Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
Before creating a new section, please note:

Before commenting, note:

  • This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
  • Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals.
« Older discussions, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27


Poor articles[edit]

Is there a place to list and draw attraction to poor articles, particularly articles which are of high-importance? -Inowen (nlfte) 04:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

On your personal "to-do" list perhaps? Failing that the article's talk page, or a related project's talk page. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I found it: WP:AFI. But it seems to need improvements itself. -Inowen (nlfte) 18:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Many of these will be marked as stubs, so you can look for stubs belonging to projects. One example tool is this: https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Physics&importance=Top-Class&quality=Start-Class or Chemistry actually has some high importance stubs: https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Chemistry&importance=High-Class&quality=Stub-Class . THere is also a good chance that some high importance topics have not been written about yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes (but not always) the relevant projects will be a good place. But it is not news to regulars that many important articles are poor. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
What about if there was a threat that poor articles be removed? Wouldn't that motivate projects to take charge? Seahawk01 (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Inowen, Also people can request copy editing help for an article at WIkiProject copy editing guild . JC7V (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

They can go for articles for deletion, and if they are not up to good merits, they can have a tag at the top warning that they may go to articles for deletion. Vorbee (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vorbee, what about poor articles on important topics? For example, C-Class, High Importance Wikiproject articles? Could you delete those and then turn them into stubs or something? Thanks for the clarification! Seahawk01 (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Why would anyone want to threaten people with deletion, if "they" (who is that, if it's not you and me?) don't get articles up to your standards, right this minute? That's not going to promote collaboration. That's not going to help us build the project.
Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. (WP:Stubbing sometimes is.) If you see a sentence, paragraph, or section that could be improved (e.g., by adding sources or re-writing the language), then fix it!. If you see a sentence that you believe is harming the article, then take it out. But don't go around saying that if the WP:VOLUNTEERS don't met your standards on your time table, then all their work should be completely discarded. That's uncollegial and destructive.
If you're thinking that threats work, then you should go read some more psychology. (Oh, and while you've got those books in hand, you might as well improve the related articles, okay?) What actually works is quietly helping people. If you find a new article that someone started today, or an expansion that a new editor made to an existing article, and you add a source or a fact (after waiting an hour or so to make sure they're done – Wikipedia:Avoiding edit-conflicts is important), then when they come back tomorrow, they'll feel encouraged and interested and maybe even learn how to edit better. That's how you get good content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles which ask a question[edit]

The idea is of the approaching of topics by asking a question in the title and then dealing with that question in the article. It at first might seem unsettling, but its been done once or twice, and I'm asking here for opinions on the idea as a general approach to at least list the "big questions" out there, and then do the article. Your thoughts? -Inowen (nlfte) 04:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you (or anyone else) give examples of the once or twice? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
There was a similar question regarding section headings asked; I'd say there was a general concern voiced there with only one user supporting the notion (the one who started the discussion). I was most definitely one of the ones concerned with the idea. --Izno (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: The one example I know of, others may know more, is Who is a Jew?, which has been around since late 2004 [1]. The idea is that some questions like that one are perennial and can be treated as entities in their own right. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC) PS: It gets into the problem of allowing too many questions, then the questions list can be pruned down. This isn't a question answer site, at least not in that way, but some questions stand out. -Inowen (nlfte)

I have no problem with it and indeed Who is a Jew? is a good example. History is full of perennial questions that are the subject of books, papers. What caused the Roman Empire to Collapse? For professional historians asking good questions is an important part of the craft. But if the article is framed as a question seems besides the point, it might be framed as a theory such as great man theory, which might also be framed as a question ("Is history driven by individuals or society?"). Or it might be a commonly recognized phrase Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Depends on the historiographic tradition. -- GreenC 23:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this about whether article titles should ask questions? I do not think that would be a very good idea - paper encyclopedias are not likely to have article titles which ask questions. Vorbee (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Big questions. How did life begin? Is there a God? How did water form? What created air? Why is the sky blue? These are simple and perennial. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Yup. Why is the sky blue? (Enclopedia Britannica) has a bunch of questions. Although these are not proper encyclopedia articles but a series of essays called Demystified. A genre of article we might consider, probably hostable on Wikibooks. -- GreenC 22:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to make such titles redirects to articles about the subject of the question, unless the question itself is the subject of the article. zchrykng (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree these could get out of hand, but I suggest that keeping a centralized list of articles (and maybe sections) which are in the question form is easy to do, and that the number of such questions be limited, not unlimited. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

