Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 45

After the last, year-long, semi-protection expired in March almost every single edit by a new or unregistered user has been reverted, and such edits and reversions take up most of the history of the page since then. Accordingly I've indefinitely semi-protected it. Hopefully at some point in the future it will no longer be necessary, but I don't see it in the short term. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well done - I ought to have thought about it a long while ago. I've gotten fed up of seeing this essay on my watchlists several times every day. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an important policy page with multiple and complex sub-sections. As a result, many users create shortcuts that are more intuitive and easier to type that full section links. Shortcuts are very helpful to this page.

That said, not all of them need to be listed in the infoboxes at the right of every section. The lists of shortcuts has in some cases become so long that they are again starting to interfere with readability. This is a maintenance effort that we seem to have to take every few years. I think it's time again.

Note: I am not proposing that the shortcuts be deleted. Most are helpful, useful and, most importantly, in active use. My proposal is merely to prune which ones we choose to advertise here. Rossami (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yea, we need to keep trimming these. The shortcut can still exist, but we can't list them all. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the page does seem to be a bit thick of alphabet in a soup. But on the second glance there are not so many of them are clearly redundant. Some sections do speak of rather different things, which people may want to shortcut. IMO at the moment we just keep an eye against further shortrcut bloating. At the same time I'd second the resolving of the following clear redundancies:

• Most of the ones that do not have the word NOT. May be they are saving 3 keystrtokes, but may be confusing to editors weak in wp-lingo:
  • WP:FORUM
    , etc.
• Choose the style we would prefer to promote: with or without separators:
  • WP:NOT#ESSAY

Delisting half of them will not bar from using them for those who is used to them.

I am not certain about the formes not beginning with NOT, but for the ones that do, NOTESSAY is much better than NOT#ESSAY because we always prefer the basic alphabetic characters. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I support severe trimming of the display of shortcuts, particularly cute ones like
  WP:!. Keep the redirects for those that want them, but remove excess shortcuts from useful pages. Excess shortcuts leads to confusion: Why are the alternatives listed? Do they have some significance? Which one should an editor use? Johnuniq (talk
  ) 00:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly in favor of the broad concept that Wikipedia not be censored. That being said, yesterday I came across a fairly context-less reference to Phimosis, and decided to look it up on Wikipedia, only to be immediately greeted by a large picture of an erect penis. Is that really necessary? Surely Wikipedia can be uncensored, and also use common sense about when to use photographs of erect penises (not above the fold, at the very least)? People use Wikipedia in all kinds of contexts where they probably don't want large pictures of genitalia to pop up unexpectedly - can't we at least throw a bone in their direction? john k (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at that article, there's no way around the issue - that's exactly what is appropriate and necessary to describe. Even the simple diagram, if used for the top image, would still cause problems but we still need a representative image of the condition. The question is what of the article that linked you there as to lack context. If you know you are coming from a "G-rated" article to one that will likely have material that could be taken inappropriately, you should try to give enough context to make it clear (without explicitly stating so) what the article being linked to may be about. But we otherwise can't force the change at the given article. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it wasn't linked from a Wikipedia article - I just came across the term elsewhere and looked it up. Maybe I should have known better, but I still wasn't expecting a big picture of an erect penis. It didn't matter for me (I was at home alone), but I can imagine that kind of thing mattering for others. Putting the simple diagram up top would be a serious improvement, I think. john k (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The place to discus that is at Talk:Phimosis, but do note that you will need to justify it on grounds other than the photograph not being appropriate for the article (as it clearly is). Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be indulging exhibitionists, voyeurs, and other assorted paraphilias, especially on a site that permits anonymous editing. Contributors should show their faces, not their genitalia. Editing under one's RL identity requires more courage than stripping naked under a pseudonym. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately that goes counter to the Foundation's principles. Mind you, the Foundation does frown on nude pictures for sake of carnal pleasure, but there is nothing against someone that wishes to remain anon photographing themselves in the nude for the purposes of acadamic illustration of an article (as in this case). --MASEM (t) 00:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The "academic nudity" thing has surely worn a bit thin by now, hasn't it? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The image in the article above is clearly of academic value to show what phimosis actually looks like. While its a picture of male anatomy, its not taken in a manner to necessarily arouse and instead to illustrate the medical term. How else do you propose to show it? --MASEM (t) 01:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Henceforth, all users who wish to upload magnified pictures of human genitalia would be required to pick up a hammer and chisel, carve their anatomy into stone, then upload an image thereof. You aren't Michaelangelo, you say? Then what artistic business do you have creating images of genitals, without daring to show your face? All directly photographic nudes should be of identifiable people. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, a trouble with "academic nudity" is that it opens the floodgates. Editors will then claim that "religious nudity" should likewise be exempted. I'm not kidding about this; Wiccans sometimes worship skyclad. Such practices are very uncommon, though not altogether unheard of, in Abrahamic faiths. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

And? What's the problem? Our disclaimers say that there may be content you find offensive and that you use WP at your own risk, taking any issue of whether certain images offend others out of WP's hand. Yes, we do have a larger policy of "principle of least surprise" , that an article about the concept of "worship" in general should not lead off with a nude Wiccan ceremony, though certainly later in the body that may be appropriate. But that's difficult to enforce without immediately tying hands on so many other issues. --MASEM (t) 01:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It would take a couple hours to scribble a browser plug-in which would block images from Wikipedia pages which contain words "penis". Is none are marketed among numerous "parental control" tools, it means no demand, and all the more not a job for wiki[m|p]edia.

m:Don't be a dick would seem directly relevant. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems rather like original research to me to suggest that this particular image of what is purportedly the penis of User:Andrew1985 is an example of phimosis. What reliable source confirms this? john k (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh, it seems visually obvious, based on the definition there, that that photo is showing the case. I would agree that if there was some marginal doubt that the image was showing that condition, and that the image was likely updated just to show off, we'd remove it. But here, just by reading the text and looking at the medical diagram, it's pretty apparent that the photo shows this, so it's not a question of naked photography for sake of being lewd. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Also,

WP:Original images. Chris857 (talk

) 20:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not proven by the photo. The definition of phimosis as the article gives it is "a condition in males where the foreskin cannot be fully retracted over the glans penis". A photo alone will not demonstrate the inability to retract the foreskin. You would need a video of someone trying and failing to retract the foreskin. Not that I am asking for such a video, I think the image we have already for this article is acceptable. Lesion (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I strongly oppose all censorship. That said, in this case it may be possible to reduce the shock value while increasing the educational value by cropping/zooming the penis photo a little (it's pretty high-resolution). In some cultures (Japan) the sight of public hair is what defines "obscenity", a factor which I suspect might be influencing you subjectively; and as it happens we don't really need the pubic hair to show something that is really happening up at the end. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit I ended up making is [1]. (I'm not sure how far to crop, so I wanted it to be available for other editors to modify. But I'd better write a module because I just do not grok the bottom/negative pixel alignment) Is this more tolerable to you? Wnt (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I would imagine that the inability to retract the foreskin is actually better demonstrated by a picture of an erect penis rather than a flaccid one? Lesion (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with
    WP:ASTONISH? Adding: However, I think the present diagram is best left in its current location, under Management. 86.140.51.65 (talk
    ) 07:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of any previous discussion, but honestly I see flags as different from other galleries of images. First of all, it's not a gallery of photographs or paintings of a given subject: it's a list of official graphics symbols. Second, I suppose that lists of flags make sense in the context of

the first pillar, when it refers to "gazeteers". -- cyclopia^speak!

