Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already-proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines. Change discussions often start on other pages and then move or get mentioned here for more visibility and broader participation.

• If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals). For drafting with a more focused group, you can also start on the talk page for a WikiProject, Manual of Style, or other relevant project page.
• If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
• If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the Help desk or the Teahouse.
• This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.
• If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, use Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

« Archives, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195

Taking the temperature on NACs in CTs

This is not a formal proposal, but may be a precursor to one. WP:NAC is generally cited as the roadmap for non-admin closures. It cautions non-admins against closing potentially contentious discussions, but does not prohibit them. It is also only an essay; but the relevant policy pages that I skimmed do not appear to make distinctions between admin and non-admin closures.

We have a good few experienced non-admin closers. Their decisions are, best as I can tell, not inferior to admin ones. However, based on the caution against contentious closures by non-admins in WP:NAC, I believe they are challenged far more frequently, and consequently their closures often end up costing, rather than saving, the community time (if this comes to a formal proposal, I will do the archival research needed to show this).

I'd like thoughts on a) whether we should prohibit non-admin closures in contentious topics, as a means of saving community time on close reviews; and b) what the best way to do this would be, given that WP:NAC does not currently carry formal weight. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A few thoughts.

First, there are levels of contentiousness, with ARBPIA at one end and ARBBLP at the other. While non-admin closures may be more likely to be challenged for the former to the point of costing community time, I am certain that is not true of the latter.

Second, I am certain this does not apply to request moves. As a NAC, I close a lot of RM's, and as expected given the volume a number are challenged. I haven't found it any more likely that those I close within contentious topics are challenged than those outside, and given the number closed to the number contested I am certain that these closures have saved community time. BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I generally think we should be offloading bureaucratic workload from admins, not piling more on. If there are specific subject areas that become magnets for poor NACs, existing processes are sufficient to curtail those without instruction creep. VQuakr (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As a regular NAC, I'm not sure NACs are challenged more often than admin closures; even if they were, close reviews are relatively rare (for example, as of December 2023, there was an average of 2 close reviews per month as discussed here). More importantly, we shouldn't be taking editor's powers away just because some editors spuriously choose to challenge closures solely on the grounds that they were done by non-admins. As for NAC, I read that just as you do—as a word of caution, not as a command. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thinking out loud, but if NACs are costing the community time in contentious areas, I think it would be better to have a new "userright" (for want of a better term) called "discussion closer" that gives users who have it no extra tools but the same weight in closing discussions as an admin has. Such a right would need to be conferred in a process only slightly heavier weight than file mover - I'm thinking something like request open 2-5 days, consensus in a discussion that has at least 5 supports from admins and/or discussion closers (no consensus after 5 days = not granted). We would then recommend that discussions that are or which are likely to be contentious be closed by admins or discussion closers.

NAC would be explicitly not a permissible ground on which to challenge a closure by a discussion closer - if that's the only reason given the challenge would be speedily declined, if it was accompanied by other reasons then the portion of the statement relating to being an NAC would be struck.

Actually, even without the discussion closer status, speedily declining any review request where NAC is the only ground would be a good thing. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

speedily declining any review request where NAC is the only ground would be a good thing – This, 100%. As Vanamonde noted, there's no actual policy or guideline that says we give admin closures more weight. Indeed, per WP:NOBIGDEAL and WP:ANOT, being an admin doesn't give anyone special authority over content decisions or determing consensus. To the extent that people read WP:NAC as implying that admin closes are better than NACs just because the closers have a mop, it ought to be clarified. I'm against the new "userright" because I don't like the idea that some editors determinations of consensus are weightier than others. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: I agree with you about the admin-non-admin distinction, but in general, there most certainly are editors who shouldn't be doing NACs. We need to allow genuinely bad closures to be reversed: we also don't want the closer's status as a non-admin to become a distraction. I'm open to other ideas on how to achieve that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

In such cases, the review request needs to say "this summary does not accurately/fully represent the outcome of the discussion" rather than saying "the wrong kind of person wrote this". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

We do allow genuinely bad closures to be reversed through close reviews. If the close is so egregious, the close review will likely be a snow overturn. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

And, while this is not a great outcome, it's also not something we should fear. People learn by making mistakes, at least to the extent that they're willing to learn. Some people are resistant to learning from their mistakes; they are the ones to fear. RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've suggested a flag like this in the past, and I still think it's a good idea. We don't even need to say it gives "the same weight that an admin has"; we could just say that closing especially contentious or WP:CTOP discussions requires (or recommends) the discussioncloser right and bundle it into the sysop flag in addition to making it available at WP:RFPERM. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think making it clear that only very experienced closers should close complicated or contentious discussions is sufficient. Relatedly, one of the things I look for at RFA is difficult closes the candidate has made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the type of discussion being closed plays a substantial role. For RMs and some RfCs in CTs I don't think NACs are per se a problem, but at AfD, where non-admins literally cannot close in favor of the most common outcome, we really do need to retain the current guidance. AfD NACs can become experienced at closing debates that have a relatively clear keep or ATD outcome, but they are perpetually lacking in the skill of finding consensus for deletion. A non-delete outcome is also necessarily predetermined when a NAC decides to close an AfD, which means in close cases where either a keep or a delete outcome would be within discretion they will always go for keep. And that's on top of the already strong selection bias towards inclusionism among current NACs, which would skew things even further. JoelleJay (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

they are perpetually lacking in the skill of finding consensus for deletion I think that's a bit unfair to NACs. After all, we can't close as delete, so how would you know if we can't find consensus for it. In my experience, when I see a discussion where the discussion could reasonably be closed as delete, I add it to my watchlist, skip it, and when it's closed I can see if I agree with the admin closure. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

NACs can be plenty competent at assessing discussions, but as they are not supposed to close anything where deletion would be remotely reasonable they can't develop the practical skills needed for both reading nuanced consensus and communicating that consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why assessing/communicating that consensus is any different than assessing/communicating any other form of consensus. Plus, most AfDs appear to be closed without a written rationale anyways. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