How would you limit them? Vorbee (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. I would just go ahead and start the Big questions article as a list (done!), and do as a good a job as possible at listing the very biggest questions, and putting them in a sensible order, such that other questions will have to come later. Pruning from the bottom up is a lot easier than pruning from various rows in the middle. -Inowen (nlfte) 04:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Vorbee (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Set hard cap on page size to help combat hot-button issue page explosion[edit]

Hello, I would like to suggest setting a hard cap on page size. Perhaps 50 - 60 kB. I am noticing a lot of pages that deal with hot-button issues just explode with no common thread into a mishmash of sections that don't really relate to each other. Then, how can someone edit that? And, also, there doesn't seem to be a lot of people that are interested in bringing order to these pages.

Two examples would be Economic inequality and Affordable housing.

Now, on the other hand, there are excellent articles that are over the suggested 40 kB. For example Fourth Amendment. But, I could point to a lot of very important Fourth Amendment related pages that are truly neglected like Terry stop. So, maybe, clustering all that high-powered editing talent in those select, high-profile pages starves other pages of attention.

In addition, I would like to suggest a purge of all class C pages. Maybe issue a one month warning. Then, if the pages don't shape up, mask them and only allow editors to view until they at least make a grade B.

I like Wikipedia and have used it for a long time. But, I feel a bit sad that such important topics like "economic inequality" and "affordable housing", which are so important to our society, and are ranked #1 on Google, are such a mess. So, I think Wikipedia should really make an effort to provide valuable, well-thought-out articles on these issues.

Thanks Seahawk01 (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

One more suggestion, re: grade C pages...why not put a letter grade right on the front of the page for everyone to see like Los Angeles does with restaurants. Seahawk01 (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Seahawk01, I think you've already identified the main problem with your idea, some pages just need to be longer. Maybe a better idea is automatically adding large articles below a certain grade to a category to allow them to be reviewed? (forgive me if this already exists) Since if an article is FA or GA, we don't care that it is very long because it is obviously for a reason. zchrykng (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi zchrykng, well, I agree...some pages just want to be long. I just saw Netherlands which looks great and I have no complaints! I guess my problem is I feel some pages just ought to be removed...grade C pages on important issues doesn't really look good. Economic inequality gets 1000 page views a day. That's 1000 people a day that get to see everyone's Econ 101 pet theory and no really coherent structure. Ah well, parts of Wikipedia I love, parts I hate :-) Seahawk01 (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Seahawk01, yeah... I just don't think deletion/masking is a good solution to the problem. The fewer people who can see articles the fewer people who might be able to make improvements. And if someone comes here and can't find an article on what they are looking for they might decide to start a draft on that subject when the article already exists, but was hidden. I do totally agree that there is a lot of junk out there, but I don't think sweeping it under the rug is the best idea, better to put it out in the sunlight to get sterilized. :) zchrykng (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Zchrykng, how about the rating idea? Los Angeles and New York City require that restaurants put a large letter grade in their window from the Health Department. The idea is to shame people into complying...so same idea here...put a large letter grade on the page...Economic inequality gets a large C on the front and Fourth Amendment gets a large A. Seahawk01 (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Seahawk01, that could work. My worry would be about people using it as one more way to try to game the system. If there could be a way to protect against that, I could see it working. zchrykng (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Zchrykng, I see, it's a tough problem since Wikipedia is so large. I've encountered the same with people leaving warnings on top of pages they don't like. Well, I'll put a little more thought into it and come back with a better proposal :-) Thanks for taking the time to hash this out with me! Seahawk01 (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Seahawk01: there is a gadget that lets you see the quality assessment under the page title. You obviously have to be logged in for this, though. Daß Wölf 22:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Daß Wölf: very nice, thanks for pointing this out! Seahawk01 (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Class C pages[edit]