11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If the flags were presented in a style of a gazetteer, where the focus is on the geographical place, that would make sense. List of municipal flags of Hokkaidō is not that. The list, which heads off from Municipalities of Japan, should be fixed to work more based on geography with the flag as secondary info to that. On the other hand, List of Belgian flags is more a historical approach and would seem ok, but really should have more context. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of NOTGALLERY is not to prohibit certain style of presentation; it's to exclude content that is not encyclopedic in nature, like random collections of unrelated material uploaded to the site (in essence, what would be upload in a Wikimedia Commons category). A collection of flags is not a random collection, as it content is exhaustive and well-defined. A

short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group is a valid criterion for a list article; that the elements in the list are of visual nature doesn't make them less valid for inclusion. So please, don't start a massive series of AfDs for flag articles, because WP:NOTGALLERY doesn't apply to them. Diego Moya (talk

) 12:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not how I understand WP:NOTGALLERY. It is about the presentation, not about the content, for which we have sufficient other criteria (a list of unrelated content is always excluded, no matter if the presentation is visual or textual). A list should either be self-contained, having all the necessary information about the presented items (e.g. lists of characters), or be a pointer to articles about the items that make up the list (or a combination of both). The lists of flags (e.g; those of municipalities or counties) fit neither description. Further, the intention of Wikipedia and the other wikis (e.g. wiktionary, but also commons) is to have the info in one or the other, not in both; these type of "articles" are perfectly suited for Commons, so why host them here?

Fram (talk

) 13:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In one regards, I've not heard of commons having "articles", but another problem is that this would split flag lists, as there are countries where flags like these are not all free images, and they (if appropriate) could only reside here. But I completely agree that these lists which barely have any prose need to be better arranged to use flag images as the anciliary and not the primary purpose of these lists. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Articles" on Commons are things like this or (more relevant perhaps for this discussion) things like this, this, this, ...

Fram (talk

) 14:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh,yeah, that looks like more nicely arranged gallery pages to help editors find images, and less about educational content. However, this still gets to your point that if we at WP are hosting these lists, they need much better context within the list or else they are effectively like these commons articles and should be moved there. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

1. List of Polish flags is a Featured List. It's always good to keep in mind the "end result", rather than just the "current condition". List of Belgian flags is getting there. Flags of Estonian counties is essentially a "stub", and needs a lot of work. None of them need deletion.
2. Asking for input from the relevant wikiproject is generally useful. I've done so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#Feedback request at WT:NOT (I have no connection to or interest in the project).
3. WP:Gallery
   was created to deal with 2 issues:
   1. Pages named "Gallery of ..." that had no potential for notability.^[2]
   2. Editors adding un-curated images to a ==Gallery== section at the bottom of articles. That problem resulted in arguments about image-order, and image-relevance. The extreme example would be someone who wanted to add everything (or even most of) the images from commons:Category:Bananas into a Gallery at the bottom of Banana.

Hope that helps. –Quiddity (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Instead of thinking of Flags of Estonian counties as simply a gallery of flags, think of them as the list of official symbols of Estonia counties (flags). Just because the content happens to be flags instead of, say, county governors, doesn't make it any less encyclopedic. NOTGALLERY exists to keep articles from becoming collections of random pictures instead of an encyclopedic description of the subject, with pictures used to enhance the article narrative. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • But in this specific example, why can't the flag images be on Counties of Estonia, where there is more context provided (eg where we have gazetteer-like content)? This is the complain here, is Flags of Estonian counties is just a gallery without context, but can be transformed into something with context. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • They can, but that wouldn't happen if they're deleted. :-) We have to admit this partial form as valid encyclopedic content if we want the incremental editing wiki-process to improve them to featured status. I agree with Quiddity above that WP:GALLERY was not intended for situations like this, but for collections of images that would have no place at any finished article.. Diego Moya (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • What I'm saying is there absolutely no reason to have the separate flag article if you put the flag images in Counties of Estonia. Flags of Estonian counties does fail GALLERY because just putting images together with no context is just that, but the images can be retained appropriate if moved to the other article and put in the larger gazetteer table. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm sure the images are just fine for Counties of Estonia. But at some point in time, an editor will decide that the current flags of Estonian counties article is a stub that they can work on expanding. They'll go out and find historic flag images, or even just flag descriptions, and create a new section on pre-WWI flags, and another section on Swedish Estonia flags, etc etc. That's never going to happen at Counties of Estonia, and the context of vexillological history will be lost because of a bureaucratic reading of a policy drafted to address a completely different circumstance. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I very much doubt that will happen for non-national flags. National, yes (eg Flag of Poland), but at the sub-national level, there may be exceptions but I don't see that the case happening normally. If there is significant history to any of the flags, it can be expanded out ala the Flag of Poland article, but it would not expand out in Flags of Estonian counties. Hence a problem. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
        • A merge discussion would be completely rational/acceptable to all. If part of it needed to be split back out later on (for reasons of length), that would be reasonable too. But the initial suggestion was a mass-deletion, which is not a positive direction to move in. –Quiddity (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I agree a mass deletion is probably inappropriate, but a merge/condensing discussion does need to happen. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't know how to respond to just a blanket refusal to consider the usage scenario, but I've shown that a list of flags is a distinct entity from an article on the political entities. They have different expansion opportunities, neither of which are appropriate for the alternate page. If you want to suggest a merger, then Flags of Estonia is the place to put this content, with national and municipal flags added in. But this is still in direct conflict with the assertion that list of flag articles are inappropriate; just the opposite, in fact. So while this particular page has plenty of room to be expanded, and may be best merged with other content, the contention that list of flags are unencyclopedic is decidedly false. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
          • We're not here to host articles that are centered around images. Content that includes visual images, yes. I've pointed out the merger in one example is moving the flags from Flags of Estonian counties to Counties of Estonia. Given all the various flag articles on WP, I'm not seeing the potential for a non-national entity's flag of being expanded upon in the same manner that a national flag (ala Flag of Poland) can be expanded. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Where does it say that we can't host articles centered around images? Test card seems to directly contradict that assertion, and it reads a hell of a lot into a policy that talks about "mere collection(s) of photographs". The alternate suggestions say absolutely nothing applicable to these kinds of articles, which pretty strongly suggests that it wasn't intended to apply to this kind of article, or at least that this kind of article was never considered. In the end, removing this content, even if it's added to counties of Estonia, is anti-encyclopedic, removing flags from their vexillological context. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
              • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to use - Test card has significant problems outside of the NOT#GALLERY facet (too many non-frees). And what vexillogical context? There is none. Until that's shown, it makes no sense to have a separate article. You do a better job of covering both the flags and the gazetteer function when they are covered together. --MASEM (t
                ) 00:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
                • Well, "We're not here to host articles that are centered around images" certainly isn't any kind of policy, so I assumed that you might have been trying to codify existing practice. Evidence to the contrary is certainly relevant where someone is trying to codify existing practice (See
                  WP:AGFed
                  that you weren't just making something up and trying to pass it off as policy.