But the point is that the AfDs closed by NACs should, by definition, not need a close summary because the outcome is uncontroversial. So if NACs have been following the current guidance, they could not have developed experience in closing AfDs where deletion is on the table, and especially not the ones where they would need to provide a close summary explaining why they didn't see consensus to delete. They just literally cannot cultivate that skillset. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. In an AFD with one or two good rationals for delete (e.g. "the sources do not meet GNG") but there are (many) more editors who say that that there are sufficient sources or who come after the first delete comments, I think a close summary is helpful. - Enos733 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree and I wish close summaries (and relisting comments) were a lot more common, but I think it's still true that they're not expected for uncontroversial outcomes. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

As a somewhat irregular NAC-er focussed on AfDs, I can appreciate where this is coming from - although my (purely anecdotal) observations of DRV would say this is not, relatively speaking, a problem in that sphere. I think the question is less about status (admin or not) and rather experience; I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to setting some thresholds (edit count, participation etc) for NAC on CTOPs, but I don't see a strong enough case yet for exclusion. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Like anything else on the wiki, the qualification to do most things is that you know how to do it, and having a mop is no promise that you do. I'm sure most of the regulars at WP:AfD, admin or not, know the details of our notability guidelines better than I do; it's absurd to suggest that I'm better qualified to close a complicated AfD just because 19 years ago, 27 people thought I'd be an OK admin. Our current NAC mindset is an anachronism and should be done away with. RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• We should root out and destroy every suggestion that discussion closure is an admin task. It makes sense for the admin noticeboards, and is vestigial in most other places. I like Thryduulf's user right suggestion (I know others have suggested something similar in the past) and speedy close suggestion, though I've rarely seen a situation where NAC is the only objection. We should guide newer closers to less controversial discussions, and we should explicitly indicate that experience multiple discussions is necessary for closing contentious, major discussions. We should still allow for challenges based (in part) on lack of experience, it's just that many non-admin closers are much more experienced than almost all admins. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't any different from any other process. I spend a lot of time at DYK. For all the chaos that goes on there, there's an effective culture of new people being groomed to take on greater responsibility. You start out by doing your obligatory initial reviews and move on to more complicated things like building prep sets. People inevitably make mistakes, the mistakes get fixed, experience is gained, and the cycle continues. WP:GA works the same way. And WP:FA. And dozens of other nooks and crannies of the wiki where just plain editors sans mop keep everything going. As it should be. When somebody's been working in an area for a long time, they become an expert at it. The idea that some random admin who's never worked in that area could possibly do a better job is absurd. RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Roy.

  @Firefangledfeathers, even a "major" discussion on an officially Contentious Topic™ can sometimes be easy and uncontentious to summarize. The ideal result of an RFC is that everyone already knows what the outcome is. A given participant might be inclined to privately summarize that outcome as "The community is a bunch of jerks who'll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes", but even the most passionate editor on the "losing" side can often recognize when a consensus has been reached for the "wrong" result. In such cases, we don't necessarily need a highly experienced editor to state the obvious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sure. I meant contentious in the non-trademarked sense. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Outside of deletion discussions and other outcomes that need an admin to carry out (where it absolutely does make sense), I view invoking BADNAC as essentially scope creep. You don't need to be an admin to close RfCs, at all. But I don't think it's fair to dismiss people who bring it up as baseless wikilawyers either. Usually what they're trying to allude to is that contentious discussions are hard to close and therefore that the community expects someone with experience in making successful closes to do it. This is a good and widely agreed upon principle, but it's not written down with a handy shortcut, so BADNAC gets invoked instead. If we articulate that broader principle somewhere, I think we'll see BADNAC cited less often. – Joe (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Outside of deletion discussions and other outcomes that need an admin to carry out (where it absolutely does make sense). There's no fundamental reason why a non-admin can't close an AfD as "delete" and then find an admin to actually push the button. In fact, it looks like {{Db-xfd}} covers exactly this use case. This is similar to how non-admin SPI clerks can determine that an account is a sock and should be blocked and then have to go find an admin to do it for them. RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  No fundamental reason, no, but why create the extra work and complexity when we have no shortage of admins willing to close AfDs? Any process that requires admin intervention should be left to admins unless and until it becomes obvious they need the extra help (as with SPI), as matter of efficiency if nothing else. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's over-broad. I think you shouldn't have to be a sysop to close an RfC that's about making a change to a fully-protected page, for example.—S Marshall T/C 18:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Pressing delete from a closed AfD feels like a situation where an admin would need to verify consensus in the first place and so now you've spent the time of two editors where one could have done. Beyond that, I am pretty staunchly opposed to admin close creep in places like RfCs. When I was a regular at AfD, I found non-admin work to be far less "right" than with RfCs; I think it attracts a different kind of non-admin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 your point about the button-pusher needing to verify the result is valid, and indeed I've made similar arguments myself. But a good close can make that job a lot easier. A good close won't just say "Consensus to delete". It'll summarize the main points made on both sides, list the minority opinions, and talk about which arguments were rejected by other discussants (or by the closer) and for what reasons. With a good analysis like that, you can get your head around the discussion without having to read every word. And, yes, the button-pusher is ultimately responsible for their actions, and I assume all responsible button-pushers will dig as far as they feel is necessary to validate the summary. RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Most AfDs don't require a long closing statement or often don't require any closing statement. This lack of need for closing statements is a way that AfD is different from RfCs. This also doesn't change my point - it's not a good use of editor time to close something which will require substantial re-verification to implement (outside of processes like DYK which are designed to have these multiple levels of checking). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's true that "Consensus to delete" is an adequate close for many AfDs. I would expect somebody to write the kind of detailed analysis I outlined above only for discussions that warranted it due to their complexity. RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  now you've spent the time of two editors where one could have done is true, but we don't stop people from wasting their own time. The admin would have to spend time to process the deletion regardless of whether it was NAC'd first or not. So in the NAC scenario, the only person who's time is arguably wasted is the NAC who volunteered their time to do this, and if that's how people want to spend their time, I don't see why policy should prohibit them from doing so. Arguably, two sets of eyes is a benefit anyway, so it's not necessarily wasted time at all. Levivich (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would distinguish between a discussion close that's a content decision, and one that's a conduct or technical decision. There are philosophical and principled reasons why we absolutely must not give sysops special authority to make content decisions. Conduct decisions in CT areas, on the other hand, are best reserved for sysops even where an unelected person could make them.—S Marshall T/C 07:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• There are non-admins (like S Marshall) who would be in the top 10% of admins regarding closures (even if I disagree with one) if they were one. And vice versa. It's just that the odds and optics are better when it's an admin. I think that the current guidance on this is about right. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• There a many inherent reasons for people not to close long, complicated, or contentious discussions, so I see the lessening of the pool of willing closers as throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• It cautions non-admins against closing potentially contentious discussions, but does not prohibit them. WP:NAC should do more than caution, but still should not prohibit. It should advise against NAC closes of contentious discussions where consensus is not abundantly clear.