I've hived this off into a subpage since you suggestion "In addition ... least make a grade B" doesn't have much to do with over-long pages. There are a lot of class C and start class pages that are stubs and ought to remain as such. For instance consider Joseph Jones (trade unionist) which I would suggest is about the right length for someone who was notable but is hardly worth a GA or FA length article. Perhaps the existing crude classification needs some thought. Stub articles are valuable, calling one a stub should not be regarded as dismissive. Short articles will never climb the class scale, perhaps the criteria need to be adjusted so that a good stub or short article could be regarded as C = "complete" rather that C = "third rate". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

No comment about Jones but there has been a trend this year to award GA to shorter articles for which the broad coverage of a topic still ends up being short, so GA length might not be as long as one would think. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with this. A nice, short article that acts as a supporting article to some other topic definitely has a place in an encyclopedia. Seahawk01 (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggest big, yellow "very long" notice on edit page of long articles[edit]

I'm going to throw in another suggestion. Just like semi-locked pages have a warning, why not put a big, yellow "very long, please consider splitting, consolidating or placing info on more appropriate page" notice on top of the edit page for pages longer than 60-80 kB. That way, people will notice when they try to edit a page, that they are adding to something that is probably too big to begin with. Seahawk01 (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Very long GMGtalk 11:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo:, yes, that's a good template. But, my suggestion is to put that on the editing page, above the textbox where you enter text, so people see it when they are about to add more to an already too long page. Seahawk01 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Use article title for cities, etc., in within infoboxes[edit]

I would like to test the water for a potential proposal for a guideline change. What are the arguments for and against? How much support is there? Has the idea been given a thorough hearing before? If so, can anybody locate those discussion(s) without too much effort?

POTENTIALLY PROPOSED: Unless there is a local consensus to deviate, the names of neighborhoods, villages, towns, cities, etc. in infoboxes should be shown as per the title of the corresponding article. Honolulu, not Honolulu, Hawaii, not Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.. Prace, Czech Republic. Maidstone, but Egerton, Kent. Et cetera.

It goes without saying that such a guideline would save a ton of discussion. My question is whether that editor time is justified, or whether the article title would suffice in most cases. The guideline would also improve consistency and coherence in location references by providing a single way to refer to each location. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Why not? It seems easy enough. Something similar is done in {{Infobox person}}, where the infobox name defaults to the page title. No objection ProgrammingGeek talktome 19:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The infobox name already defaults to the page title. The suggestion is to require local consensus to change it, e.g. to display "Honolulu, Hawaii" in Honolulu, or display "Egerton" in Egerton, Kent. I oppose. A comma-separated name like Egerton, Kent is often made due to a need for disambiguation. The infobox title has no such need. I don't know of any situation where disambiguation in the page title is recommended to be used anywhere in the article content. If other Kent villages don't say ", Kent" in the infobox then why should Egerton just because there are other things called Egerton? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: I guess I was unclear. The proposal would apply to location names within infoboxes, such as places of birth. I have attempted to make the section heading more clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to create any sort of default rule for this. Certainly, sometimes disambiguation is overkill, London, Greater London, Home Counties, England, Great Britain, United Kingdom, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Local Group, Universe is certainly unneeded, London would suffice. However, on the counter argument, sometimes additional context is needed for place names. Take a hypothetical Ontario politician who was born in London, UK but spent most of his life in Ontario politics; certainly if his infobox just said "London", it may confuse readers because London, Ontario is a different place, and so in that sort of case we may want to specify even though the article on the UK city doesn't have any disambiguator in the title; an article about an Ontario person may lead a reader to think of "London" as the Ontario city. There's many different reasons I can find to want to have the city name in the infobox be different from the article title, so much so that any policy to that effect would make a significant number of articles less useful for readers, rather than more. --Jayron32 13:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A course on Wikipedia similar to ones on Coursera or EdX[edit]