As for vexillological context, that would be the description, however terse, of the history behind these flags - a history that is certainly inappropriate for expansion, and maybe even mere inclusion, in the Estonian counties article, but wholly appropriate for a flags article. VanIsaacWS Vex^contribs 05:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Vanisaac here. No policy I'm aware of forbids image-centered content, provided it's not a "mere collection of photographs and media files" (to quote

WP:NOTGALLERY). A well defined list or article containing several images is not a mere collection, as Gallery of sponges could be: it's a proper list of things that happen to be visual instead than textual. -- cyclopia^speak!

09:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Which we shouldn't be here due to our accessibility attempts as well as NOTGALLERY. We don't focus on visual content because we know a portion of our readers are blind, on mobile systems that don't support images well, or other reasons. Visuals should be alongside text where apprpriate. Also note that I'm not denying the ability to go into the history of a flag (barring non-free image issues), Flag of Poland is a perfectly legit article. But I do not see any point in having a separate presentation of flags when there is an equivalent list that is on facts and figures that matches up with the flags - putting both together does not weaken the flag aspect. And then when there is sufficient information to expand on the history of one flag, we then make the Flag of X article as appropriate. Flags of Estonian counties is a gallery for all purposes. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That some article content can't be accessed by some is not a reason to remove its access from everyone. Therefore if some article requires lots of visual content to make sense, it is entirely appropriate that it is. I agree that, when possible, a merge could be a good idea. But Flags of Estonian counties is not a mere gallery, it is a well defined list of things that happen to need a graphical representation, instead of a textual one -regardless of the possibility of a merge. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am clearly missing something because I see nothing that is lost in presentation or visual information by moving the flags to the table of Estonian counties where they will be alongside other datum for each county, and improve the context of the images as to avoid the gallery issues. Otherwise, we might as well move the flag article to commons as Fram suggests. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree we do not lose anything in that specific case, but I was saying that being mostly visual doesn't seem to me a reasonable argument, in itself, to merge or delete such a list. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

NOTGALLERY is the argument against making an article or a section of an article too reliant on just visual information. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

NOTGALLERY is not such thing. It's a warning against having an unencyclopedic repository, not because it is visual in nature but because it's uncategorized. It's no different to WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NOTLYRICS, that don't preclude plot summaries or lyrics because they're textual but because they're presented without context. Or WP:NOTCATALOG, where genealogical entries are not forbidden for being genealogical entries (we have several of those) but because they describe people without notoriety. Diego Moya (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

... or we could put a See also link to

alternative text to each image with a description in words of its content; this way we can have a stand-alone list article that is useful for both sighted and blind. Diego Moya (talk

) 15:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Alt text is not what is needed, as it would not improve the page for the blind/screenreader at all outside of describing what the images may look like. There is still no context to help. You need data or prose and not just a short lead section. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you just trying to be adversarial? What does it mean "would not improve the page outside of what the images may look like? That is exactly what's needed to provide the same information to blind and sighted people and thus leave them with roughly the same content, so that accessibility is not a concern when taking the decision of what to do. Diego Moya (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Proper ALT text does not give any new context, it is supposedly to be purposely descriptive of the image. We're still missing context. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My point was that alt text would provide the same context for blind readers that the images provide for sighted readers. Given that many other editors find that amount of context adequate, this is a counterclaim to your assertion above that we should prevent this list from being stand-alone because it discriminates against blind people. Diego Moya (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:PURPLIST clearly allows for a simple list of a clearly defined taxonomical group for a science to serve as a navigation tool. User:MASEM, your insistence that there exists some rule against image based lists is simply unfounded. Dkriegls (talk to me!

) 16:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The proper navigation for such lists would be via the government entity they represent (assuming the reader needs to figure out what the flag of a specific political entity is, this would be much faster). And the rule does exist because of NOTGALLERY as well as our non-free content policy. If we are just presenting free images without any additional context, we might as well put that at commons to allow all projects to take advantage of it. While none of the lists presently give appear to have non-free problems, we do not allow non-free to be used in lists or tables without sufficient context for the image, and having bare context-less lists even if free images is going to have newer editors think it is okay to do this. This is why we strongly discourage context-less image galleries. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"The proper navigation" says who? If you make an argument from authority you should cite that authority. There is nothing preventing you from attaching these flags to the associated government entity while simultaneously maintaining a navigational list of flags. These are not mutually exclusive so your argument for one does not exclude the other. Additionally, why do you keep arguing "free images without any additional context"? I've proposed several content variables that can be added to these lists. If your concern revolves around a lack of textual content, then why not add content? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

PS, I've notified WikiProject Lists of this discussion. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs

Popping over from

WP:PURPLIST allow for lists to serve as "natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia" for an indeterminate length of time. Vexillology lists that serve as navigational tools for people studying the subject is perfectly within WP standards. But I see these more as stubs needing expansion of the table to include the above elements and a good intro paragraph. Merging these lists takes away that call for further Development. Dkriegls (talk to me!

) 02:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I will point out that List of Galliformes by population actually has a lot of useful data on it, compared to Flags of Estonian counties, and the images of the birds are the last thing on the table, not the focus. There is no loss of information but everything to gain moving the flags to the gazetteer article as to make that more like the Galliformes list and more helpful to the reader. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be a valid outcome per

WP:PAGEDECIDE, and at this point we have a consensus that WP:GALLERY does not apply here. But per WP:PAGEDECIDE, the possibility to have a stand alone article is also admissible, the list of flags being a valid list topic, and the best outcome is to be decided on the basis on the relative merits of each layout. VanIsaac above has given some reasons why having a separate article may be preferable to having the content merged into a section of an article devoted to a different topic. Diego Moya (talk

) 15:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

But as Fram points out, if all you are just doing is splashing up free flag images without any context like history or importance, then these should probably be at commons. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Remember list's

WP:CSC - if the article provide a complete coverage of all flags in the same category, that on itself is considered enough context to create an article - the context is in the categorization and systematic coverage. Can it be expanded? Yes, of course. Is it too little? No, it's just enough to have it this way. Diego Moya (talk

) 16:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And

WP:PURPLIST.Dkriegls (talk to me!

) 17:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If you had that information for the flag, then that should be in a separate article about the flag ala Flag of Poland, on a per-flag basis, if there is sufficient information for this. Arguably most of the information about these flags are going to be tied with the political entity they represent through its history, and thus better comprehension is going to be when the flag images are discussed in context of the political entity, not standalone by themselves. If there is a taxonomity to these flags, that is clearly not being demonstrated here or its importance to understand why they need to be presented separately from the political entities. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what everyone here but you is advocating ala List of Polish flags...Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Things like

Flags of the U.S. states

is both navigation (it links to sub-articles on each flag) and informative-illustration (it helps the visually-oriented reader find the correct article, and helps everyone compare the various flags).

Pictures of city-halls are not (officially or unofficially) symbolically representative of the town, so that analogy is not great. –Quiddity (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We have a Featured List for precedent, and as example to work towards. If you're unhappy with the speed of progress being made to the isolated list, then suggest a merge. You could either suggest a new page-name, like

Coats of arms of Estonian Counties). Alternatively you could suggest merging them both into Counties of Estonia

, but I predict less consensus for that, as the section is likely to overwhelm the prose article (once it has fully grown into something comparable to the aforementioned examples).

