User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 26

Thanks for taking on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. Regarding the close, I believe the main contention with the SNG was its one-game inclusion criteria. If that is now removed per Proposal 3, I don't think Proposal 5 is needed, as it was addressing the occasional cases where the one-game criteria was supporting a questionable stub.—Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bagumba, I got a different reading of the discussion. My understanding was that editors were concerned about the number "permastubs" in general. While the one-game criteria definitely contributed to that perceived problem, it's only part of the wider class targeted by proposal 5. There's definitely overlap between 3 and 5, but I think they get at different-enough issues that they can fit together fine. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the nuance I described got lost as a result of all the parallel proposals. At any rate, proposal 5—in the absence of a new type of PROD—is really business as usual with a normal PROD or AfD. In theory, it's nothing more than

WP:BEFORE, whether or not that source is cited. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk

) 07:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wugapodes, thanks for the close. Could you sign your closing statement? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: it is signed, prior to the by-section summaries. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

A sig at the bottom of the by-section summaries might help those also afflicted with temporary blindness like I was! Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 05:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop my own thanks for taking us this beast of a close Nosebagbear (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm very surprised we've gone from an RFC, to an unreadable TLDR series of proposals that became poorly attended as time past, to a final conclusion. Shouldn't there be discussion on the consensus - to make sure it is consensus, before such a monumental change, that's going to create a slew of deletions - particularly for historic and athletes outside the Anglosphere? A weakness here is a clear definition of what comprises "significant" coverage. The discussion seems to imply that it's more than a database entry. The dictionary tells us it's 'noteworthy'. Yet we've been mired for years, with some telling us that even a full article in a national paper (let alone a note) describing a player moving from one team to another is not significant. I think we should walk this back until we get a clear discussion on what 'significant' means - and until we find a way to mitigate for players and time periods, where we simply don't have access to confirm that a player with (for example) dozens of international appearances has significant coverage. Nfitz (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @
    WP:SIGCOV. The consensus was rather clear for the requirement, and like how we do it for GNG cases, what constitutes "significant coverage" can be worked out on a case-by-case basis at AFD or through an RfC like usual. I don't see why this would need to be treated any differently. — Wug·a·po·des
    ​ 04:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • After years of debate at AFD, we still have very different views by some of what is significant coverage. Previously we could deflect a lot of it by pointing to NSPORTS. But by removing sport-specific criteria, I fear all we do is simply have to do a lot more dealing with it, case-by-case, at AFD. Personally, I don't so much see consensus, I see bludgeoning, TLDR, and ... good grief, 14 different proposals? Still - kudos for having spent the time to close it ... I can't imagine how much that hurt. Nfitz (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Reading the discussion at
      fully professional league previously discouraged creation of new articles. So likely no decrease in number of articles, a lot more AFDs, and a lot more bias. Perhaps Boris Johnson is here under a pseudonym ☺? Nfitz (talk
      ) 06:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

As the author of subproposal 5, I struggle to see how you were able to find (a) no consensus for the original version which would have required one example of SIGCOV from inception of a new article (i.e., it would serve as a powerful deterrent to the creation of new permastubs after the adoption of subproposal 5), but then find (b) actual consensus for a far more radical rewrite which would require all articles (both those created before and after the adoption of subproposal 5) to have at least one example of SIGCOV. I've gone back and reviewed the voting. Out of the 85 or so votes cast on subproposal 5, I only see a handful or so advocating for the more radical approach. Accordingly, and while the consensus clearly favored the original subproposal five, I do not see how you can say that there was broad consensus for the more radical approach. Can you clarify the basis upon which you found such a consensus? Cbl62 (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62: The opposition is fatal to the original proposal. Consider the thought experiment brought up by Hut 8.5: a user creates an article without a source showing significant coverage, someone adds such a source. The original proposal says sports bios must have a sigcov source "from inception", so what do we do? If we don't delete it, then the "from inception" part is meaningless. If we do delete it, then we've made an absurd decision based on a criterion that is stricter than any of our deletion policies. This flaw in the original draft was serious enough that even supporters disavowed that interpretation. For example, in response to Hut, Ahect (who supported) said It's not saying "Delete any article that didn't show SIGCOV in it's first revision", it's saying "Any article without SIGCOV is eligible for deletion even if was just created". Now of course some people wanted that initial creation restriction, but others did not. A requirement-from-inception interpretation precludes the fix-or-delete interpretation, so it is not possible to lump the two together and say the original proposal succeeds. Numerically, and on the strength of the arguments, the original proposal does not have consensus.

