to title - we should be dispassionate. However, if you look at these articles, they are each about the person - persons who became notable due to the circumstances of their deaths, but never-the-less the articles are about the persons. I see this no different than an article about a person who is notable for writing one book, notable for creating one particular famous piece of art, or notable for making one particular discovery or invention, etc. In the end, the person becomes notable - it doesn't matter why. If the person is notable, as supported by references in reliable sources, then we should have an article about that person, titled with the person's name. We should not be looking for the reasons why, and, if the reason for the notability happens to be related to suicide, to adjust the title and article scope accordingly. That's going beyond being dispassionate - it's bias in the opposite direction. --B2C 21:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I dissent. Notability needs a reason. However, per WP:GNG, notability does not guarantee an article. A person and/or an event may have become notable in their own ways. However, quality of an article of a notable topic is very important more than notability itself. Off-topic, but look at fictional characters. They become notable because they are fictional characters and written from primary sources and analyzed in non-primary sources. I want to write about Mulder and Scully from The X-Files as a notable couple, but I could not because... writing about the relationship is very difficult without duplicating content from Fox Mulder and Dana Scully. I was lucky enough to risk duplication of Sam Malone and Diane Chambers in Sam and Diane by adding something that does not fit elsewhere, like Cheers article. Nevertheless, I spent my time improving these articles rather than relying on luck. --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You know, if I had a family member who died by suicide or murder or some other media-oriented method, and you wrote an article that said "Suicide of John Doe", I'd be fine with seeing an article that was mostly about the person's death. But if you purport to write an article about "John Doe", then I'd want to see a far more balanced biography, with the death taking up only a small fraction of the page. For example, David Foster Wallace committed suicide, and that gets two paragraphs out of a medium-length article, which I think is reasonable enough. But Suicide of Phoebe Prince is a bit longer, and it has less than two paragraphs that aren't about her suicide. It would be very strange to pretend that this article was about "the whole person" rather than about "her death". Since the article's subject actually is her death, the title should reflect that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No offense, but may I call that suicide bias? There are myriads of examples of short bios on WP, titled with the person's name, but almost entirely about the one thing for which that person is notable, not the person's (unnotable) life. They are so numerous, you can easily find them with a few clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM: Thomson Allan, Kevin O'Morrison, Günter Schröter, F. William Parker, Ryan Powell (rugby league), etc., etc. It's perfectly normal and standard for the content of a biographical article on WP to be dominated by whatever makes that person notable, not all the non-notable details of that person's life, AND we still title the article with that person's name (disambiguated as necessary). Articles about people who die from suicide should not be treated differently just because the reason they are notable happens to the circumstances of their death. That would be engaging in suicide bias. --B2C 22:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Go look at the articles you link here, and figure out how much of their lives is represented there. Sure: Thomas Allan is a short bio, but it covers a couple of decades of his career. Suicide, on the other hand, is often an impulsive act with less than five minutes between deciding to commit suicide and attempting it. Do you think that a full biography for anybody's life should actually focus on five minutes of an entire life? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

        Note: Having been a victim of bullying growing up in school (I was an 85# 5'8" tall boy in 5th grade that was an only child of a severely torn family structure where the parents used me as a weapon against each other which destroyed any possibility of me having any self esteem not to mention I was the geeky "computer kid" that fixed all of the schools computers (that was HUGE at the time in the late 80's)). I've personally been hospitalized many times for depression and suicide attempts. So, for you to say that deciding to commit suicide and planning and carrying it out is impulsive and takes but five minutes, I very STRONGLY have to disagree. The people that do these things endure years of torture and suffering and quite often spend years planning and deciding which method of suicide might be best for them, there is nothing what-so-ever impulsive about it at all. Also, they quite often search and beg for help, and are often ignored or the scope of what they are going through is underestimated to the point they feel they have no other option. So, to answer your question, "Do you think that a full biography for anybody's life should actually focus on five minutes of an entire life?" briefly, no, not five minutes, years... Technical 13 (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

        "Often" does not mean "always". The fact is that impulsivity is linked to suicide. It's worth remembering that 'impulsive' doesn't mean frivolous or unserious; most people who decide to commit suicide at 12:01 and have already started killing themselves by 12:06 really do want to die. What makes them impulsive is the lack of time in between deciding to do it and beginning the attempt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion to me is precisely WHY this policy, if there is one, must change. What is more dehumanizing than stating that someone is "only" notable for their death? Either an individual passes WP:NOTABILITY for whatever reason (life, death, flying in a lawnchair) or they do not. To title the ONLY article about the person as sensationalism about Foo is just plain wrong. Montanabw 19:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

To your logic, the Lindbergh kidnapping should be renamed to Charles Lindbergh, Jr., and articles should be named after kidnapped babies or children, am I right? --George Ho (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

George, there is some room for an IAR approach, particularly when, as in that case, the incident already had a "title" for itself, if you will. But let's take AMBER Alert and Amber Hagerman her bio isn't a "murder of" title, even though she was a 9 year old victim. That's the approach I think works best, just use their names when the "event' is their life! Montanabw 21:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Then why not request renaming it back to "Charles Lindbergh, Jr." right now? After all, you still stand on your views. Meanwhile, I will propose a merger of "Amber Hagerman" later. --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that most of these aren't actually notable. When the media gets excited about something, then we get a rash of articles on it. A couple of years later, someone notices that although there was a media frenzy at the time, it was just a flash in the pan, and it's not really notable.

Here's how we know this: Quickly name all the notable teen suicides you can think of from the 1970s. Stumped? Category:High school students who committed suicide names exactly one, and it was a political protest that sparked widespread riots and copycats. Want to try again for the 1980s, when teen suicide rates in the US were nearly at their peak? We've got exactly one, and it's now a redirect to an article that only mentions the kid's name in a laundry list. How about the 1990s? We've got the Columbine shooters, and a film about another kid. And that's it.