If it still needs further discussion, then consider using

Seals of the U.S. states as the example, rather than continuing on the Estonian stub. Using stubs, as examples for broad discussions, is generally not helpful. –Quiddity (talk

) 19:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That

Seals of the U.S. states one is an image gallery - not navigation for encyclopedic information - and should be over at commons. You already have the list at List of U.S. state, district, and territorial insignia, which is also a problem, but there if you cut down the size of the images you can include more datum to provide context (here, likely would be historical aspects like year of statehood, etc.) --MASEM (t

) 20:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be expanded or merged. As do most articles/lists in Wikipedia. Working on the articles, or making a merge-proposal, would be helpful. Continuing to discuss it here doesn't seem helpful. –Quiddity (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Flags of Estonian counties is navigational for a taxonomic group of flag images. However, why continue this debate when all that needs to be done is add additional information the list? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Flags of Estonian counties is navigational between Commons images, and thus belongs on Commons. Thanks for making my point.

Fram (talk

) 06:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of other taxonomical groups for an established science that are exclusively on Commons? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 13:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Other "taxonomical groups for an established science"? You mean that as a description of "flags of counties"? I don't think these articles can be described as being taxonomical at all, and the scientific contents of them are nil. Things like

Fram (talk

) 13:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Vexillology is the study of physical flags, not images of flags. I don't see this point being addressed by the delete/merg editors. There is an entire workgroup dedicated to this science (Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology). The keep editors have demonstrated the potential for expansion of these articles and why they should be considered WP:Stub. Britannica has similar lists of flags. Wikipedia should do one better and add descriptive content to these lists. I don't see that these points are being address by the delete/merg editors. Unless I have missed it, the delete/merg position still relies on this just being a collection of images with no potential for expansion. How has this lack of potential been demonstrated? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 13:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Traffic sign on commons has concurrent Wikipedia list articles (e.g., Warning sign). Nothing to stop us from having a commons list for flags and a Wikipedia list that can be expanded with additional descriptive content --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 13:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The articles on flags we want are like Flag of Poland that goes into the history and details about it, stuff that cannot easily be summarized in a table, and tightly connected with the national/political division it represents. Any list that gets to that information is going to be navigational, by default, if its based around presenting the images of the flags first and foremost. And since most of these are free images on commons, such lists should be there to maximize the use around all of the WMF projects. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So if you agree on the end goal, then how does moving them exclusively to commons not conflict with the intent of WP:Stub? Shouldn't they be left here to encourage development you concede is the end goal? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 14:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I said the goal is for articles like Flag of Poland, which goes into the history and the like for the specific flag (eg part of your social science). I cannot see how we can simplify that type of information for a table that is no more a image-based navigation list that is better suited at commons. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The goal for a list article, is like List of Polish flags. For the last time, please either work on Developing the articles, or propose a merge. If either of you really wish to start a mass deletion, start with all of Template:State insignia, and I mean all of, not just the stubs. –Quiddity (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Creating content columns for the tables like this example will invite editors to research and add content to these lists. (Table created by Dkriegls)

County	Image	Dimensions	Date of first use	Restrictions of use	Meaning of symbols	Reference
Harju County						[citation needed]
Hiiu County						[citation needed]
Ida-Viru County						[citation needed]

• Comment these should be considered for copying to Commons as gallery pages, if they don't already exist there, regardless of their status here on Wikipedia. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a large bunch of "Timelines of..." articles out there that are simply lists of bullets, usually uncited, that purport to outline the history of an place, often a not-very-large place. This seems in lieu of constructing a valid, watched, peer-reviewed history. I think this should be discouraged. I can imagine some teen using these rather sorry, often pov

Do you have a good example? Or should I say bad example? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 16:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Student7 probably refers to lists such as

Timeline of extinctions

).

If you think you understand the scope of how many pages are involved, you're probably underestimating! And that's just the standalone-pages; including the bullet-point timelines that are embedded within articles would add many thousands more.

Some of the standalones could usefully be merged into a prose article, however many are large enough (per

WP:SIZE

) to remain split-out in the state that they are now (and as they've been for many years).

In the far-future, these lists will be useful for Wikidata, and we'll be able to call-up layers of information in some sort of visual-interface, ala http://timeline.verite.co/ - but not yet. Good Things Take Time.

In the meantime, use the many

WP:Featured list "Timeline of [x]" articles, as a guide for development. –Quiddity (talk

) 17:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So, more of another huge hot mess needing massive cleanup and citation; rather than a wiki-not?Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say a standalone list of bullet points as a "timeline of..." is a poor substitute for a well-written prose article on the "history of..." and probably should be deleted or rewritten as prose. Timeline of British botany is a good example of this. Timeline of art, on the other hand, is just an expansion on a navigational list. Each entry begins with the link to a "[year] in art" article. But then 2013 in art is another poorly referenced list of bullet points, which should be rewritten as prose and properly referenced. We would have to evaluate each of these lists on a case-by-case basis, as some may be relatively easy to convert to prose and move to "history of...", and in other cases it may be easier just to PROD and start over with a "history of..." stub. Does anyone see any reason why an encyclopedia should have "timeline" lists rather than prose histories? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, see the WP:Featured lists page. There are almost 40 FLs titled "Timeline of [x]", many of which are in brief bullet-point format (eg. Timeline of the Manhattan Project and Timeline of chemistry and Timeline of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season). There's nothing inherently wrong with this format, and it is well suited to providing a concise chronological overview of a topic - bulking it out with prose would be unhelpful. –Quiddity (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ya, I have several "History of..." books that utilize this format. I don't see it as inherently non-encyclopedic. The WP:OR is a bit of an issue when considering the scope of a list, and what is included; but the ordering of dates in chronological order isn't OR. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that Timeline of the Manhattan Project and Timeline of chemistry have well-written, prosaic and carefully referenced entries, as well as a well-written lead section that establishes notability and scope. Of course I don't have a problem with the entries being ordered chronologically, but I do feel that dropping the bullet points and simply condensing the text into paragraphs would convey a more encyclopedic tone. Still, you have a point that it is a concise and easily navigable style of presentation. D, the OR problem isn't the chronology, it's the multitude of unreferenced entries. Nor do I have any problem with navigational lists (such as Timeline of art), but articles like 2013 in art need clean-up, even if only to chase down some references and clarify a few entries. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, referencing is the ever present problem on Wikipedia. There are editors like User:BuzyBody that seem to spend their entire time just adding references. I see what you are talking about with wp:OR. Clearly just adding a bullet with a sentence is OR if it isn't referenced. Especially with 2013 in art. Notability of art is so subjective, there really needs to be outside reliable source for each bullet. Just because a notable artist with a biography page did something means that the something they did is notable. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A significant number of people are citing

WP:NEVENT is what goes into detail what is expected for a stand-alone article for a news story, which includes those elements. Except, broad coverage is not a sign of a notable event - there are events that will get short-term, broad (read international) coverage but disappear from the news after a few days, but that is not notable for us. --MASEM (t