We have a good few experienced non-admin closers. Absolutely. Adminship is not a requirement for being a good closer, but being a good closer is something tested at RfA, or at least, not being a bad closer and knowing your own strengths is tested at RfA.

Some challenges to NAC closes may be unfair, but this depends on perspective. It is a fact that many ordinary Wikipedians do not consider a non admin close of a contentious discussion to be a satisfactory close. This is not a reason to slap down ordinary wikipedians, but for non admins engaging in advances functions to do it more conservatively. A good skillful close should make a contentious-looking discussion look no longer contentious.

If a non admin's close of a discussion produces another, longer, more contentious discussion, then their close was not a net positive contribution, and they should not do such closes.

We should advise non admins to not close contentious discussions unless they are very confident that they will explain their close to the satisfaction of all the participants. Alternatively put: If an admin is confident that they can close a discussion to the satisfaction of all participants, then they should be encouraged to do so. Despite being very confident, non admins are allowed to be wrong, sometimes. Don't make a habit of it. If a challenge to their close surprises them in any way, then strongly consider reverting the close and listing it at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Then, sit back and see if someone else closes it the same way.

In any discussion, the closer should be the least important person, not the most important person.

All of the above should apply equally to XfDs, RM, and RfCs. It should apply moreso to closes at AN, DRV, MRV and XRV.

Spurious challenges should not be feared. Spurious challenges are characterised by a SNOW endorse at review.

I don't think a special user-right for closing is warranted. If credentials are wanted, I suggest a category of barnstars for good closes.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• If a non admin's close of a discussion produces another, longer, more contentious discussion, then their close was not a net positive contribution, and they should not do such closes. Sometimes admin closes are bad and result in additional contentious discussions. Admins aren't magically better at analytical thinking.
• We should advise non admins to not close contentious discussions unless they are very confident that they will explain their close to the satisfaction of all the participants. I agree. The guidance should be "to each according to his ability". But, per my first bullet above, the same should be said for admins. If an admin doesn't feel confident that they have the chops to close a particular discussion, they shouldn't feel like their status gives them license to bite off more than they can chew.
• Don't make a habit of it. If a challenge to their close surprises them in any way, then strongly consider reverting the close and listing it at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Unless a close is clearly vandalism or extremely incoherent, we shouldn't be reverting closes absent a close review. Otherwise, we invite random editors to revert closes because they think it's inadequate, leading to even more bickering and bad feelings.

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Admins aren't magically better at analytical thinking, but it is a trait that we select for at RFA, so a random admin will usually do better in this area than a random non-admin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Amending BADNAC?

I want to be very clear that when I opened this it wasn't because I felt some NACs were inappropriate, but because I wanted to avoid spurious challenges, or challenges where non-admin status was muddying the waters. It's fairly clear that there is strong support for not limiting NACs; so what do folks think of an alternative approach to address the problem I mention, and making BADNAC contingent strictly on experience rather than admin status: that is, essentially striking BADNAC#2, and perhaps strengthening the reference to experience in BADNAC#3? Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am in favor of striking #2. I think #3 could be struck too; if somebody inexperienced is really good at evaluating consensus and has read Wikipedia's PAGs, I don't see why the close ought to be overturned on those grounds alone. But, I can live with #3 as it's currently if there's consensus that that kind of limitation should be in BADNAC. Also, I've notified WT:NAC of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The likelihood that someone using an account with few edits will do a passable job on anything except the most obvious cases is low. Also, it gives anyone on the "losing" side an opportunity to suggest that the newbie is a bad-hand sock, which is more drama that we would like to avoid.

BTW, "experienced editor" appears to be a label that there are different views about. @Levivich and I were chatting about this at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians#Higher volume: Can someone who has "only" been editing for a year (the median account activity is one day), with "only" 500 edits total (more than 99.25% of accounts that have ever made a first edit), averaging "only" one edit per day during the last month (less than 10% of currently active accounts), be truly considered "an experienced editor"? If you'd like to provide a third opinion (or fourth, or fifth), please share your idea of what the minimum standard for "an experienced editor" could be over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like we need to temper our expectations regarding how we treat newcomers on Wikipedia, instead of limiting them because others might have bad faith objections.

As for a rare but pertinent counterexample, I noticed Chrhns's close of an RFC within their first 50 edits. It was well reasoned, not "exceptionally obvious" and pretty much the exact close I would make too. I did end up suggesting they edit other parts of the Wiki first, simply because I know how contentious challenges can get. But should they (or editors like them but with 500 more edits) be restricted from one part of the encyclopedia just because they read the rules before they start editing?

I think it's far more important that close challenges cite an actual policy being broken instead of just BADNAC. If a close is flawed, it will be flawed on multiple grounds. Soni (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree in general, CTs excepted, non EC editors cannot close or even participate in internal project discussions. Otherwise I don't object to NACs in principle, if they are messed up, as some will be, we have the procedures to deal with that. Learning by doing is not a bad thing. Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Learning by doing is how Wikipedia works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Your observation that they get challenged more often could be right and a reason to advise non-admin to be careful (thus keeping it included as advice at NAC) without doing the wrong thing of making that advise a prohibition, which is what people are objecting to here. I think some data more than than the philosophical discussion above could be useful in making this kind of decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I will attempt to compile data in a few days. I think the problem exists regardless of frequency, however. A close challenge in which the closer's admin/non-admin status has become a factor is, I think, a priori a bad use of the community's time. Evaluations of closures need to focus on other things. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I oppose simply striking #2 ("The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial") but suggest instead rewording it. As it reads, I don't think it is very good. I suggest, it get ideas started,

"The discussion is contentious and your close is likely to be controversial."