Everything else in that cat is recent. In fact, nearly everything is from the last couple of years, when certain teen suicides in the US associated with allegations of bullying have made a big splash in the media. And I expect most of them to get trimmed, merged, and redirected in a couple of years, as soon as the media attention has gone elsewhere. With few exceptions, these aren't truly notable events and will be removed once that becomes apparent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What you have just described is the perfectly normal and natural evolution of an encyclopaedia. The thing we need to do with care is to ensure that, while the items are articles rather than laundry list items, they are handled correctly as articles about what they are, the suicide. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The suicide and the person are inseparable, and that's the article naming issue I'm concerned about. I'm not really discussing notability, per se; they are or they aren't. The article is kept, or it is merged, or it is deleted. We have a pretty stable set of guidelines on that. It's titling. WhatamIdoing makes the notability point that is valid, but not what I'm talking about. Some tragedies have a lasting impact, others may be worth remembering but fade from view. Above, I pointed out AMBER Alert and Amber Hagerman, which, probably, are going to be lasting articles. And Amber herself has the dignity of an article under her own name. Recently, someone pointed me to Killing of Travis Alexander, which seems to be to be precisely the stuff WhatamIdoing rightly points out as being of momentary notability, at best. Montanabw 21:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would support a merge of AMBER Alert and Amber Hagerman, so I doubt that the article on the victim will be lasting. The murder victim is no more important or notable than any of the the millions of other murder victims in the world, except that the AMBER alert system was created in response. It therefore makes sense to me to have them together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And I think that is totally dehumanizing. People have inherent dignity and at the very least, that example is an illustration of it. Shall we reduce little children to tabloid fodder and as "insignificant?" Perhaps you didn't mean that to sound cold and offensive, but your attitude just struck me cold. Montanabw 00:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Be careful; he is trying to make a helpful comment. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that murder is dehumanizing. I disagree that it is dehumanizing to deal with the facts, which are that the world has almost half a million homicide victims each year. I disagree with the implication that some victims (e.g., those whose mothers start media-friendly publicity campaigns) are more important than others (e.g., the many girls murdered in developing countries). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that the multi-move thing is over, perhaps let's continue discussion here. --George Ho (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No, please, let's not. The closer of that discussion suggested waiting at least six months, and I think that's an excellent idea. We're deep in the land of dead horses and nothing said here now will lead us out of it. Rivertorch (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Although, I guess technically if people wanted to continue discussing it, there 19 days left to this RfC. So, this would be the right place to do it. It really doesn't matter if they would be beating a dead horse with a stick or not. Technical 13 (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

New multi-move RM proposal

I have started a related multi-move RM proposal discussion at Talk:Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans#Requested_move. The basis for these moves is dispassionate and based on WP:AT, per the above discussion. --B2C 22:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispassionate? Perhaps. Based on WP:AT? Not a chance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's all go over there now and say the same things over and over again, eh? Montanabw 19:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is closed as "no consensus". Really? I guess even 16-4 opposition does not matter as "support" arguments must have balanced off the "oppose" ones. --George Ho (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The move discussion is closed as no consensus, your RfC here is still open for 19 days. Technical 13 (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What RfC here? There is no RfC here. Rivertorch (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC added. --George Ho (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait until spooky Halloween comes... --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary schools: Inherently notable or not?

I am not trying to make trouble or anything like that. I just want a straight answer. Are secondary schools meant to be inherently notable enough to bypass the notability guidelines and have their own articles?

If the answer is "Yes", then why is this not reflected in Misplaced Pages:Notability (No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.) and Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies) (No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists.)? -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a relatively recent discussion about this maybe 6 months to a year ago. I believe that the conclusion was that schools are expected to meet a notability guideline like WP:ORG, but per WP:OUTCOMES, most secondary schools, given enough time to search for sources, will have sources to support this, and thus deletion of a school article due to failing notability is not appropriate. It is not that they were considered inherently notable, simply that in good faith we allow such articles to remain since they will likely receive appropriate coverage to meet GNG or ORG. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Disregarding the fact that that goes against Misplaced Pages:But there must be sources! and WP:NRVE, how long is an appropriate time to allow sources to be found? After a month, five months, a year, two years, could a school article for which appropriate coverage is not found be AFDed? And who is tasked with finding the appropriate coverage? And why is this not noted in GNG or ORG?

Also, I have been told by multiple admins (Necrothesp (talk · contribs) and Starblind (talk · contribs)) that "schools at high school level and higher are considered notable" and "the overwhelming consensus is that secondary schools are inherently notable". So if the truth is that they are NOT inherently notable, but should have sources, then these admins are in need of some reeducation.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a time when all schools appeared to be judged inherently notable, perhaps because alumni turned up to say that theirs was wonderful. The deletion fights were unpleasant, and preloaded in favour of retention. I am not a fan of assumed inherent notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:There is no deadline, not even for adding sources. Anyone who is interested should feel free to search for sources. You'll find some advice here.

Admins ought to know better than to say that any subject is inherently notable. It is the firm consensus of the community that nothing is "inherently" notable. (It is also the consensus of the community that if you can't find sources on a typical high school , then you're not trying.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is noted at outcomes, and it is not at GNG /ORG because it's not a notability guide - it is the usual practice of what happens at AFD with secondary schools. That is, if there is an AFD, sources nearly always are found and they are kept, so it is generally recommended not to tip the cart to AFD secondary schools. That said if you believe you have exhausted every resource and there's no sourcing, you can certainly go ahead and nominate for AFD, at which poitn those wanting to keep have to say "but we don't delete schools per OUTCOMES". They get no free notability ride when challenged after a thorough search. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen them fall back on "but we don't delete schools per OUTCOMES". Then I tell them that OUTCOMES plainly states Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits... Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion.... When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources. WP:OUTCOMES is an essay that summarizes past decisions and should not override guidelines such as WP:ORG.

Whenever I've done searches on apparently non-notable schools, and come up empty, and report this at AFD, the response is "Oh, you are contributing to systemic bias by only searching in English and only on the internet! You should have flown to the city where the school is and searched local offline sources there, and searched the internet in Maldivian/Kashmiri/Urdu!" (Despite the Maldivian/Kashmiri/Urdu name of the school not even being mentioned in the article) After doing the best search I can with the resources I have, it's not very nice to be told this. -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

OUTCOMES cannot be used as a reason at AFD. It is meant to be advice before you start an AFD, but not as a guide for closing such.