Now, I could have stopped there, but clearly editors agreed on something given the number of supports. While the requirement-from-inception excludes fix-or-delete, the reverse is not true. The interpretations among supporters were not mutually exclusive, and both interpretations agree that a sports bio should have a citation to a source with significant coverage; supporters just disagree on when it must be added (first edit vs when challenged). That's a workable interpretation. It's based on the discussion, consistent with all supports, and undermines most oppose arguments which rely on the inconsistency of the original proposal. That's the hallmark of a consensus. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 5 was simply intended to stem the tide of new microstubs sourced only to databases. It requires that new articles have SIGCOV. Thus the "inception" language. Efforts to rewrite it to extend it to articles that were already in existence is a fundamental and radical rewrite of the proposal -- and one for which I do not see the consensus. Indeed, I as the initial proponent of subproposal 5 would have voted against imposing such a requirement on all existing articles. Your close rewrites the proposal in a way that you believe makes more sense, but which was not what folks were actually voting on. If you thought the original proposal was unclear (i.e., you say "clearly editors agreed on something", that's fine. But it's not the closer's job to decide that a proposal was unclear and then take it upon themself to choose one of the possible interpretations and decide it makes the best sense. This strikes me as a "supervote" on your part. Cbl62 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I should note that my interpretation of subproposal 5 (I didn't vote on it, I believe, as I was focusing on others) aligns with Wug's. My own thought on why the "from inception" was there was just to counter the "eventually" that is found elsewhere in NSPORTS - there's no way that indicating "delete or fix" would be non-viable could be warranted, and discussion appears to back that up. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That was not the intent at all. The "eventually" language remains in full force. The close represents a hijacking of the intent which was clearly expressed several times, which was to simply require SIGCOV from inception for articles created after the adoption of subproposal 5. The close applies a construction which I never intended as proposer, and there was certainly no consensus for such a radical interpretation. Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@

the administrators' noticeboard. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 04:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: In reviewing the 80-some votes, I do not see a majority, or even a significant minority, saying that the proposal should apply to all articles and not just "newly created" articles. It seems to me that you either (a) have a gift of reading the minds of the 80 voters, or (b) you have imposed your own super-vote in closing this important and month-long process. Cbl62 (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 5 simply changes the requisite sourcing for the claim of notability (and therefore the sourcing necessary for presumption of GNG) from being an RS verifying a subject meets an SSG criterion, to that and one IRS providing SIGCOV. It does not license deletion of articles with SIGCOV sources that didn't have them "from inception" (what.) any more than the current guideline does. That would be ridiculous. It also does not affect the existing requirement that NSPORT subjects meet GNG, nor the existing requirement that articles eventually demonstrate a subject meets GNG through incorporation of GNG-level sourcing into the article. JoelleJay (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Also adding my support for the close on proposal 5. It is clear from the comments alongside the support votes, that they didn't view it as only applying to new articles. The "since inception" thing was pushed-back upon for the reasons given above, and would be a rationale for deletion not found anywhere else on the project. But the overall principle was supported with no need for grandfathering IMHO, as someone who didn't participate in the RFC at all.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Ugh. Nobody every advocated that "inception" meant that it couldn't be cured. The intent, expressed repeatedly and overwhelmingly supported, was that this would be a requirement to apply to the creation of new articles. JoelleJay knew that, as we expressly discussed it. Others new at as well, and it is now being twisted into something that was (i) never intended, and (ii) never understood by the majority of the support voters. A complete travesty. So, what's new, eh? The deletionists get another arrow to use at AfDs, and one that was never, ever supported by consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 1

While I don't necessarily disagree with the close outcome, your close statement completely mischaracterizes both the proposal and the !votes.