I think it is a good idea to put the judgement of the appropriateness of the NAC in the control of the NAC-er, and point to "the close" as the thing that will be judged. (The number of valid outcomes parenthetical is wordy verbosity)

"#3 The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally or has little or no previous participation in discussions." is good and important. It doesn't require touching. It is important for newbies. To make it easier for newbies to understand, I would suggest closers should have one year experience editing Wikipedia, and 500 edits in projectspace, and 100 AfDs participated before closing AfDs.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobody can ever know in advance if their close will be controversial. Sometimes people get upset over the silliest issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

A few days ago, I said this, and I think it's apt here too.—S Marshall T/C 20:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Critique or criticise the close, not the closer, absolutely yes, start there. Where the same closer repeated has their closes criticised, maybe there is a pattern of evidence to suggest a change in behaviour.

NAC-ers should be advised to be cautious in closing, not prohibited in closing. NAC-ers should be advised on how the can best help. On a quick review of old-admin closes, I think you'll find they tend to be terse. A newcomer may think that a good close is a terse close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

nobody can ever know in advance if their close will be controversial? Nonsense. Wrong. If you can't tell that the discussion is contested, with heated participants, and that your close does not address their positions, then you should not be closing. Someone^TM getting upset over something silly is life, not controversy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A topic of discussion can be controversial, but the outcome can sometimes be so obvious that the closure isn't challenged. For example, the recent RM for Gaza genocide. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the better path. I'd oppose striking #2 entirely, but I think we can make some more room in it for places where NACs are fine by modifying that first clause which seems to be the more objectionable one. I think a small improvement would be The discussion is contentious, (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial. While it is true that nobody can know for sure if the close will be controversial (occasionally there's an editor who just can't let go), we're only assessing the likelihood which is usually common sense. A high-profile RFC over a controversial WP:ARBPIA issue or certain parts of the MOS, for example, have a high likelihood of being controversial while a merge discussion about insects where basically everyone is on the same page is not. If a closer is unable to see the difference, they probably don't have the judgement to assess consensus anyway. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I am in favor of striking #2 and strengthening the reference to experience in #3. I think experience, not the admin bit, is the strongest predictor of good closes. Levivich (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

As I see it, BADNAC serves a couple of purposes. Preventing bad quality closes by telling editors when they might not be appropriate before they attempt to close. Providing the outcome of a close a degree of "authority" against challenges from without or within by setting some minimum standards and allowing closes procedurally to be set aside regardless content. I see the second as being less important than the quality of the close but in terms of optics, if the DAILYMAIL close was made by a 2 day account it would not have had the same weight. Therefore I do see some value in retaining a version of the current #2 somehere in BADNAC which sets a higher bar in terms of required experience for something controversial or complex than a simple snowclose. In terms of how that experience is defined, it should be related to actually closing discussions, not just general editing, and admin status should not be relevant. Scribolt (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there: there should be some sort of statement that BADNAC is not itself a grounds to challenge a close, and that challengers should focus on the assessment of consensus, not who assessed it. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion.

That section currently ends with ...or could result in a request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review, and a footnote saying Discuss with the closing editor first before starting a deletion review. We could change it to say:

...or could result in a request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Discuss with the closing editor first before starting a deletion review. If you need to pursue deletion review, your explanation should focus on content. Reviews that only complain that the discussion was summarized by a non-admin, without identifying at least one substantive error in the result, can be removed without warning by any editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd oppose at least the last sentence of this. DRV already comes down like a ton of bricks on arguments based solely on the lack of admin privileges, and nominations based solely on that are rare enough that I can't remember the last time it happened. Advising early closes there is already dangerous, since DRVs are themselves overturned so rarely that it's only barely inaccurate to say "it never happens", and so it's important that it's gotten right the first time; simply reverting nominations is even worse, and seems very likely to me to raise the heat in what we try very hard to keep a drama-free zone. —Cryptic 03:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"DRV already comes down like a ton of bricks on arguments based solely on the lack of admin privileges"... so you don't think we should warn folks not to make "arguments based solely on the lack of admin privileges"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I mostly object to the rest of the sentence, about removing requests. DRV doesn't even speedy close nominations consisting mostly or entirely of accusations of bias or other personal attacks anymore (despite its own instructions), let alone just blank them. I've got no problem with your suggested text up to and including the WP:FOC link; maybe add something to the effect of ", not just complain that the discussion was summarized by a non-admin." to the end. —Cryptic 04:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't just speaking to deletion discussions, but also using BADNAC solely as a means to challenge an RfC closure, for example, so I think we need some broader proposed language. Also, the last sentence of BADNAC is odd because it purports to apply only to "inappropriate early closures of deletion debates" (emphasis added), which doesn't really have much to do with the rest of BADNAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the scope of any warning needs to be broader than just early closures of XFDs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Although I'd nominally like #2 to be struck, I think that would have to be done with a strengthening of #3 or something like Scribolt describes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue, if there is one, is with bad closes, not specifically with bad non-admin closes. Yes, there is a pretty strong correlation between being an admin and being a good closer, because for both it is usually best to be an "experienced editor" (I'm deliberately avoiding defining that), but correlation is not causation. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there are many non-admins who are good at closing controversial discussions. The issue is that there are many more non-admins who are bad at closing controversial discussions than admins who are bad at the same thing. So the norm of having admins close discussions does improve the quality of closes.