That is systematic bias to expect sources only being available to you. en.wiki doesn't require sources to be in English or easily available, just that they are confirmed to exist per WP:V. So secondary sources in non-English speaking countries can still be included as long as the sources are out there. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"OUTCOMES cannot be used as a reason at AFD." That's just it: So many users and even closing admins literally say "Keep per WP:OUTCOMES]

As for the second point, you clearly misunderstand me. I am not thinking that sources available to me are be the only sources which exist. But surely I can't be expected to somehow access sources that aren't available to me? The burden of proof should be on the users who make the claim that a subject is notable. If they claim it is notable, they should show sources. Other users should not be required to search beyond their own abilities in order to prove it is not notable.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If an AFD closes with OUTCOMES cited at the primary reason, that's an excuse to DRV that AFD; OUTCOMES is clear it is not a reason to keep a page (it can augment but not keep).

On the second point, while the burden of proof is on those that want to keep, it's also the fact that the reason for schools being in OUTCOMES, just like most government recognized human settlements or larger, is that the sources for those are likely going to be available but only at places near that location, and so there is definitely time and effort to go find them. This is different from a topic that is not geographically bound where sources should be available "everywhere" and a good faith effort can be made to try to find them. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's a weird situation, but generally primary/elementary/middle shools are not considered notable and are covered in the article on their parent district unless there is some other reason they are in fact more notable than the other 99% of such schools, but secondary/high schools are in the magical realm of "automatic notability" and pretty much get a free pass to have their own articles. That's the way it has been for at least the six years I have been an active user. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Are secondary schools inherently notable? That depends on your opinion. In most editors' opinions, are secondary schools inherently notable? Evidently yes. Are they almost always kept at AfD? Definitely yes. Is this consensus? Yes, of course it is. After yet another AfD on secondary schools is closed as keep, you cannot argue that consensus has not been reached. The fact is that most editors who express an opinion in AfD discussions believe that these articles are inherently notable. Since AfD, and not some mythical "rules", are our ultimate arbiter on notability, I really fail to see what Atlantima's argument is. It appears he does not like the conclusion that is being reached in AfDs and is trying to argue that these decisions and the opinions that lead to them should be overridden in the name of "rules" (which aren't, of course). Sorry, that is not how Misplaced Pages works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

And why are they always kept of AfD? Because Common Outcomes is abused as reason to keep. Is there consensus over? NO Unfortunately, secondary schools are kept expecting sources to exist. Especially with USA-schools, suddenly every source (local newspapers, school website, school district website, blogs) is considered to be a reliable, independent source. I am waiting for the moment that someone shows up with a local church newsletter to prove the notability of a school. So, secondary schools are not inherently notable but the special interest group is too loud and too organised to let school articles be removed. No matter how ridiculous an article (see: Plantage Mavo, written to prove this), that group always assumes that there are sources. The Banner talk 11:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on some vendetta against schools in foreign countries, like you might think. I'm just a stickler for, ya know, guidelines and policies. I thought that Misplaced Pages worked by guidelines and policies: those are the "rules" which you glibly dismiss as being somehow inferior to opinions. Opinions are just that: opinions. If your definition of "consensus" is "majority vote", then, yes, consensus was to keep. However, I've heard that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, so majority doesn't rule. And I've also heard Welcome to the deletion discussion for FOO. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements. But at these AFDs, keepers usually cite essays rather than guidelines or policies. According to WP:Guidelines, Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. So if your alleged consensus exists it should be in the guidelines somewhere.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You are completely right that OUTCOMES is more frequently being used as a reason by !voters and at time closures as a reason to keep, which makes OUTCOMES a self-sustaining cycle. OUTCOMES really is only advise to the editor about to put down the AFD - that if an article is of this type, then the AFD likely won't close as delete because people will argue that geographically-limited sources likely exist. The latter part I'm personally iffy about but can accept, but I cannot accept this OUTCOMES cycle. I have no problem if editors that evoke OUTCOMES are really saying "we don't delete articles on schools because likely sources will exist locally for the school and will take time to get", but most are really using OUTCOMES to say "we don't delete articles on schools because that's been the status quo for years". That mentality we need to vanquish, and if it takes challenging AFDs that close primarily on an "OUTCOMES" reason by taking them to DRV, that's fine. I don't think one can readily change the end result - that school articles are kept - but the mentality that we keep them because we keep them can be fought against thus making challenges to these articles a fairer discussion instead of one that can be quelled by just mentioning OUTCOMES. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

One possible approach is to provide a standard template, similar to the "This account has made few or no edits" one, that says something like "The OUTCOME of previous AFDs is not a valid reason for keeping this article. If you want to keep this article, then we need a reason to believe that reliable sources have discussed this school". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If one looks at it closely, the question is ambiguous.....what do you mean by "inherently notable" with respect to Misplaced Pages processes? Here are a few possibilities and my thoughts:

1. Exempt from notability guidelines. No, certainly not.
2. Be given / can be claimed to have an automatic "benefit of the doubt" if notability has not been established. Arguable, my opinion is "No"
3. A consensus at AFD is allowed to presume notability, even if not proven. Yes.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the cited guide-lines that say no category grants notability, but that's a battle to be fought else-where. To the issue of high schools, WhatamIdoing says, "It is also the consensus of the community that if you can't find sources on a typical high school , then you're not trying." This might be the consensus, but it is counterfactual. I knew of a number of decent high schools in Ulaanbaatar that have no internet presence and, to the best of my knowledge asking around and looking around in Ulaanbaatar, have no published paper trail. These are, how-ever, definitely significant for Mongolia. I did not add articles for these schools, but I would defend the existence of such articles should they be created with just enough support to show that the school in question is a real high school. Kdammers (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Notability" does not mean "significant in the real world". It means something much closer to "some editor has access to enough published reliable sources that we can write an article on this subject that complies with the NPOV and WP:V policies". If there are no sources, then the subject is not (wiki)notable, not matter how important it is in the real world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and those are important points. North8000 (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This reminds me of a discussion at the Help Desk that I participated in - WP:Help desk/Archives/2013 January 16#Major Issue - Page discrediting my place of business on your site - please take a look.