1. ditors debated whether NSPORTS should be revised to require biographies to meet the GNG. The wording explicitly requires an athlete biography demonstrate it meets GNG if challenged at AfD. It does not change the existing requirement that the subjects of these articles meet GNG, or the rebuttable presumption of GNG afforded by meeting a sport-specific subguideline when notability isn't challenged. Again, the consensus is and has been reaffirmed repeatedly that NSPORT subguideline criteria (e.g. NFOOTY) are calibrated to predict GNG, not supersede it. You linked, as evidence of precedent for the opposition, one DRV outcome that was not mentioned in the proposal's discussion and for which the close didn't even address guideline hierarchy, while totally ignoring the dozens of directly relevant precedent-setting examples that were actually brought up by !voters in the proposal and which overwhelmingly point to the consensus that GNG supersedes NSPORT subguidelines. Even if we expand the applicable discussion to include everything on the page, there is zero reason to reference that DRV without also mentioning others, like Pete Vainowski, where the closer explicitly opined To win the argument the overturn side need to demonstrate that the closing admin erred in favouring the GNG argument over NSPORTs / GRIDIRON. They have not clearly done so and in closing I was drawn to the language in NSPORTs that the GNG takes precedence if an article fails the SNG but passes GNG. On that basis, and bearing in mind that the onus is on the side asserting sources to show they exist, the outcome of this AFD is endorsed. Or A Lawrey, where the close was Endorsed. While a relist might have been possible, its comments against policy that count and the keep arguments advance no sources and don’t really address how GNG isn’t an option.

2. Regarding the proposal's consensus: By last count, numerically there were 36 support and 32 oppose !votes, with 2 opposes clearly misplaced (-> 38s:30o), another 3 opposes supportive if applied to all SNGs, 1 comment that leaned oppose (38s:31o), and 3 comments that were supportive (41s:31o). Given a non-trivial proportion of oppose !votes were based on a misunderstanding of the current guideline or a misunderstanding that the proposal applied to all SNGs, or were predicated on logical impossibilities, the assessment that Editors were evenly split is not a fair description.

3. Regarding the consensus interpretation of NSPORT underlying this proposal, you said The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding. Equating opposition to the proposal with rejection of its underlying premise is improper. Of the 31 oppose !voters, only a few even addressed this topic directly, and of those, at least 6 explicitly recognized the current guideline predicts GNG and eventually requires articles include GNG sourcing. Even if we count all other opposes as if they directly dispute this interpretation, that still leaves us with ~65% of participants reaffirming it.

Together, these oversights are suggestive of a supervote, and I therefore request you amend the wording of the proposal's close to more accurately reflect both the background (as provided in the proposal's discussion) and the consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@

"should" has a meaning. The proposal used "must" which is not the same word and has a different meaning. The supporters arguments claimed to be the correct interpretation, but the interpretation is not consistent with the wording of the guideline. The next question is whether there is sufficient support for it to change the guideline to reflect the obligation ("must") as outlined in the proposal. Obviously not. Supporters generally failed to convince other editors that their interpretation is correct or desirable, with roughly half disagreeing based on the actual guideline.

In general, your objections here suffer from the same problem that support arguments had. You may believe this is how NSPORT operates already, and you may have explanations for why "or" and "should" don't have their usual meanings here, but after two months nearly half of participants disagreed with you (your numbers only work if I but your interpretation of the guideline). That's not a consensus, and even if there were a rough consensus it wouldn't be strong enough to make a binding, policy-like requirement. I believe my close for that proposal was an adequate summary of that conflict and the ultimate outcome was no consensus. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 05:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Uh, no, NSPORTS itself (not just the proposal) says that sources must (emphasis not mine) be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. It's right there in the collapsible FAQ, and JoelleJay just quoted it for you. If you think so many people don't find this the 'correct' interpretation, then let them start their own RfC.

Avilich (talk

) 05:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

If the guideline itself is internally inconsistent, that makes the claim of consensus less reasonable, not more. That said, my understanding is that top level summaries like {{FAQ}} and {{Nutshell}} do not have the same standing as the actual guidelines because they are not subject to the same vetting. For example, Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ has fewer than 30 watchers who monitor changes, but the main policy page has over ten times more at 315 watchers. Even if I concede that the FAQ has the same weight as a guideline, the discussion does not show a consensus for that interpretation and the policy would not support discounting the oppose rationales. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The FAQ documents interpretations that were affirmed through discussion on the sports notability guideline talk page. It contains references to some of those discussions. isaacl (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