Because of this, I support something like Thryduulf's discussion-closer userright but wouldn't really support weakening #2 in the meantime. Bad closures are hard to fix and even if the process goes perfectly they waste way more time and effort than just waiting for a better closer, so I'd really rather err on the side of caution here. Loki (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Templates and WP:MOS

I thought that templates (and modules) used in articles must produce output consistent with WP:MOS. In particular, automatic calculations and unit conversions should use established output formats instead of inventing their own (especially if they are explicitly marked as "unacceptable" in MOS:NUM). Is this always true, or there might be some exceptions? And if such exceptions exist, how they should be established?

My question is general, but the confusion arose from Module talk:Age § abbr=on violates MOS in particular. I was told there (by the WP administrator maintaining the module) that "more than a mention of a guideline is needed to effect a change" and that "it would be good to get opinions from editors currently interested in affected articles rather than rely on a guideline", although without any explanations where these opinions are supposed to be collected and why they should override WP:CONLEVEL. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

How about an example of what it does, versus what the MOS says it should do? Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Some easy-to-see cases are at Brazilian currency#Historical currencies. This is not the right place to discuss the details but examples can be helpful to save time:

• {{time interval|1942-11-01|1967-02-13|abbr=on}} → 24y 3m 12d

The issue is that MOS:UNITSYMBOLS says there should be a non-breaking space before the units. Another issue is that m is used as the abbreviation for month (as above) but also for minute, as in the next example from Expedition 59#Uncrewed spaceflights to the ISS.

• {{time interval|2019-4-4, 14:22|2019-07-29, 10:44|show=dhm|abbr=on}} → 115d 20h 22m

Please discuss at the above link. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you're wanting discussion at Module talk:Age § abbr=on violates MOS. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't get distracted. The question is whether templates must obey WP:MOS (and if not, why). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The manual of style is a guideline, and like all guidelines should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. That is not something that can be discussed at a level higher than either the individual template or a group of closely related templates, because that is the highest level at which it can be determined whether or not there is a good reason for doing something contrary to the guidelines (and that is because the answer is always context dependent).

In the linked discussion there is the additional question of whether the specific guidance in the manual of style is correct on the specific point. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that your opinion on the level of discussion explicitly contradicts the policy WP:CONLEVEL. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It only seems that way if you don't understand what a guideline is. Guidelines are standards that should usually be followed but must be interpreted with common sense and exceptions will apply. This means that the answer to the question "should templates obey the MOS?" is "Usually." However that isn't the question you actually want to know the answer to, which is "should this specific template follow the manual of style?" and that is something that can only be answered in the context of the individual template and so is best discussed at that template's talk page. 01:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I am interested in the community consensus, not in your personal interpretation, unsupported by any references (and contradicting the fact that WP:MOS does include many exceptions for specific cases, which would be unnecessary if your ideas about ignoring general guidelines in local contexts were correct). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not "my personal interpretation" it's the definition of a guideline. Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Then please quote that "definition". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:GUIDES: "Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

See also the header of each guideline, which says something like "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply." The header varies depending on the type of guideline, but they're all pretty close to that. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

From the top of Wikipedia:Manual of Style: This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply.. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Now we need an expert on "common sense"... WP:COMMONSENSE says: "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues, and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to 'just use common sense' is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons." And Wikipedia:Ignore all rules linked from "normally"/"occasional exceptions" explains what it actually means: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I don't think that designing a general-purpose module/template such that it systematically violates the rules without any explanations (or even mentioning the discrepancy) can be called "common sense". I also don't think that broadly using nonstandard formatting, especially if the MOS explicitly calls it "unacceptable", can be considered an "improvement" (otherwise, if this "exception" is really an improvement and is so common, it must be included in the MOS). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is that if someone claims an exception applies because it improves the encyclopaedia and another person disagrees because they think it doesn't, then what happens next is discussion. That discussion needs to take place in the place relevant to that exception so it has the benefit of full context and is visible to editors who are involved with the relevant article/template/whatever. The consensus of that discussion will determine whether the exception is justified or not.

In this case you need to participate in the linked discussion and make your case there about why you think the the exception is not justified in this particular case. Refusing to engage and just repeating that you don't think there should be exceptions is just wasting your and others' time. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Files in content categories

When evaluating the botworthiness of the task of adding the NOGALLERY tag to categories that contain non-free files, I realized that we don't have clear guidelines on when locally hosted files (non-free or otherwise) should be placed in content categories.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Uploading_images and WP:FILECAT vaguely imply that files should be placed in categories, but the rules are so unclear that in practice there is a lot of inconsistency when it comes to content categories primarily intended for articles (e.g. Category:PAW Patrol), as opposed to ones that are dedicated to files (e.g. Category:Halo (franchise) media files). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a problem with media and articles being in the same category?

If we have a lot of local media about a given topic then it makes sense to have a dedicated category for that, but if we only have a one or two (as I guess will be the case for most topics illustrated by non-free files) then it doesn't seem useful to have a separate category, but also potentially useful for e.g. File:2 Tone Records.png to be in Category:2 Tone Records. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The question, then, is when exactly we want to do that. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need exact rules? If a media file is relevant to a content category then it can go in that category, unless there is a more specific sub-category in which it fits. Create subcategories if and when there are enough pages to justify one. If there is a disagreement, discuss it. This seems to work for all other pages in categories so I don't understand why it won't work here? Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It is necessary to answer the question to figure out the botworthiness of the task of adding NOGALLERY tags. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This feels backwards, but I can't quite put my finger on why. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The TL;DR of the bot request seems to be this: WP:NFCC doesn't allow non-free images to show in Category-namespace galleries. If a non-free image is added to a category that doesn't already have __NOGALLERY__, and editor might either revert the addition of the image to the category or add __NOGALLERY__ to the category description to suppress the gallery (I see you, Thryduulf, suggested a third alternative there that would require a new magic word be added to MediaWiki). As things currently stand, that decision would fall under WP:CONTEXTBOT as which to choose depends on human judgement as to whether the category should contain non-free images or not. LaundryPizza03 is hoping for exact-enough rules that would make it not be WP:CONTEXTBOT, since he want a bot to handle this rather than having humans work off of a database report. Anomie⚔ 13:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

British vs UK

Why is often "UK" used instead of just "British" word? For example, there is "UK singles chart" instead of "British singles chart" so it's like there would be "RO record charts" instead of "Romanian record charts". Eurohunter (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