OUTCOMES is routimely used by many admins to summarily close AFDs - thus it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As I argued in the linked conversation at HD, if we do not abolish "presumptions of notability" they should have definite expiry dates - "You have until <date=today plus # months> to PROVE that Hicksville High really is notable by actually citing at least one RS, hand-waving allegations that 'the sources are out there' will no longer be acceped after that date." The OUTCOMES argument is a consequence of the overwhelming US-centric bias on en.WP - most American high schools probably could pass GNG but it's far from true practically anywhere else. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we, should we, have a policy on fancy-schmancy user and user talk pages?

I raise this in a neutral manner, save for the sensationalist wording in the heading intended to catch your eye but not preload the discussion, and I do not want to single out any particular pages as an example. There are pros and cons, including:

Pro:

• Happy editors
• individual taste

Con

• Misplaced Pages is not that type of social media
• Standardised look and feel is easy to read

If these matters are (to be in the future) considered for policy (etc) is there, should there be, a difference between a User page and a User talk page?

Misplaced Pages is what the community chooses it to be. What does it choose or has it chosen already? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like this discussion should be at Misplaced Pages talk:User pages, perhaps with a note to Misplaced Pages talk:User page design center. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

But do we, should we, have a policy? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No, and no, respectively. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What the two of them said, doubly so for me. --Jayron32 22:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• We just lost a very good photographer on commons because they didn't like his website link in on his user page. There was no policy violation but he got so upset at the witch hunt that he left anyway.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Don't see what possible benefit could come from this, and it is all too easy to imagine the massive amounts of drama it would cause. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Barely support: I see both sides to this concept. On one hand, this is Misplaced Pages and not MySpace. On the other hand, is it hurting anyone letting people design "their userspace" to what pleases them? Then again, I've seen user pages with BIG BOLD BLINKING text taking up half the screen or images that are formated with a fixed position so they cover up the default toolbar links and whatnot. All of that being said, I think their should be a very simple policy that limits the amount of blinking, scrolling, marquee text and a requirement that all fixed images on the top or left of the screen should be required to have a z-index of -1 so they won't interfere with the functionality of the Misplaced Pages links and such. Technical 13 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that we do already have a policy against formatting that interferes with the normal operation of the site. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, we do, see WP:SMI. elsewhere on that same page are the current restrictions on what one may have on a user page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks comprehensive and well considered, thank you. I wasn't seeking to propose anything, though hindsight makes it appear so. I've been finding some well designed and attractive pages and just had a really simple wonder about it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If there's a user page (or user talk page) that offends you with it's JimoZillas, dancing cabal members (in their robes), sparkles, and blinks perhaps you could drop a note on the talk page asking the user to consider toning it down or removing them all together. Each user is granted a wide latitude in "personalizing" their user experience, but a simple "Could you remove some of the decoration?" goes a long way into encouraging the user to your viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Acts of Terrorism, Bombs, Warnings and laws.

1.There are articles on Misplaced Pages about different types of bombs. That tell how they are made and what is in them. This is not Encyclopedic content. It falls under What Misplaced Pages is not, Misplaced Pages is not a manual, guidebook, how to book. I think all bombs should be in one article and we dont need to tell how each is made.

2. If stuff like this is allowed it should at-least have a warning on it that tells what laws the production, sell, possession, and use breaks in the US and the penalty's for breaking them. As a requirement of wikipedia.

3. Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer states:
"Jurisdiction and legality of content
Publication of information found in Misplaced Pages may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. The Misplaced Pages database is stored on servers in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. Laws in your country or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or distribution. Misplaced Pages does not encourage the violation of any laws, and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce or republish the information contained herein."

Maybe we should warn people of this on these type of pages. If someone uses your edits/infomation in a act of Terrorism or other crime then you could be breaking this law. Found at: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C113B.txt

   18 USC Sec. 2339A                                           01/03/2012 (112-90)

   TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
   PART I - CRIMES
   CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM

   Sec. 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists

     (a) Offense. - Whoever provides material support or resources or
   conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of
   material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are
   to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of
   section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842(m) or (n), 844(f) or
   (i), 930(c), 956, 1091, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366,
   1751, 1992, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f,
   2340A, or 2442 of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act
   of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), section 46502 or 60123(b) of title 49, or
   any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) (except for sections
   2339A and 2339B) or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the
   concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation,
   or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under
   this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the
   death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of
   years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in
   any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was
   committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by
   law.
     (b) Definitions. - As used in this section - 
       (1) the term "material support or resources" means any
     property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency
     or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial
     services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance,
     safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications
     equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives,
     personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself),
     and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;
       (2) the term "training" means instruction or teaching designed
     to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and
       (3) the term "expert advice or assistance" means advice or
     assistance derived from scientific, technical or other
     specialized knowledge.

   (Added Pub. L. 103-322, title XII, Sec. 120005(a), Sept. 13, 1994,
   108 Stat. 2022; amended Pub. L. 104-132, title III, Sec. 323, Apr.
   24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1255; Pub. L. 104-294, title VI, Secs.
   601(b)(2), (s)(2), (3), 604(b)(5), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498,
   3502, 3506; Pub. L. 107-56, title VIII, Secs. 805(a), 810(c),
   811(f), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 377, 380, 381; Pub. L. 107-197,
   title III, Sec. 301(c), June 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 728; Pub. L. 107-
   273, div. B, title IV, Sec. 4002(a)(7), (c)(1), (e)(11), Nov. 2,
   2002, 116 Stat. 1807, 1808, 1811; Pub. L. 108-458, title VI, Sec.
   6603(a)(2), (b), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3762; Pub. L. 109-177,
   title I, Sec. 110(b)(3)(B), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 208; Pub. L.
   111-122, Sec. 3(d), Dec. 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 3481.)