All of which are over 5 years old and have fewer participants than this discussion did. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure; the point is that the FAQ only documents what was discussed, and so the number of watchers is irrelevant. isaacl (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're seeking a literal interpretation of the sentence, it says that "the article should provide reliable sources", not that the standards of inclusion (that is, English Wikipedia notability) are met by meeting the general notability guideline or one of the sports notability guidelines. The sentence is about including a citation for whatever standard is being used, not about whether or not meeting a sports notability guideline precludes the need to eventually demonstrate that the general notability guideline is met. isaacl (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeking a particularly literal interpretation of the sentence, I'm trying to explain how a reasonable reader could look at that sentence and come to an opposing view point from the one offered by supporters. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

When arguing that words have meanings, then the meaning of all them have to be examined together, and the context in which they were written. (Lots of the people involved in writing the sentence are still here, and so no guesswork is required about what was meant: they've said what they meant, and I documented it in the FAQ.) I disagree that a consensus is less established because there is some disagreement in interpretation: the practical reality is that groups quickly diverge in opinions as they grow, and so there are a lot of varying viewpoints on many guidelines and policies. And writing guidance quickly becomes a "too many cooks" problem: it's really hard to get people to agree on wording. But how the original consensus was written down is kind of moot anyway when trying to figure out what the current consensus is. isaacl (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused what your point is here, Isaac. I'm aware you wrote the FAQ, but that doesn't change the fact that multiple editors interpret the policy differently from those handful of discussions in the FAQ box. I'm not going to say their understanding is wrong because the main document is unclear and the only clear part was written by a few people on a barely watched page based on discussions from last decade. We had over 80 people discussing how they believe the policy is and should be understood in the contemporary community, and I would argue that has more legitimacy than a 2017 discussion. In fact your 2017 proposal to use "must" in the second sentence was opposed by editors in that discussion for the same reason. The proposal said "must" which opposers understood as meaningfully different compared to the current uses of "should" (just like commentators in 2017). Supporters argued it wasn't. This didn't convince a large number of people who still continued to oppose. That there's no consensus on this point seems clear to me because participants simply couldn't agree on whether it is an obligation (must) or recommendation (should). — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

My point is there's no reason to try to compare the older discussion with the latest one. Let's just talk about the current discussion and not get bogged down in why the guideline was written in a certain way in the past, or how many people supported X versus Y. It doesn't matter anymore, with a fresh discussion covering all the various arguments. isaacl (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Like Isaac I'm a bit confused why you're so glibly rejecting the outcomes of the 2017 RfCs, which have been the consensus guidelines for the past five years. Policies and guidelines don't just expire because they were discussed long ago, indeed many of the most central have remained unchanged since the early noughties. If the result of the discussion point 1 was really no consensus, then the outcome should be the status quo from the prior binding RFC, which is that sports bios must satisfy GNG. This doesn't make NSPORT redundant, as you suggest, as that still provides a useful rule of thumb for what's likely to be notable, but it has the important effect of ensuring that a permastub with no known sources to support it can't keep existing on the basis of the SNG alone.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I second this. The unambiguous wording on the FAQ (that GNG must be met) reflects the guideline's spirit and the consensus built throughout the years, and, since the FAQ's very purpose is to clarify ambiguities, it takes precedence over whatever 'contradiction' or 'inconsistency' you may find throughout the text. Moreover, the dependence of NSPORT on GNG was acknowledged by the opposing side in

Avilich (talk

) 19:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Consensus can change and if the 5-year-old RfCs were in fact supreme in their documentation of a consensus interpretation we should have seen editor agreement of the same magnitude as the main proposal or proposal 5. The conceit of proposal 1 was that it was documenting the status quo. If it fails to gain consensus, but we affirm the status quo, then that's just a sneaky way of passing proposal 1 without saying so. In a much better attended discussion, the claimed status quo did not find consensus, and that's incredibly important to note. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 19:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No, affirming the status quo is the default course of action when faced with a proposal's failure. If this means that "that's just a sneaky way of passing proposal 1 without saying so", then that's only because proposal 1 was redundant to begin with, but this carries absolutely no weight redardless.