"British" may refer to the island of Great Britain, or to the British Isles (which, I might add, is a controversial name in some circles), but "U.K." is short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which doesn't really match either meaning of "British". Donald Albury 21:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Its similar to "US" vs "American" in terms of when one or the other is appropriate. Theknightwho (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest the difference is the same as that between Romania record charts and Romanian record charts, British being a demonym for the UK (or what Donald said, to give it its proper name). Sometimes one is more appropriate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Many/most Irish people with enetitlements to British citizenship who live in areas governed by the UK would generally not call themselves British. Most people living in the six counties, would not consider that they live in Britain, but rather live in the UK (the legal entity) or Ireland (the geogrpahic entity). See Terminology of the British Isles for more detail. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course, it's also true to say that many Northern Irish people would say that they are British. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We have a handy encyclopedia somewhere around here with an article that covers this question: Terminology of the British Isles. Not quite the specificity of American (word), but it's close. —Cryptic 23:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Views on de-orphaning?

What does the community think about systematic efforts to add links to orphaned articles?

Until recently, my impression was de-orphaning can sometimes be beneficial (I did a bit when I was starting to edit) but, in most cases, isn't hugely significant because decent search engines are widespread. Additionally, many orphans cover naturally obscure topics which just aren't going to get many readers or improvements even if they were linked elsewhere.

However, I've been coming across cases where de-orphaning has actually made things worse, generally by giving too much weight to a subject we might not even want to have an article on in the first place. For example, I recently cleaned out a large number of dubiously-notable companies whose establishments were listed as nationally prominent events on pages like 2000 in the United States because of systematic de-orphaning.

It's become increasingly unclear to me whether de-orphaning efforts, as currently practised, are doing more good than harm. But this is based on my impressions, not detailed analysis. So I'm interested to hear others' thoughts.

(A couple of previous discussions: 2017, 2019, there's probably been others). – Teratix ₵ 06:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It probably depends on exactly what is meant by deorphaning. Adding links to relevant articles is good, in that it provides readers a path to find new information. Search cannot help someone find something they don't know they are looking for. The 2017 and 2019 discussions however make a good point that deorphaning as an end in itself is obsolete.

Stepping back slightly, is there more information on what the de-orphaning efforts as currently practised are? The adding of links where they are not beneficial is not great, but how much of it is a problem, and is it a systemic issue or a relatively occasional occurrence? CMD (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue with de-orphaning is that it tends to be rather black-and-white. WikiProject Orphanage has the singular objective of reducing the backlog of orphaned articles, which can result in articles that may not meet GNG being given undue weight. Something like the introduction of an 'Orphan-Notability' template, alongside the 'Orphan' template, might help. When de-orphaning a particular article, the option of replacing the 'Orphan' template with 'Orphan-Notability' would create two lists: one for orphaned articles and another for orphaned articles requiring a notability check before they are de-orphaned. Svampesky (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've seen good things happen from good links. If an article has no inbound article links it gets very few page views, and thus very few edits. With meaningful links from other articles it is now being seen by readers interested in related topics, and someone reading an article on one topic is probably just the person to make good edits to a related article they click through to. It's true that low-quality links, like linking to a dubiously notable company in a large city article because the company is based there, tend to lower the quality of the established article. Cluttering it up without adding useful information for readers.

I think if meaningful, good article links can't be created to an article, that's a strong sign that the article subject is not notable. It's not a criteria for deletion of course, just an indication that a topic might not be encyclopedic, if no other encyclopedia articles should even mention it. Here2rewrite (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 for I think if meaningful, good article links can't be created to an article, that's a strong sign that the article subject is not notable.. CapitalSasha ~ talk 11:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

As an "Orphanologist" working on oldest orphan articles (beginning with 2014 backlog articles), I have seen much progress. At one point the backlog was over 120,000 articles and now about 55,000. And millions more of non-orphan articles. Prior to my involvement, the consensus is to make orphan tag "invisible" after two months. My suggestion would be to show all orphan tags. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It always seems odd to me if an article can't reasonably be linked to other articles. This could of course mean that those other articles are missing rather than that our orphan is not notable. As for whether we use visible or invisible tags, it rather depends on whether we think the task is something we want to invite our readers to do. In its early days, yes I assume most new orphans can easily be linked into the project. After some time it ceases to be a newbie task and it requires a bit more experience of the project - does this link improve the pedia or is it visual clutter? I'm not sure whether two months is the right time and if not whether it should be increased to three or more or reduced to one. But if we were going to change the interval I'd like it done with some data as to the relative ease of deorphaning articles after one, two or three months. Ideally the link should become invisible at the point where deorphaning becomes a task we don't want to promote to newbies. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't find this odd at all, and being an orphan isn't the end of the world. Of course some articles are crying out to be linked to (creators of new articles are often very poor at looking for links to add). I'm strongly against WP:UNDUE adding the name and a link just for the sake of de-orphaning. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• When this was discussed in 2017, I left rather lengthy comment. Although I no longer de-orphan to the same extent that I once did, I still think the tag is valuable as a diagnostic that signals that an article should be looked at. As I said back then, I have found plenty of instances where investigating why something is tagged as orphaned has helped me improve Wikipedia - merging duplicate articles, upmerging stubs to parent articles, creating new articles in a taxonomic chain, fixing broken links, and initiating the deletion of junk that no one has laid eyes on in years.
  Issues can arise when people focus more on the idea of removing the tag at all costs rather than figuring out what to do with the article, but that can happen with any maintenance backlog. Think of someone who mass-redirects unsourced articles rather than improving sourcing. Is the problem the tag, or the behavior? Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater if we can solve the crap-links problem by dealing with whoever is doing it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Even if someone deorphans by mechanically adding a See also link to a more prominent article, the watchers of that more prominent article will then be alerted to the lesser article and it then has an opportunity to be improved. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  As is often the case when editing WP, de-orphaning requires a degree of editorial judgement. The problems almost always occur when people edit without discernment - adding links just for the sake of linking. The reality is that some de-orphaning links are very beneficial, while others are not. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevant policy/guideline is actually already there:

It may be the case that some articles currently just cannot be de-orphaned. If this is the case then please do not try to 'force-fit' by adding unrelated links to articles where they don't belong just for the sake of de-orphaning. Always keep in mind that our primary goal is to improve the reader's experience, not satisfy the editor's indulgence in statistical achievements. Your priority when adding links should be to maintain article quality by adding relevant and useful links wherever possible
— WP:CANTDEORPHAN

So, unnecessary links can always be removed. But it's not always bad, and the inclusion or non-inclusion criteria of certain articles in general articles such as "X year" may not be straightforward; what "degree" of notability (if a person has an article on Wikipedia that person is already notable) a person has to have to be included in "Births"?