) 22:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

And since notability guidelines are either-or, anything that can pass the GNG still deserves an article, which that one clearly does. Fact is, NEVENT represents a poorly-received effort by some to eliminate things that otherwise meet guidelines. The elitism that would suggest that people should not be able to find things that our customers care about in Wikipedia for one reason or another is never positive or supportable under our pillars, in my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

News coverage is generally not secondary coverage but primary (reiterating details but providing no analysis or other transformative mode), and hence simply having coverage doesn't meet the GNG. And yes, we do purposely remove things that fail to help make us a high quality encyclopedia even if they have high readership numbers. Our purpose is not to draw in readers, but to create a high quality freely redistributable encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens. Our purpose, by being an encyclopedia, is to help readers find information: by condensing it from sources, balancing, structuring, presenting it in a consistent way. When a reader searches something which we could cover and we actively refuse to, we make a disservice to the readers. Our purpose is not to draw them in, but our purpose must be to help them. Otherwise we're just a collective masturbation. Now: The GNG condenses from what are the minimum requirements to make our coverage possible: >1 reliable secondary source (as a guarantee that there is more than one voice on the subject, and that such voice is reliable and not directly connected to the subject's POV). I frankly disagree with news coverage being considered "primary", in the context of Wikipedia, and especially for WP notability. We need secondary sources to have something that is not controlled by the subject and as such is biased. The homepage of a company is controlled by the company, and as such is biased and unsuitable. News reports are not controlled by the events they cover, they just report them. --cyclopia^speak! 17:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Google. If people are trying to find information on breaking news, they will always get better information via Google. We need to only distill down to those events that have a significant impact as a tertiary source. This is why news reports are primary - they do not transform information to place the event into the larger scheme of things. That's a point that's been set at WP:OR/WP:RS/WP:PSTS. (Further, the GNG does not require more than 1, it requires significant coverage which may be 1, or may require 10 or more. It depends on the depth of information provided by the source) --MASEM (t) 18:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Google - Entirely correct. And in fact Google does not show information by condensing it from sources, balancing, structuring, presenting it in a consistent way, as I said clearly above. That's our job. I disagree that they will always get better information via Google: according to this logic, we could shut down WP altogether, because one can make the effort of looking for sources and making up their mind by themselves. What actually means "We need to only distill down to those events that have a significant impact as a tertiary source." is entirely unclear, because "impact" is extremly vague. About "primary/secondary", I admit I was conflating "secondary" with "third party". In this case I can reword my argument this way: I think that notability is shown by coverage by third party reliable sources, not necessarly secondary sources. We do not always need to put stuff in the larger scheme of things, this is an entirely arbitrary requirement that doesn't help bringing a service to our readers. Of course if we can, that's much better. (Oh, and the GNG explicitly says that multiple sources are, in general, expected - check under "Sources"). --cyclopia^speak! 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, not everything that passes the GNG "deserves" an article. Passing the GNG is the minimum threshold for having a separate article, not a guarantee of getting one.—Kww(talk) 01:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that age old issue. I'd generally argue that passing the GNG is enough assuming the topic passes

WP:NOT

Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

Further, some topics that don't pass the GNG might still have articles (notable academics often lack independent coverage). Admittedly, some that pass the GNG won't have articles for editorial reasons (we could easily write an article on Michele Obama's dresses that clear the GNG by a mile but AFAIK we haven't). So not saying Kww is wrong per-se, but saying he has stated things a bit differently than I would. (And honestly the MO dresses thing could make a featured article...) Hobit (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Does

LOMP is a bot-written duplication a Jet Propulsion Laboratory database of the sizes and orbits of all known asteroids.

If LOMP were deleted, it would simplify the process of dealing with

LOMP could be deleted on RAWDATA grounds so that extra steps in NASTO,

Not only do millions of such objects fail NASTRO and

However, WP:RAWDATA might need to be strengthened first so that it clearly states that such things as LOMP are inappropriate for Wikipedia.

We need a clear ruling here that such things as LOMP are what WP:RAWDATA is talking about, and strong edits to RAWDATA that more clearly and specifically dis-recommend such things as LOMP.

Once that is done, a deletion discussion at List of minor planets can succeed.

Then, we can simplify

Accomplishing that, get a more realistic tally of how many articles there are on the English Wikipedia, an oft-quoted statistic on the front page that is badly distorted by the presence of so many NASTRO-failing articles.

However, the matter at hand is to strengthen the wording of WP:RAWDATA clearly describing and dis-recommending articles such as WP:LOMP.

Have a look at a presentation on You Tube by Scott Manley, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJsUDcSc6hE . LOMP could be replaced with such a visualization. The data for that could be taken directly from the JPL database the bots used to create all these articles. This is an interesting idea, but the point is LOMP is not a step toward that goal and serves no purpose not already better served by JPL, so that should not stand in the way of strengthening RAWDATA.

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Chrisrus (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, as long as the community also says we keep every verified civilized place on Earth, which many of the articles were generated from census/government database. Verified minor planets are effectively the same type of information and generated in the same way, and thus we can't treat that different. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right that both were generated in the same way, but you don't seem to disagree that each civilized place is of interest to multiple people, for example local people. This is not the case with most asteroids, which are mere specks of rock in space. If the basis of your disagreement is the generation method, please understand that the generation method is not the point, it's the lack of a rationally foreseeable potential user weighed against the complications the list generates. Chrisrus (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

How is

Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012. Dkriegls (talk to me!

) 20:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Closures of any kind are all supposed to be accompanied by a summary of the results of the discussion - your "signing statements" (actually called the discussion "summary") are a standard practice to let other editors know the outcome of the discussion, and happens to enable

non-admin closure. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs

04:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(

WP:CLOSING may encourage them to revise their closing comments to be more "on the reservation". Misuse of closing templates with parameters like "train wreck", or long complaints about the discussion, vs the summary of the discussion, can be addressed with calm, courteous request on User Talk. Express the importance of the close as a historical document, which expresses and affects the concerted emotional investment of many editors. I've requested re-do's of closes which IMHO were too brief, or too dismissive of discussion points, or too idiosyncratic to be useful to other editors as closing comments, and have gotten improvements in each case (if reluctant). --Lexein (talk

) 19:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Any thoughts about this article? It seems to be pushing the line into SOAP, agenda, POV, and teaming up to edit and/or promote an "ism".--Light show (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You might just be insinuating thought crimes based on the interpretations of one overly enthusiastic young collage student's article. Hopefully collage professors at these universities place at least some value on verifiable sources and won't just instruct there students to freely edit their personal opinions into articles as the please for the reward of collage credits. However, if you find actual evidence of that... (--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC))