Avilich (talk

) 20:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

If the second sentence of NSPORT meant what you want it to mean, how would that make any sense whatsoever with the rest of the guideline, e.g. the places where it says GNG is the inclusion criteria and that meeting GNG is what merits an article for a sportsperson? Or the whole SPORTSBASIC section. Or the applicable policies and guidelines section. If your claim is then that the guideline is just "internally inconsistent", then what makes your interpretation of the second sentence overrule the 5+ places where GNG is mentioned as a prerequisite for an article? It would make far more sense for the ONE sentence to be dismissed rather all the others. But that's all a moot point anyway, because the guideline is not internally inconsistent. As I explained above, as isaacl has explained, as numerous sports AfD closing admins have explained, and as dozens of other people have explained: the second sentence refers to the sourcing needed to support a claim of GNG notability. It does not dictate notability or what merits an article. That would be like saying the sourcing necessary to prevent speedy deletion was sufficient to establish notability.

To summarize:

1. You are ignoring the strong consensus reached in a 2017 RfC.
2. You are ignoring the literal text of the FAQs in the guideline, which were added with NSPORT consensus and have existed unchallenged for several years. Your first justification is that that consensus was reached 5 years ago, and that this somehow nullifies that particular finding but not the much older decision to insert the second sentence. Your second justification is that it's "just a top-level summary", and therefore doesn't have the standing of the guideline body.
3. You are ignoring the literal text of the guideline body, including the original intent of the lead which is perfectly consistent with the only logical interpretation of the guideline.
4. You are ignoring the hundreds of AfDs on SSG-meeting sportspeople who have been deleted due to not meeting GNG.
5. You are ignoring the dozens of AfDs that were well-attended enough to warrant lengthy administrative closing statements explicitly reaffirming the consensus interpretation of the guideline.
6. You are ignoring the several recent DRV closing statements that upheld the consensus interpretation of the guideline.
7. You are ignoring the strict numerical majority of people !voting in proposal 1 itself.
8. You are ignoring the 20+% of oppose !voters who explicitly acknowledge the consensus interpretation of the guideline in their comments on proposal 1.
9. You are ignoring the consensus opinion of the NOLY RfC that specifically restricted presumption of notability to medallists because editors determined mere participation did not predict GNG coverage 95% of the time.
10. You are instead inserting your preformed opinion, against overwhelming consensus, and refusing to acknowledge there is any validity to other editors' arguments. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You're conflating my explanation of the oppose justification with my personal beliefs about the policy (which I'm sorry if I was not clear on as pointed out in my reply to Isaac above). If your points are strong they should have convinced other editors. They did not. I could agree with your points about what I think is the best way to read the policy, and the fact still remains that a substantial number of editors, more than in previous RfCs brought up, did not agree. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Subproposaal 8

Your close of subproposal 8 has been used to drastically change NSPORTS by excising every instances in which the guidelines refer to a presumption of notability. This will be argued by sports editors to mean that NSPORTS is no longer a guideline at all and is now demoted to an essay. Such an outcome is fundamentally inconsistent with the overwhelming majority's vote in the main proposal and subproposal 1, which was not to demote NSPORTS. Can you clarify your closing intention? In your close of subroposal 8, did you intend to override the close of the main proposal and subproposal 1? Was it your intent that all references to a presumption of notability should be stricken? That NSPORTS be demoted from guideline to essay? Cbl62 (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I hope you don't perceive these post-close inquiries as an attack of any kind on you. It's just that many of us have spent a good chunk of our lives trying to build the best sports encyclopedia in the world. And your closing decision puts our lives' work in jeopardy. Kind of a big deal to us. Cbl62 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Further Note: Having such a profound change in the status of NSPORTS flow form subpproposal 8, which was poorly attended for reasons you noted in your closing statement, would be especially regrettable given the low level of participation and closeness of the voting. The Main Proposal and Subproposal 1 were efforts to gut NSPORTS entirely -- each of which was heavily attended and soundly rejected. To then allow the demotion of NSPORTS to "essay" status via such a poorly attended item as subproosal 8 would be a fundamental misread of the overall consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with everything else you're saying, except The Main Proposal and Subproposal 1 were efforts to gut NSPORTS entirely -- each of which was heavily attended and soundly rejected. Subproposal 1 had strict numerical support, and even greater support if you discount the opposes that were actually supports but misunderstood the proposal scope, or the comments that were strongly supportive... JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Closer's Barnstar
		Thanks for taking on the mammoth task of reading through the 120,000 words of discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability and assessing the community's consensus. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)