Companies can be included in some lists by location or something else. What to put in "See also" is also covered by a guideline.

But do some articles even need to exist? I somewhat agree with other users regarding the (probable) lack of notability (though it may require changes in some notability policies). The other important thing here is the size of the article. Members of the state legislatures are presumed notable, but what if the fact that a person was a member is almost the only thing we know about them? Example. Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. But for some very small streams, this "information beyond" is the etymology and what bodies of water they flow into (sometimes another small stream). Example, Example. The same doubts arise regarding small unidentified villages (that may not even exist), very small neighbourhoods or just "areas".

There are also a lot of articles about New Zealand court decisions, but that's a separate story.

Finally, there are some interesting guidelines about orphans: Editors may also remove the tag from any article if they believe that de-orphaning is unlikely to be successful, or if they have attempted to provide incoming links -//- However, if you are certain the article is unlikely to ever be de-orphaned then simply remove the tag. Can this also be the answer sometimes? It can also be elaborated. For example, after some time and/or a number of attempts an article may be declared "hopeless" and the tag may be removed.

The reality is that some de-orphaning links are very beneficial, while others are not. A lot of those that "are not" are not harmful either. Oloddin (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I've opened a new section on your first question below, as it extends beyond the question of deorphaning. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's go a bit deeper here. So far, a fair few editors have said something along the lines of "well, sometimes de-orphaning is beneficial and sometimes not", with varying emphasis on "sometimes beneficial" and "sometimes not". But what proportion of de-orphaning, in practice, is beneficial? Is it 90% beneficial, 10% not so much? 70–30? 40–60? 20–80? And where is the threshold for "this benefits Wikipedia on net"? – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

To go a bit broader, I would estimate that 90% of good-faith edits are beneficial. The deorphaning edits I have reviewed have about the same level of quality as the other edits I review on my watchlist. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainians in the United Kingdom vs Ukrainian diaspora in the United Kingdom

What is the difference between "Ukrainians in the United Kingdom" and "Ukrainian diaspora in the United Kingdom"? Eurohunter (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing now, as the latter redirects to the former. Bduke (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Palaeogenetics and ethnicity in articles

I had this big plan where I'd intentfully draft my case before even making a post here and it would have robust sourcing and all that, but I realized I should just go for it and if there's any agreement other editors will chime in.

The key summary is: the scholarly field of palaeogenetics (or archaeogenetics) has exploded in the past decade-plus. The data we can collect from the DNA of millennia-old human remains is a shocking new advancement. However, scholarly sources often use ethnic labels for the historical genetic populations they are studying. This creates friction with the universal understanding among serious people since the end of World War II that ethnicity is a social and cultural category, not a genetic one; one's ethnicity is the result of human choices and not amino acid pairs. As such, the distinct field of ethnography generally shies from ascribing ethnic identity to almost any individual that isn't the author or focus of direct literary analysis. To wit, speaking of "Lombard DNA" (etc.) is completely inane if we're to take it as face value; it is best defended as a shorthand for lack of better language to use in these papers.

That said: if one has pages for historical people groups or demographics on their watchlist, they will notice a lot of tertiary analysis of these studies being added to articles, which often transparently conflate the actual subject of the article with genetic populations analysed in a distinct manner, sometimes because that's what those sources themselves do. I think we should consider some guideline regarding the correct representation of what this information is actually saying and how it relates to the universal notion of ethnicity otherwise described in articles about them. Remsense诉 07:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There should be agreement in principle, the discussions on the topics I've seen (and been involved in) tend to land on ensuring that such genetic studies are not over-emphasised in relevant articles. The biggest risk is that detailed coverage of X or Y genetic study, which will use shorthands out of necessity (often explaining so in the paper), gets added to an otherwise underdeveloped article and thus turns the paper output from perhaps an academically interesting note about a certain group of people that comes with a lot of interpretative caveats, to coming off in the article as a defining trait of said group of people. I haven't seen an academic paper suggest that the genetic studies overturn ideas of ethnicity, however unfortunately the papers do get entangled with the many complex issues surrounding defining ethnicity on individual and group levels. I would support a broad guideline noting the principles of understanding the limitations and limited meaning of such studies. CMD (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue isn't that academics suggest genetic studies overturn ideas of ethnicity (particularly the broadly accepted social-constuction one). Rather, the issue is that that the people doing the genetic work have a tendency to use labels as shorthands and these labels frequently coincide with ethnic terms, but they do not mean the same thing in the two contexts. Remsense is onto a for-real problem, one that I've noticed myself, but which WP hasn't really tackled. We have a general "follow the sources" habit of using whatever terminology the source material does, but we have a central purpose and principle to not confuse and even directly mislead readers, especially in a way that promotes pseudo-science (even by inference/assumption/misunderstanding). So, this is the sort of case in which we need to diverge from the (sloppy) practice of some of the specialist literature in a particular field that has mis-borrowed terminology from another, broader, and much better-established field. Exactly how to do that is open to some question. We're not in a positition to make up alternative terminology (WP:NOR), but we are probably in a position to "scare-quote" any ethno-cultural terms that are misused by geneticists and explain (perhaps in a footnote, maybe a standardized templated one) that the term in this context does not equate to an ethnic, racial, linguistic, cultural, politico-national, or other socially defined grouping, and is being used as convenience label that simply refers to a haplogroup's primary geographic locus (often by reference to a social group associated with that area).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue I mention is not with the academics, it's with the interpretation of the work of the academics here. The easiest way to not mislead readers is not to use the sources where they shouldn't be used, as has been done at various times. Talk:Colombia#RfC: Genetic ancestry of Colombians is the most recent discussion that comes to my mind. CMD (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

More the use than the interpretation. The problem can be alleviated if we:

• Include |quote= in the citations.
• Include a nomenclature section near the beginning of the article, explaining the variations in nomenclature and the specific nomenclature used in the article.
• Stick to the nomenclature specified.