                               AMENDMENTS                            
     2009 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111-122 inserted ", 1091" after "956"
   and substituted ", 2340A, or 2442" for ", or 2340A".
     2006 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109-177 struck out "1993," after
   "1992,".
     2004 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108-458, Sec. 6603(a)(2)(B), which
   directed amendment of this section by inserting "or any offense
   listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and
   2339B)" after "section 60123(b) of title 49,", was executed by
   making the insertion in subsec. (a) after "section 46502 or
   60123(b) of title 49," to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
     Pub. L. 108-458, Sec. 6603(a)(2)(A), struck out "or" before
   "section 46502".
     Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108-458, Sec. 6603(b), reenacted heading
   without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text
   read as follows: "In this section, the term 'material support or
   resources' means currency or monetary instruments or financial
   securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or
   assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification,
   communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances,
   explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets,
   except medicine or religious materials."
     2002 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 4002(a)(7), (e)(11),
   struck out "2332c," after "2332b," and substituted "of an escape"
   for "or an escape".
     Pub. L. 107-197 inserted "2332f," before "or 2340A".
     Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 4002(c)(1), repealed amendment
   by Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 601(b)(2). See 1996 Amendment note below.
     2001 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 811(f), inserted "or
   attempts or conspires to do such an act," before "shall be fined".
     Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 810(c)(1), substituted "15 years" for "10
   years".
     Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 810(c)(2), which directed substitution of ",
   and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for
   any term of years or for life." for period, was executed by making
   the substitution for the period at end of the first sentence to
   reflect the probable intent of Congress and the intervening
   amendment by section 805(a)(1)(F) of Pub. L. 107-56. See below.
     Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 805(a)(1)(F), inserted at end "A violation
   of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district
   in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other
   Federal judicial district as provided by law."
     Pub. L. 107-56, Secs. 805(a)(1)(A)-(E), struck out ", within the
   United States," after "Whoever", and inserted "229," after "175,",
   "1993," after "1992,", ", section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of
   1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284)," after "2340A of this title", and "or
   60123(b)" after "section 46502".
     Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 805(a)(2), substituted "or
   monetary instruments or financial securities" for "or other
   financial securities" and inserted "expert advice or assistance,"
   after "training,".
     1996 - Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 604(b)(5), amended directory
   language of Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 120005(a), which enacted this
   section.
     Pub. L. 104-132 amended section generally, reenacting section
   catchline without change and redesignating provisions which
   detailed what constitutes offense, formerly contained in subsec.
   (b), as subsec. (a), inserting references to sections 37, 81, 175,
   831, 842, 956, 1362, 1366, 2155, 2156, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, and
   2340A of this title, striking out references to sections 36, 2331,
   and 2339 of this title, redesignating provisions which define
   "material support or resource", formerly contained in subsec. (a),
   as subsec. (b), substituting provisions excepting medicine or
   religious materials from definition for provisions excepting
   humanitarian assistance to persons not directly involved in
   violations, and struck out subsec. (c) which authorized
   investigations into possible violations, except activities
   involving First Amendment rights.
     Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 601(s)(2), (3), inserted
   "930(c)," before "956,", "1992," before "2155,", "2332c," before
   "or 2340A of this title", and "or an escape" after "concealment".
     Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 601(b)(2), which directed
   substitution of "2332" for "2331", "2332a" for "2339", "37" for
   "36", and "or an escape" for "of an escape" and which could not be
   executed after the general amendment by Pub. L. 104-132, was
   repealed by Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 4002(c)(1). See above.

                    EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2002 AMENDMENT                 
     Pub. L. 107-273, div. B, title IV, Sec. 4002(c)(1), Nov. 2, 2002,
   116 Stat. 1808, provided that the amendment made by section
   4002(c)(1) is effective Oct. 11, 1996.

                    EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1996 AMENDMENT                 
     Amendment by section 604(b)(5) of Pub. L. 104-294 effective Sept.
   13, 1994, see section 604(d) of Pub. L. 104-294, set out as a note
   under section 13 of this title.

I am not sure this type of stuff should be on Misplaced Pages and we need to come to a consensus on it. Theworm777 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a big difference between explaining what goes into a bomb, how it can be used, and what type of damage it can cause --- all encyclopedic information, and repeated in numerous reliable, mainstream sources besides WP -- and explaining a step-by-step process for assembling one. We're not doing the latter. We should not be worried about this as long as we avoid the step-by-step. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should add some form of statement that you are legally responsible for the edits you make (in general), as I don't see that in any of the disclaimers. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If there is a genuine legal concern, Wikimedia's legal department needs to make a pronouncement and issue any official policies on the matter, period. Insofar as they haven't, we as a community are under no requirements to assume that such a policy is needed, nor do we need to invoke the law since none of us are lawyers (or, at least, none of us are qualified to act on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation in that capacity). Which is not to say that we could, or could not, or should, or should not, enact any policies or guidelines in this area, just that a) until the Legal department tells us its illegal, we are under no obligation to assume that it is, and b) there's no need to invoke a law unless and until the actual lawyers who are paid to do so, do so. Insofar as the lawyers haven't stopped us yet, WP:NOTCENSORED is a fine policy that covers this issue and serves us well. If you want to know if the lawyers may have overlooked this matter, contact Geoff Brigham directly, his information is at http://wikimediafoundation.org/User:Gbrigham --Jayron32 04:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Under every edit box is a link to Terms of Use for any of the WIkimedia sites. This including making it invalid from including material that is knowingly legally wrong (eg detailed bomb making instructions). As Jayron points out, if our more "descriptive" aspect of bombs were a problem, the Foundation would say something. --MASEM (t) 04:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This. Also, this is a legal issue, not a policy issue. VQuakr (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything broken here, let's not try to fix it. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's covered in the TOU, which says (among other things), "Please be aware that you are legally responsible for all of your contributions, edits, and re-use of Wikimedia content." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Masem and Jayron32 are right. Beyond that, on the merits of the supposed legal issue, I see that the statute cited requires that the person giving material support is "knowing or intending" to aid such terrorist activities (i.e., scienter). I would surmise that requires a connection that is a bit more specific than reposting on a public website some information that is already widely available, when at best that information may be useful to some unspecified person attempting a terrorist act of some unspecified kind at some unspecified location at some unspecified time in the future. A map of a city may also be useful to a terrorist. If you personally hand him a map, fully knowing he is going to use it to bomb a bridge and plan his escape route, you may very well be giving him material support. If you simply publish one on the web for all to see, not so much. Google could not be liable for materially aiding terrorists even if the Boston Marathon bombers used Google Maps and Street View to plan every element of their crimes. postdlf (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Feedback/Moderation guidelines no longer marked as a guideline

Misplaced Pages:Article Feedback/Moderation guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/No big deal?