I'd have to see more information to say something with any certainty, but I'd generally agree with the premise - there is a distinct lack of sourced feminist scholarship on much of wikipedia, and it would be good to get better coverage of feminist ideas and concepts. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 20:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Possible feminist canvassing. Best reply there, to keep discussions unfragmented. –Quiddity (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This states that Wikipedia servers are in Virginia and thus governed by Virginia law. I swear that just this week I just saw on a legal page somewhere that our servers were in Florida and we were governed by Florida law. I tried to find that reference, but couldn't follow my footsteps back to find the right page. The Wikimedia servers page says both states, but doesn't make reference to what law governs them. Just trying to get clarity. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The change was made in February 2013 with this edit, and was based on this article at the Wikimedia site -- "Wikimedia sites to move to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia". It says that our main operation is now in Virginia near DC. I don't know what the legal implications of this are, but since this is our primary data center I suppose it's reasonable that jurisdiction would devolve there. (Don't know the ins and outs of this; the Foundation lawyers would know for sure.) Herostratus (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling that up. I asked over at Wikilegal. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There are probably some small state law issues that could come into play between Florida and Virginia but I suspect these will already involve edge case issues (without looking, I'm thinking on definition of a minor, etc.) but it's a CYA-language in case Virginia or whatever state passes new legislation that would affect WP's performance. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It was discussed in the 5P talk page that, to make it more logical to link to in the 5P statements, this page be moved to the name WP:What Wikipedia is and is not. I agree that is logical and will stop the perennial attempt to delink this page and put in its place wp:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which by title makes more sense but is an essay instead of policy/guideline.Camelbinky (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are lots of articles with guidelines about what Wikipedia is. Adding that to the title here would create a false impression of coverage of the materiel here. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This page is all what WP is not and has nothing about what it is. There is no reason that a separate page (not what the current 5P is, as there's more than just what WP is listed there) for what WP is can't be created on its own to contrast this one. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• oppose - that would be a fundamentally different page than this is (and probably twice as long and this is on the long end of the spectrum already) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• I don't understand. What are these "perennial attempt[s] to delink this page and put in its place wp:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" that you speak of? Is there an ongoing discussion to do this or is that edit regularly made, or what? I haven't heard of this before. That page just basically points to this page anyway, so I'm not sure what's being asked here.

Herostratus (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, OK, something from

WP:ENC? Or something. I don't see how changing the name of this page is helpful. Herostratus (talk

) 05:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment- it would be nice if everyone who commented here took the time to read the talk page at the 5P and the relevant thread to realize why the people who work on the 5P came to a consensus that they'd like the title of this page changed. But instead you've all decided to comment and/or oppose based on... well i'm still trying to figure that out from the "comments".Camelbinky (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • One page can't come to a consensus on what to do to another page which has been longstanding as policy (particularly a page that isn't policy). And I'm not convinced by the weak arguments there. --MASEM (t) 04:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Moreso, the problem with the rationale there is that because the one lead sentence in NOT is "WP is an online encyclopedia" does not translation to saying this page is describing what WP is and is not. NOT is strictly what WP is not, the first sentence only an affirmative to explain why we have all these NOT statements. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. Ansh666 01:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that an article about an organization should not include a list of its board of directors or of its staff other than, usually, the top one or two people, especially if the others are not notable. I was close to deleting such a list but I couldn't find the authority to cite for why I was deleting it. Was this an old policy/guideline that no longer exists? Or is it somewhere else and perhaps we should link to it from this policy?

I don't see anything like that at

WP:ORGDEPTH seems to encourage such lists in order to help expand an organization's page beyond a simple stub. --Dkriegls (talk to me!

) 20:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I must be reading a different ORGDEPTH because I don't see any such encouragement. To the initial question I would say that such content would fall under

WP:NOTDIR as an absolute no-no. A clear example being film articles, we list major cast and major players in production, we don't list every stunt actor and the key grip--Jac16888 ^Talk

20:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there is such a content guideline or not, I don't see how

WP:NOT is the place for it. Jclemens (talk

) 06:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIR would cover egregious cases of this. --erachima talk

09:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

True, however, I would argue that

WP:ORGDEPTH would allow for minimal lists on pages of notable organizations where the source material doesn't provide much more than a stub's worth of information about the organization. But I'm a fan of filler material for stubs that might not be appropriate for FA status, not all editors are. Dkriegls (talk to me!

) 23:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, where the source material provides little more than a lit of members of the board, then the organization can only be barely notable, and the way to improve it is not to add minor content. Indeed, for the most important organization, the members of the board of directors and the highest executive ranks are relevant content--in a very large and important organization they have a major role to play in the world in a minor organization , very little. There's one special case that concerns me: for political lobbying groups, think tanks, and politically oriented publications, the members of the board can be a very relevant indication of the actual nature and intent of the organization. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The CEO and certain other chairs/vice-presidents are likely notable because they are the face of the company, but the board members are rarely that afront. Add to the fact that these can change day to day. If reliable sources (not just ones that document the company in routine coverage like SEC filings) go into details on the board members then it would be reasonable to document them for that company, but I wouldn't do it across the board. (using the arbitrary point of "very large and important organization" would lead to edit war inclusion). --MASEM (t) 04:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm against filler that is only for stubs. Content should be appropriate under policies and guidelines regardless of whether the article is a stub or not, unless a policy or a guideline makes that kind of an exception. (At the other end of the length scale, if an article is getting close to being too long, an option is to delete content that is less appropriate than content that would be kept, but that judgment is not appropriate for stubs.)

Weight applies to whether to list board members for political organizations and the like, including the largest and most effectual, and weight is to be determined from sourcing; otherwise we would be engaging in original research. Notability probably justifies weight; if a notable person is on the board or in the staff, that might justify inclusion in the article on the organization. A comparable situation is of articles about neighborhoods that list notable residents or about schools that list notable alums; in those cases, for the articles I've noticed if not by policy or guideline, notability and sourcing seem to be required for listing a person in such a list, and I think are so required. In a hypothetical case of a U.S. Republican lobbying organization having on its board of directors a former Republican President, the notability and a source might be enough; if also on the board was a non-notable Republican ideologue who turned out to be important to the organization's ideological direction, an independent source discussing the ideologue's role could justify weight for inclusion in the article about the organization (and might even establish notability for the ideologue as well), but the organization's annual report being the only source would not justify the listing. Organizations' own websites and annual reports that list board members typically give no one's qualifications or everyone's qualifications (in my observation) and are not independent sources; even if they give everyone's qualifications, we should not use that alone to write those qualifications into Wikipedia's organizational article.

Notability alone as justifying inclusion in a list of people related to an organization is justified by an analogy. Consider if we compiled a list of U.S. Presidents including those Vice Presidents who served for even the shortest time as President (e.g., VP Gore was the acting President for 7 minutes, according to him in a reported campaign speech, and I think that happens because the VP-Elect is inaugurated before the Presdident-Elect is and the former President's term by law ends regardless of a new President having been inaugurated). I think all of them would be notable. We would list them. To my knowledge, they were/are not in one organization. If they were, I think we'd still list them.

On the other hand, for a membership, if it is too large, I don't think even notability would be an adequate ground. For example, if we compiled a list of all notable Republicans, I think there'd likely be at least a million. However, if a membership is very small, listing those members who are both notable and independently sourced as members might be justified.

Nick Levinson (talk

) 19:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that a guideline should apply to both stubs and articles. I'm just not in agreement that there needs to be a guideline on this that trumps: "Each article on Wikipedia is standalone." If an notable organization has limited coverage, we don't have to include every detail, but we also don't have to write the article with the same limited-space considerations that we do with a large article. For example: with small towns and villages, editors include town councils and lists of notable people. When the article is about a big city with lots of source materiel to write about, the council gets deleted and the list of notable people becomes a stand alone list. I'm not trying to make a

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument, I'm just highlighting that guidelines ably to both stub and A list article, but size of the article can determine some of the content. Dkriegls (talk to me!