This doesn't solve everything, but I believe that it would help. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What I perceived to be the best solution was simply to (make it a guideline to) change the terminology used in the article—e.g. Lombard DNA → DNA of populations in modern Lombardy c. 600 AD or what have you—reflecting a responsible tertiary analysis in the context of the article as a whole. Remsense诉 01:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but think this is going in circles. The name "Lombardy" derives from the name of the people who lived there c. 600 AD, so how much distinction is there really between "Lombards" and "populations in modern Lombardy c. 600 AD"? How often did a group of people have limited enough exogamy to have both a distinct genetic profile and a distinct culture, so both paleogeneticists and ethnologists would be reasonably correct to use the name of the group? Anomie⚔ 02:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The etymology of the toponym is irrelevant—it's just the modern geographical area where the modern extractions were made, as an example. Swap out with whatever name for the studied political, topographical, or geological area as appropriate/given in the source. There's obvious distinctions made between ethnic groups in a given area even in antiquity—esp. given the historical migrations of Germanic groups like the Lombards versus "native" Italians. Hence why it was a particularly illustrative example, another would be between groupings of Anglo-Saxons, Britons, and others in early medieval Britain.Remsense诉 02:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) The etymology of the toponym is relevant since you're proposing saying "the people who lived in Lombardy c. 600 AD" is somehow obviously distinct from "Lombards" when "Lombardy" means "the region where the Lombards lived c. 600 AD". Or, with the attempted "clarification" in the (edit conflict), are you sure the paleogeneticists are really that sloppy that they're assuming everyone currently living in Lombardy is a decendent of the people who lived there 1400 years ago or something like that? As for the rest, you're ignoring my question and going off on an irrelevant tangent. Anomie⚔ 02:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, Lombardy here is meant as Lombardy, the modern region of the modern nation-state of Italy. (Sorry for the post-hoc editing.) And yes, many papers use ethnic labels as shorthand when ethnic groups are not what is being studied. Remsense诉 02:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the elucidation here: I really should have picked some real-life examples from articles but I really didn't want to embarrass anyone in particular and felt the practice was ubiquitous enough that anyone with the inclination would likely know what I'm talking about. Remsense诉 18:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Rewriting WP:BITE

A RfC is open on rewriting the guideline WP:Please do not bite the newcomers. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (species)

An RfC to adopt a guideline regarding the notability of species has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. C F A 💬 23:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion in year articles

In a section above, Oloddin asked "the inclusion or non-inclusion criteria of certain articles in general articles such as "X year" may not be straightforward; what "degree" of notability (if a person has an article on Wikipedia that person is already notable) a person has to have to be included in "Births"?" I think this is a very good question, and on a quick look I couldn't find any guidelines that answered it (please let me know if I've missed it). Should the article 2000 in the United States include everyone in Category:2000 births born in the US? If no, who should it include/exclude? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

So long as a person is notable in Wikipedia terms, I would say they should be included. General year lists include everyone born in those years. I don't see why year in X nation lists should be any different. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

voorts, I don't think general year lists do - for example Category:1994 births has 16k entries but 1994 has nowhere near that. (And if it did the page probably wouldn't load). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be the most recent consensus on the topics of births & deaths at year articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

There also seems to be some consensus at WP:YEARS for the proposition that someone should be internationally notable to be included in the international (i.e., plain old year) article, as opposed to year by nation articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Shortly after that discussion, I took this "consensus" to the Village Pump and then ANI, where it was found to be a false consensus and one of the editors enforcing it was topic banned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that context. voorts (talk/contributions) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we ought to have some inclusion criteria. International and national notability for year and year by nation articles respectively seems to be one workable guideline, although I'm not wedded to it. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This is something of a hornets nest. WikiProject Years has been taken to task a few times for ownership issues, and groups of users have on occasion come up with their own systems that contradict P&G. User:InvadingInvader/Against international notability describes some of the events that led to removal of births and deaths lists in year articles per Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 199#RFC: split births & deaths from year articles. I've also reminded editors that per WP:PROPORTION, things shouldn't be included in the article if they're not given significant coverage in sources about that year—which births virtually never are. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Per the RfC linked above long lists of births should be removed. Most birth inclusions also seem questionable weight-wise in general; most notable individuals were not notable at their births, and their births would not have had a significant impact on X year. CMD (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The RfC you both mentioned was (as I understand it) about splitting rather than removing births/deaths and didn't establish a consensus where these removed births/deaths should go. It's also stated that most participants do not favor total deletion of deaths and no agreement about births. I think it's technically possible to break down "complex" year births/deaths articles into smaller articles "births/deaths in X year", "births/deaths in XX month in X year" or even "in XXX days" to cover all people (especially if we classify them further by location/nationality, occupation etc.) in an organized way. The question is whether we should do it. Regarding impact, there are some articles from time to time like "<someone famous> born this day" or "<someone famous> born 10/25/50/100 years ago". --Oloddin (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on my experience, there seems to be support for this. Deaths by year and month already exist, listed at Lists of deaths by year. I created Births in 2001 while I was expanding the 2001 article, and someone created Births in 2000 shortly after. If someone was interested in making more births by year or month lists, I think that would be a good idea. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC on adopting WP:NSPECIES as a guideline

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (species) § Proposal to adopt this guideline

 – This RfC existed in two places. That's bad. Editors were commenting at both venues, causing the discussions to fall out of sync with each other. I have no position on which venue is appropriate, but there should not be two. I have defaulted to the original venue. If it turns out it should be here, revert me, unless that would end up recreating the problem. – Teratix ₵ 09:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)