We often hear people cite the "old" proverb that adminship is no big deal. The RfC linked above asks you to objectively say if you believe the Misplaced Pages community currently treats adminship as if it is no big deal. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME in related to 2013 ricin letters

Yesterday an editor removed the name of the accused based on WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME.

Just in case you do not know, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security was unable to find evidence of ricin against the accused, and he was subsequently released and all charged dropped as of yesterday. I use the word accused here since the person is no longer considered as a suspect.

Yet, the reference cited includes the name of the accused in the article title and thus appears in the reference list. What should we do about this? SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That reference was entirely redundant anyway, at least in view of the claims made in the article, so I just went ahead and removed it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

WP:GNL says use gender-neutral language. However, User:Ihardlythinkso supports the use of generic he. We need some discussion on what the consensus is. Georgia guy (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There is some above, started 11 april. Consensus seemed some distance away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please ask User:Ihardlythinkso to read the discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Today-centric language

Have there ever been any discussions in the past on whether to use today-centric language?? This means language centered around the present as if it were the center of time. Let me give an example:

Look at Traditional animation. This term is today-centric. Why. Because now is the time many people who are alive grew up with it but not with computer animation. To today the term might make sense. But in the future (an exact year would be a year like 2055) this term might not make sense any more, because by then most people alive would be people who grew up with both kinds of animation, so the term wouldn't make sense any more. I moved the page to Hand-drawn animation, which is not today-centric (the term would make sense to any time in history, whether now or in 2055.) But then User:Mediran reverted my move. Any analogous article titles anyone would like to bring up?? (Please, no titles of works. Titles of works have to keep their original words; this rule takes priority over all other rules except that we have to use English. New Super Mario Bros., which is the title of a work, should not be moved to something like Super Mario Bros. 2006 because that term would be less today-centric. The game is titled New Super Mario Bros., and will still be titled as such even in 2066.)

The great part of a wiki is that when the term does become less of a common name for the concept it can be moved at that time. The terms we use now are not set in stone and can and likely will be moved as society changes how they refer to them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Any examples besides the one I gave that you have?? Remember, titles of works are not allowed as examples. Georgia guy (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Have there ever been any discussions in the past on whether to use today-centric language??

Why would anyone care about stuff that happened in the past? Formerip (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In the past, only hand-drawn animation existed. Today, both hand-drawn and computer animation exist, and hand-drawn animation is referred to by many as traditional animation for that exact reason, with the only additional thing known is that many people alive today grew up with only hand-drawn animation. Georgia guy (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I was making a joke. Maybe not a very good joke, but I'm sure it was one. Formerip (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Not aware of previous discussions,hardly I particiapte in en-wiki discussions .But there is some template {{Template:Recentism}}which addressess this issue partially.

best wishes Mahitgar (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated own coment Mahitgar (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

DJ Sasso's point is not to be overlooked here either. Being a Wiki, the expectation is to change with changing times. When people are alive, we write about them in the present tense. When they die, we can quickly change the article to the past tense. That's the point of Misplaced Pages: it's a timely medium. If (and I have no idea if this is so or, not, but lets concede it is so, just for the sake of the point I am about to make) the animation industry uses the term, "Traditional animation" widely to refer to this type of animation, then Misplaced Pages should use that term too. There's no need to worry about 2055, because if Misplaced Pages exists in 2055, and it still works like it does today, if the terms have changed by then, then Misplaced Pages will reflect that change. We should use today what the predominant terminology is today, and let 2055 take care of itself. --Jayron32 05:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Families of languages

On Template talk:Babel#Families_of_languages I suggest an extension of the Babel system for those who are able to read texts in dialects and related languages even if they have not formally learned them. Please contribute to a solution! DrMennoWolters (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Pejorative language RfC

An RfC on whether the MOS' Words to watch guideline should contain a paragraph about pejorative language suffered from a rather nondescript introduction and seems to have been largely overlooked. More community input couldn't hurt. Huon (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of Misplaced Pages:Rules for Fools

I've started rewriting Misplaced Pages:Rules for Fools based on the April Fools' RFC. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know here. Thanks. —DragonLord 21:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

See the RFC at Misplaced Pages talk:Rules for Fools. —DragonLord 03:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of accessdate in citation templates

As presently defined in Citation Style 1, the |accessdate= in citation templates is intended to indicate the date that an online resource was retrieved. As such, the value provided for |accessdate= is only displayed if |url= (or one of its analogs, like |chapterurl=) is included.

The underlying logic here is that an access date is intended to be used to determine the version/edition of an online work that one is looking at. By contrast, physical works such as books, journal articles, and the like generally have different mechanisms for determining the version (e.g. publication date, issue number, etc.). In general, an access date is unnecessary (and often useless) when determining what version of a book or other physical work is being cited. So, the long-standing practice is that |accessdate= is only displayed when a URL is present.

However, the new Lua citations reveal about 45,000 pages where an |accessdate= was given in a citation that didn't use a URL. This makes this usage by far the most common "error" in how citation templates are presently used.

Some people have criticized the current practice (e.g. this discussion), suggesting that the access date should always be displayed when given. Or alternatively that the access date should be displayed for some other situations that generate external links, such as using |doi=, |oclc=, |bibcode=, etc. (Though if you have a DOI or Bibcode, does an access date add any information about the version cited?)

So, I would like to ask the larger community:

1. Do you agree that |accessdate= should only be displayed if there is a URL present? Or should the present behavior be changed in some way?
2. If we agree that there are circumstances where having an access date is not helpful, then should we take steps to inform people when not to add it? For example by including a visible error message? This could help people understand when to use an access date, and help understand why it isn't shown in some cases. (At present, Lua citations can generate an error message for this, but it is hidden from users unless they specifically configure their personal CSS to see it.) Alternatively, we could just decide that this "error" is so trivial that it isn't worth bothering people over.
3. If we want to have a user visible error message, should we first task a bot with removing the access date from currently existing citations that are using it inappropriately? That would limit the impact of an error message to informing people presently writing citations, rather than placing a rather trivial error message on 45000 pages with existing citations.