) 20:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, just out of curiosity, how large do you think is "too Large" before you "don't think even notability would be an adequate ground" (See: List of people from New York City and List of people from California).--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Our articles should have coverage of the basic aspects of the topic that approximate the weight given to those aspects in independent/third-party/secondary sources. This is an idea that is represented in

WP:V, sometimes that's just not appropriate for an encyclopedia and puts undue weight on that coverage. So in the cases of those small towns that list out who is on town councils, that's not appropriate at all, as rarely who these people are are of interest outside the local coverage of the town. Same thing with board members and the management of a company. --MASEM (t

) 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, except that weight is determined on an article by article basis, given that each subject has varying coverage. Weight should roughly equal the board's coverage divided by total coverage of the organization. For example, the same length of coverage about Citi Bank's board of directors would be measured as less weight than the exact same length of coverage for the board of directors at a notable animal shelter, simply because the total coverage of Citi Bank is huge, while coverage of a famous local animal shelter is likely to be very small. So if the animal shelter's board gets mentioned in a paper, we are not providing undue weight by including it in our small article about them. If we made the article about the board, that would be providing undue weight. I agree, primary sources should not be the only source mentioning that board. But if it is mentioned in a local paper, and the notability of the organization is established with sources that aren't a local paper, then per: "not everything in an article has to be notable", we should include it after properly weighing the impact. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Article length is under the guideline on article size. If an article gets to be too long, an option is to split it, which allows preserving content and adding more. If an article is at the length limit specified by the Wikipedia guideline and it is not to be split, then more than notability would be a good minimum. A comparison might be to an article about a scientific subject that has been much investigated; some older studies that used to be cited many times and thus were notable might no longer deserve weight in recent years and so would be deleted in favor of more important studies.

For stubs, their guideline does not suggest lowering editorial standards to increase content.

Legislatures are different because even for the smallest notable governmental units (including towns, etc.) legislatures are probably notable, if a local news medium covers its proceedings from time to time, and the local news outlet may well name its members with some regularity. The chances are that if the locality is notable then so are many of the members of its legislature and many of its judges.

My understanding of boards is that even when composed of prominent people those people are rarely important because of their board membership, because typically they pick a CEO and set or approve an overarching plan to be carried out by the CEO and then don't much interfere as long as there's no major trouble, because they have other things to do, with other organizations and elsewhere. Exceptions exist, such as if an organization entered a crisis and board members became publicly active in a rescue. The proposal allows for exceptions.

Local consensus controls articles unless our experience with Wikipedia shows an advantage to setting a future direction for consistency through a policy or a guideline, and that's what I'm suggesting for this situation.

Nick Levinson (talk

) 22:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC) (Clarified reply & corrected indentation: 22:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

But you completely missed the point about sourcing. It's not about size of company vs size of board members, or the like. If I took all the available sources on Citibank, excluding those that were primary or dependent (press releases, corporate brochures, SEC filings), and looked through the rest of the available sources and found not one mention of the boardmembers, then we should not be including that information, even though it could be verified via the primary sources. It doesn't matter if it is the biggest bank in the world (I don't know if that's true), if no one else besides themselves talks about the board, it's not appropriately encyclopedic to include. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I basically agree. (I think

Nick Levinson (talk

) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Er, yes, that was to Dkriegls' point. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

propose to add restriction on lists of directors, officers, staff, members, et al.

I propose to add text like the following to the policy, into the the section Encyclopedic Content, into the subsection

# Directors, officials, staff, owners, members, and other people in comparable positions, past or present, usually shall not be listed in an article about an organization, except for the chief executive officer (regardless of anyone's title), the majority or controlling owner or ownership family, and notable people strongly associated with the organization. For a membership, if it is large, members shall not be listed even if notable, unless an additional ground supports the weight for someone's inclusion. Usually, only one or two people would be due weight. For those who are listed, information should be from independent sources and limited mainly to information relevant to the organization, that being the subject of the article; for example, someone's sports and family interests outside of the organization usually should be omitted. A person may be associated with another organization, but that would usually be due weight only if their position with the organization the article is about is ex officio based on the other organization. If the person is notable, a separate article about them can state their relationship with the organization and provide other biographical content. If many notable people are or were associated with the organization, it may be useful to create a category for people who are or were "with" the organization.

Disagree I don't think this needs to be codified. We should leave it up to the editors of each article to determine if this content is necessary or not. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Generally agree, but.... There is often too much corporate cruft that I've noticed seems to be more common with lesser-known entities, but some editors list the boards of major listed companies too. Compounding the issue is that there are often also management boards and supervisory boards. Whilst I frequently remove such lists, including staff lists (such as production credits, of for radio stations, football clubs), it's not always easy to draw the line. I would support the above modification, up to but not including "Someone who is not notable...", with due emphasis on "usually shall not be listed in an article". -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence "Someone who is not notable but who is associated with another organization which is notable normally does not thereby acquire personal notability, except where the other organization (usually a small one) is almost synonymous with the person.", because it needs clarifying so it's easier to read and because the situation it's meant for may not arise often enough to worry about (if it does, it can be proposed after clarification). Did you also object to what came after the quoted sentence?

Nick Levinson (talk

) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC) (Deleted redundant word & corrected excess indent: 18:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC))

• Oppose No reason to put this into NOT, broadly per Drkiegls. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose- I can see this going either way depending on the article, sometimes appropriate, other times not. It will vary for each circumstance. No need for a hardline rule.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I no longer support this as I now agree with the consensus view, largely opposed to the proposal.

I think it's time to revisit this policy, and try to improve it to allow useful and notable software version histories. Consider, for example, Android version history. It had 350,000 page views in September, and was ranked #340 on en.wikipedia.org, so it's clearly popular and useful, yet it technically doesn't comply with this policy.

Why should we allow some changelogs? For commercial reasons the release dates of software and the introduction of features have become quite significant, and such milestones in the software's history can be notable and are worth documenting. Major, complex pieces of software like operating systems usually have thousands of changes between versions, and obviously listing every single change is inappropriate, but a condensed list selected by editors and sourced from reliable third-party sources provides a valuable reference by showing a condensed history that is (ideally) free from marketing gloss and hype. Such a single-page history is usually not available from software developers, which tend to produce big marketing pages for each current release (example).

I suggest the following changes:

1. Require changelog items to have reliable third-party sources. This will still effectively ban changelogs for minor software packages, but allow significant changes in more notable software to be included.
2. Use common sense to decide what level of detail to include, since third-party sources will usually detail every single change for major software releases.
3. Remove the ban on tables. This is just a formatting issue best left to the MOS. Personally I think the info could be better presented as a simple list, but it's an odd thing to ban in this policy. If you want to ban particular types of content, ban the content, not the formatting. Converting the tables to prose would make it harder to find information quickly.
4. Move WP:NOTCHANGELOG back under the "indiscriminate collection of information" heading. A changelog is clearly not a directory (OED: a book or website listing individuals or organizations alphabetically or thematically with details such as names, addresses, and telephone numbers).