Thanks for your feedback. Dragons flight (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: the error help link leads here -DePiep (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

1. No, update the help page and template to match actual practice. 2. No, this is a programmer issue, not an editor mistake. Trust the cite-er to know whether an access date is warranted. There may be reasons for its use that are not obvious to a third party. 3. N/A. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Your position appears to be that the access date should always be reported. Given that, it might help clarify the situation if you can offer some examples, or find some in the category mentioned above, where having an access date can help in identifying the work being cited even though no URL is present. Dragons flight (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

without taking a position on the issue as you framed it, i can foresee situations that verify VQuakr's position, such as in cases of a paywall of some sort. if the url is restricted, an editor may decide not to post it. but the accessdate is still useful. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Citations with a |url= pointing to a resource that requires payment or registration should still be included in the citation. This limited access is noted by the {{subscription required}} or {{link note}} templates, or the new |subscription= parameter and is not an excuse to leave |url= empty and simultaneously include |accessdate=.

If the reasons for doing something unconventional are not obvious to another editor and not explained by hidden comments or other means as a way of making it obvious, such unconventional uses may, and probably should be removed or replaced.

|accessdate= has been part of the {{cite web}} documentation from the beginning when it was first established as a required parameter.

Documentation for |accessdate= first added to {{citation}} with this edit.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

clarity, please. in my reading, WP:SOURCELINKS seems to suggest that paywall links should appear only when the source is online and nowhere else:

If the publisher offers a link to the source or its abstract that does not require a payment or a third party's login for access, you may provide the URL for that link. If the source only exists online, give the link even if access is restricted
— WP:SOURCELINKS

70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

to add, if the above holds, a "naked" accessdate has some significance, in situations where the citing editor formatted the citation by having access behind the paywall.

70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If no free versions are available, and the source is available on paper, then you may link to paid versions if you want—or not if you don't want. We do this all the time with scientific journal articles. If the source is online-only, then you must provide the link no matter what. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

but that's not my question. if the editor may not want to enter the paywall url, s/he may still want to add the accessdate, to specify the retrieved version, esp. when the content changes. this would be relevant. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

clarification: the above is for paywall sources that also exist in other media, not just online. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Citations should only contain as much information as necessary to help the reader verify the information in the article. When citing a non-static webpage, the access date is necessary, to pinpoint which version of the webpage contains the relevant information. When citing books, journals, newspaper articles, the content isn't going to change, so the access date isn't necessary (same goes for most online articles or blog posts; while these may not be as static as paper sources, they usually display a "last updated on" date alongside the publication date). However, I don't know if I like the idea of hiding parameters, or displaying an error message – partly because this is likely to confuse editors, and partly because there will always be exceptions. And redundant access dates don't do any real harm. I think it would be enough to add a note to WP:Citing sources#What information to include to more clearly discourage the use of access dates where the publication date is given (it currently implies this, with "required if the publication date is unknown", but that's open to interpretation). I routinely remove redundant access dates when I come across them, and while I haven't been challenged yet, it would be nice to be able to point to a specific guideline to justify my actions. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How can we know a webpage is "static"? There is no guarantee ever. That would depend on the honesty & maintenance quality of the page owner/editor. This is also true for so-called read-only pdf files. I like the "underlying logic" reasoning in 2nd paragraph, so I'd keep the status quo for question 1. It is very logic, consistent and relatively easy (compared to other cite style elements). Also, the old citation documentation says (today): |AccessDate= date when the |URL= was accessed.. So the current errors were errors before (though unmarked). It seems the only issue is the sea of red errors now appearing. We do not have to change the style documentation to get them out. -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• From the current CS1 documentation: "accessdate: Full date when original URL was accessed; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations; do not wikilink. Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly of use for web pages that change frequently or have no publication date. Can be hidden or styled by registered editors."
  • Note: The over use of access dates had gotten so bad that CSS was added so that editors could hide them.
• Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th ed., p. 192: "Do not include retrieval dates unless the source material may change over time.
• Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., 14.7: "An access date—that is, the self-reported date on which an author consulted a source—is of limited value: previous versions will often be unavailable to readers; authors typically consult a source any number of times over the course of days or months; and the accuracy of such dates, once recorded, cannot readily be verified by editors or publishers. Chicago does not therefore require access dates in its published citations of electronic sources unless no date of publication or revision can be determined from the source (see 14.8). For such undated sources--or for any source that seems likely to change without notice—authors are encouraged, as an additional safeguard, to archive dated copies, either as hard copy or in electronic form. Because some publishers in some disciplines—in particular, research-intensive fields such as science and medicine—do require access dates, authors should check with their publishers early on, and it never hurts to record dates of access during research."
• --  Gadget850 09:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of accessdates in Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL seem pointless. They weren't added because the editor knew better. Don't display accessdates without a url. If a convinving case can be made that there are situations where an accessdate is valuable without a url then we could consider a new parameter like display_accessdate_with_no_url = yes. I wouldn't mind a long name like this so editors are fully aware what they request when they use the parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This is one reason why I never use templates to format citations... you don't get these problems when you use the old <ref>text, text, text</ref> format. That said (for those who do like to use the templates)... I agree that accessdates are needed for webpages that might change over time, but not for other citations. A template needs to be flexible enough to be used in all situations ... both citations that need an access date and those that don't. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that an accessdate without a URL is pointless, but I am concerned that some of these citations might have contained a URL at the time that they were added. We have a small problem with people violating WP:DEADREF by deleting any URL that doesn't work for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Numerous Bibcode, doi, PMC, PMID, OCLC weblinks have accessdate: A survey of pages will reveal numerous articles where cite editors think the accessdate is when a webpage was accessed, where the URL is specified by the various id codes: Bibcode, doi, PMC, PMID, OCLC, etc. Those cites generate the web-link URL from the id code, and so there is a "url" in those cites. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Spam filter promotes omitting improper URLs: Another major factor, to cause people to leave "accessdate=" but no URL, is to have the spam filter tell editors that their URL is improper (such as a news website), and then they learn how removing the URL worked to save the page with the cite title (and accessdate), as long as the URL was omitted. -Wikid77 21:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Over 150,000 accessdate problems, multiple per page: The count of "45,600" pages in the accessdate category is misleading, because in many cases, there are multiple accessdate problems on each page, often as a pattern of an editor who added several sources and set each "accessdate=" before those cites generated the Lua red-error messages. -Wikid77 21:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Many people think accessdate is when a source was accessed: After viewing thousands of articles, the clear pattern I have noticed is people who set the accessdate to whenever they read a particular source webpage, book or document. The accessdate is not exactly when they edited the page, but rather whenever they viewed the cited document, perhaps weeks or months earlier. Often the viewing of a newspaper story is given an accessdate, even if no proper (spam-filter-allowable) URL was stored in the page. I use the word "Viewed" when people consider access to a book. -Wikid77 21:38/21:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