To try to forestall the usual arguments:

• WP:ITSUSEFUL
  says "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful".
• WP:POPULARPAGE: I included the pageview stats in the above argument both to support the usefulness argument, and because the argument has been made in support of the current WP:NOTCHANGELOG policy that "Nitty-gritty changes will not be of interest to our average reader" when clearly they are to some extent, and I think I have presented arguments to show how software version histories can be in scope. Dcxf (talk
  ) 21:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You just used arguments against why we should not include detailed change logs. Our coverage of the aspect of a given topic should be covered at a level that is representative of what secondary, third-party, and independent sources give that topic, using primary/first-party sources to back up specific details. Most detailed changes do not get extensive coverage in these outside sources, particular on minor revision number changes. Major feature changes, such as has happened with both iOS and Android sytsems, can be documented, but not at the level of a running changelog. This information can be found elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is to document significant changes in notable software, rather than to include verbatim dumps of lists of minor changes. The prohibition on changelogs makes sense when we're talking about software that has a lot of minor patch releases that do not introduce drastic changes, where the changelogs are only of the interest to the users of the software and otherwise not notable.

However, recently we've seen more software that sees relatively frequent incremental releases that introduce notable changes. Examples include Android, certain Linux distros, iOS, etc. Such software does not necessarily have huge major releases that would warrant separate articles (as in Windows Vista and Windows 7), but it nevertheless can have changes that are major enough that in the long run the software changes drastically, and so its history should be noted in some way. In addition, the incremental changes are often notable in themselves and covered by tech press, which will highlight, for example, the new major features in the latest release of Android.

Prohibiting the latter kind of content should not be within the spirit of NOTCHANGELOG, yet because such a release history can be said to be a changelog, it has been a subject of some debate. If we agree that in such a situation coverage of the history of the piece of software should be included, then, as Dcxf said, this is no longer a WP:NOT issue but rather a matter for the MoS.  — daranz [ t ] 22:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a difference between a true changelog, and what the current Android article is (baesd on doing a quick review of sources that talk about 4.3). The two distinquishing factors are a good reliance on secondary sources that are not simply parroting the marketspeak from Android, and that these are high level, broad features and not like "made border 1 pixel wider"-type documented changes. There is room for something like the current Android article here. But, to avoid it being the change log, it seems almost better to present these as prose, with a table to summarize the releases, dates, etc. involved here. Most of these secondary articles go into detail what such changes mean to the end user, which is important, and we should capture that aspect in prose, not a straight-up table. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To me the examples of android and Ubuntu are far from a dry list of low level changes which is what is typically meant by a changelog. These list high level feature changes. Perhaps the policy can reflect "high level feature" changes as not being what is meant by a change log. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Support points 2 and 3; indifferent about points 1 and 4. (3rd party sources are unlikely to be more reliable than a primary changelog in the case of software; also, the change can typically be verified by examining the software itself.) --greenrd (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly support points 2 + 3, support point 1, neutral on point 4. This argument has been bought up numerous times, usually just to (attempt to) delete one article rather than all. It's clearly open to abuse from fanboys on all sides and we need a clear policy change. This would be a step in the right direction again and avoid inconveniencing thousands of visitors and users, forcing them to another site, and damaging editor retention. Make Wikipedia an encyclopaedia again and put the user experience above the bureaucracy for once. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

- Notified WikiProject Computing about this discussion for a bigger response. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support 2,3 and 4. There's an agreement in the comments above that documenting software changes that have attracted attention by third parties provide encyclopedic value. The policy should reflect this, that changelogs are not forbidden for being changelogs (just like WP:PLOT is not forbidden merely for being plot, but for being plot only), but for being trivial and without commentary. Treating it as
  WP:IINFO would signal that they are forbidden only when changes are included in an indiscriminate way, and not when they are supported by third party sources that are evaluating their impact. Diego (talk
  ) 12:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• As a suggestion, the problem with an article like Android version history is that it does not put the changes in any context for a non-Android user to readily understand. It is not that the table format is bad (that actually helps to standards things like version #s and release dates), but the straight-up bullet-by-bullet listing of even high-level features that are recognized in sources doesn't aid that reader is what make people think this is a change log. What separates these feature lists from the usual changelog is that, through sources, the end impact of what these features provide can be summarized by paraphrasing and use of sources to expand on, while the usual changelog is more targeted to a power user and rarely can be rephrased cleaning for the end user. Perhaps it would be more helpful if there was lead discussion about the topic - take, for example, PlayStation, which the first half of the article is prose discussing the history of the units in the PlayStation line, and then breaks into the specification table. For, say, Android, it would seem reason to have a brief prose section on each of major release sets (like Jelly Bean) and broad overview of new features. (Eg: the section on "Update Schedule" in the main OS article could be brought to here to explain that. The key is to set the stage for the layreader before getting into the nitty gritty, something you typically can't do with the more typical changelog approach. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support all, for reasons by proposer. This seems an excellent change of policy in that it explicitly stems from asking "what do our readers want/need?". Wikipedia needs more of this open mindset. --cyclopia^speak! 15:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "What readers want" is not always encyclopedic, however (going off what I see in reader feedback). It's a balance to give what the average reader needs in the broadest terms for an encyclopedia, and if they need to know more, provide them sources where they can find more. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    • "What readers want" is not always encyclopedic, however - Absolutely. There are many instances where we must not bow to popular demand (
      WP:NOTCENSORED is an example), because such demand can contrast our goal of providing encyclopedic knowledge. But given that this project is at service of readers, when one can accomodate the demand without going against the project goals, we should consider that. --cyclopia^speak!
      23:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support all these sound very reasonable to me. Major releases like Android or Red Hat do get third party coverage. What needs to be removed is the uncited litany of details that tends to inflate articles on otherwise minor subjects (except perhaps to a very devoted small community). The other point to add is that prose might be a better way to discuss release history in context with other history in many cases. Tables seem better than bullet lists in most other cases I would guess. Tables that merely repeat what is in prose only are needed in rare cases where a summary of a long and detailed prose history would call for it. Bullet lists that repeat prose never seem appropriate that I can think of. A final idea is to delegate more of the computer-specific guidelines to the computer-specific manual of style, which is somewhat bare-bones right now. I can think of other guidelines specific to computer technology articles that could use some consensus building. For example, the over-use of dated language like "currently" or "new" (every release is "new" when it first comes out"), better guidelines to discourage the articles on "two kids and an app", the usual issues with marketing terms like "solution", "platform", "launch", "worldwide", etc. W Nowicki (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support all: this rule is one that's mostly enforced in spirit rather than in letter - IMO it's more meant to keep articles about software from becoming a super-detailed changelog (considering that they do tend to take a lot of space) rather than banning them altogether. There's still a lot more detail than desired in, say the example of Android version history given here, but generally it's a good idea to have around. The changes to this policy proposed here are a step in the right direction, but #2 will be the most important one in bringing pages like this to the standard of the rest of the project. Ansh666 01:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• While I agree there's no question of consensus to make the change, the consensus was not for outright removal of NOTCHANGELOG. It needs to be improved to reflect the distinction between what's been discussed compared to what a traditional changelog is. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah my bad, I thought it was outright removed. I do think we could use better language in the new location to better distinguish between the possible cases. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)