i don't understand what your implied definition of "accessdate" is. if it is not the date of access, what does it signify? 70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's supposed to be used for when you access an online source, not when you access any old source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with WhatamIdoing In general accessdate should only be used when needed, which would mean URLs for the most part. But I routinely see people removing dead URLs rather than finding an archive. This leaves the reference with an accessdate but no URL. This is a problem we should be aware of during this discussion. 64.40.54.181 (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well now there will be a red link in the references section after that edit. I guess a redlink in the article text would trigger the editor who is probably not going to look at the bottom of the article to see if they messed anything up. While maybe overkill, maybe a bot to post a notice on the editors page? Since I have been doing categories lately I scrool past the references, I try and fix those red warnings while I'm in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Or the bot could simply remove the accessdate, since it is of no further use (it's in the history if needed). —— 02:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Or not since the best solution may be to undo an undesirable change. How can the bot tell when to remove and when to fix? I almost suggested a bot to remove bad parameters, or at least those with no data. However I'm not convinced that is wise. Humans need to look at a lot of these. I don't think using the over sized sledge hammer to fix the square peg into the round hole is the best solution here. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• None of the above (1, 2, or 3): I think the accessdate is useful for offline resources to document the date the editor actually saw the material. This can be used to resolve ambiguities if there are problems with the rest of the cite (i.e. missing issue number/date), etc. As to whether to display the date or not, that's up to the more biblio-minded people to decide as a matter of style. Even if it should be decided not to render the date in some situations, I'd still leave it there and make it clear that it can be used for internal documentation, even though hidden. —— 02:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• My comments and observations are as follows:
  1. There is simply no point of displaying access dates when there is no url. These should be either deleted, or not displayed.
  2. In line with the guideline, I believe we should switch off displaying of accessdates in certain templates, such as {{cite book}}, ore remove these altogether. The content of books, printed magazines or newspapers changes with the edition and is independent of accessdates.
  3. I do a lot of refs work, and would say that access dates for electronic citations are in general about as useful as wet tissue paper, and I'm inclined to follow the advice of the CMOS (quoted above).
  4. I have no objection to keeping accessdates only visible as metadata where they have been supplied and the content is still 'live'; many are formatted in what I would call 'machine language' and are incomprehensible to the average reader. Simply not displaying accessdates, which are irrelevant to most users, would considerably reduce on-screen clutter
  5. I'm not in favour of showing any error message where these involve access dates. Editors wanting to clean up will already have that category to sift through.
  6. There is nothing that 'defines' a static web page. However, general links that contain short names (or only the domain name) are much likely to be non-static than ones with long urls with many slashes. Having said that, a lot of long urls also go dead (like yahoo news links), and we should advise editors to prefer other news sites that have enduring static content. -- Ohconfucius  04:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Completely agree with everything Ohconfucius says above, especially points 3 and 4. I also do a lot of refs work, and I have always found access dates to be a great deal more trouble than what little they are worth. -- Alarics (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• opinion: 1. if the paywall issue i discuss above is resolved in some way or other, i have no problem displaying the accessdate only when urls are present. 2. no error messages please. emphasize the proposed guideline in the doc and make accessdate dependent on url (if no paywall) 3. no. even though leaving the naked accessdates in is inconsistent, this goes into article cleanup territory, and should be treated under the relevant guidelines.

comment: i disagree with ohconfucius re: the usefulness of accessdates for online citations. from a verification standpoint, when an online source is concerned, i start with the accessdate as the most significant piece of information: i have no way of knowing whether any given page is static, and i want to verify the citation as the citing editor saw it and composed it. if that particular version is unavailable, i have to make further research on whether the content changed since, which is a chore. if i cannot determine the content's stability, the citation as formatted is unverifiable afaic. even if i find the source in other media (another chore) i have to make sure the content is similar in both.

70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• My opinion. Access dates are not very useful without a URL. The only utility I can think of for non-URL uses is in cases where subsequent edits move the citation away from what it supports or insert statements not supported by the cite. In those cases, it functions more like a timestamp for when the citation was added to help locate the original version in edit history. I have found it useful on occasion to locate dead URL links in the Internet Archive. To sum up, I don't see any reason to prevent editors from adding the access dates for non-URL links, though I agree there is no reason to display access dates for non-URL links. older ≠ wiser 13:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC: WP:MOS-AM discussions

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There are two discussions concerning changes to the manual of style on anime- and manga-related articles. The discussions can be found WT:MOS-AM#Article content and WT:MOS-AM#Franchise articles. The current wording of the manual of style's article names and disambiguation section regarding separate articles for a franchise (such as Ghost in the Shell and Dragon Ball) is:

In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless:

1. They differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or
2. The article becomes too large.

In one of these discussions regarding article content, a user has expressed concern about not mentioning WP:SPLIT in the MOS. However, since this may create a bit of controversy, I suppose more input from the community would not hurt. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of BracketBot

Your attention is requested to be drawn to the following notice:

A bot is requesting approval at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/BracketBot which will notify users on their talk page.
Due to the nature of the task, wider community attention is requested.

_{930913(Congratulate) 12:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)}

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