Any comments on this idea - A course on Wikipedia similar to ones on Coursera or EdX:

  • Problem: Learning about the intricacies of Wikipedia is difficult for a new editor and sometimes the process is discouraging and very slow. Navigating Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays takes time, and mistakes by new editors increases the workload of older editors. Also, learning about Wikipedia can be made more fun, structured and efficient through such an online course for Wikipedia like the ones on Coursera (https://www.coursera.org/) or edX (https://www.edx.org/). A proper course with videos, quizzes, interactive elements, the history of Wikipedia and basic help navigating wikipedia for future editors, how the largest volunteer community in the world works, how things are resolved on controversial topics, so many things can be covered sequentially. The course can cover the whole of Wikipedia as well as WikiMedia, Commons, Wikidata etc and how all the other Wikis are part of the larger Wikipedia universe.
  • Who would benefit: All new editors, prospective editors and for those just curious about wanting to know more about Wikipedia itself. It would also provide an educational platform for teachers across the world to teach their students about Wikipedia in a more thorough and structured way.
  • Proposed solution: A course on Wikipedia on Coursera or Edx. (Even YouTube)
  • More comments: I know that Wikipedia – The Missing Manual and WP:The Wikipedia Adventure exists. But The Wikipedia Adventure would need to be expanded and updated extensively to cover this idea, it also doesn't cover the other wikis. I understand that there are other more experienced editors who help clear things out when there is a confusion related to how Wikipedia works, Talk pages are there as well as the TeaHouse etc.
  • DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The Wiki Education Foundation has developed training materials for the student classroom program. They include guides such as Editing Wikipedia and online tutorials. Perhaps some of this could be adapted for orienting new Wikipedia editors. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma: Thank you for pointing this out. I had never heard of Wiki Education Foundation till now. Thanks for adding the links! They are doing some great work! :) I will try asking for some feedback from a member. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well the dead horse I've been beating on this for a long time is getting video summaries for each major policy/guideline. There's potentially grant funding available that could cover things like space and equipment, maybe even a couple cheap actors. Writing scripts is easy enough. But I don't know anyone who has, for example, substantial experience producing content for youtube who would have the knowledge and expertise to bring the whole thing together and get a good production quality out of it. I'd love to snag someone like the GeographyNow crew who would be on board to see the whole thing through, but as of now I just continue to beat the horse. GMGtalk 16:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have a brief case full of training booklets that have been produced for edit-a-thons and training sessions- and the they are all wanting. Dive in: Commons:Category:Wikimedia UK training booklets . If you want a quick fix, you could try Commons:File:Newspeak House- Strengthening an article manual.pdf
  • I have been a proponent of independent resource-based learning for decades, whereby tutorial material is written, and the learner or a trainer chooses the route through them. The resource sheets are written for different ability levels, in differing languages and in many ways resemble a wiki, catalogued and linked. The tutor will talk to resource- the independant learner would choose their own route. The resource bank would now include youtube type clips.
  • There is a massive need for a printed manual- but it must reflect Wikipedia as it is today. Forget teaching newbies about creating new articles: New page patrol and the draft space review backlog will zap most of those. Forget about teaching syntax: newbies usually edit with visual editor, or on cellphones/mobile phones. The experience we had when we started is not the same as the newbie gets today. Similarly, the language used by academics is not the same as that needed to write a tutorial sheet. The test I use to evaluate tutorial sheets is how they explain referencing.
  • Material used for tutorial material is not written in the same way as explanatory promotional material even if the content may appear similar. Both are needed. Active editors can provide the content, and the foundation can help with typesetting and editoral skills- the trainer can select the most appropriate for his students. I think the message is that we should have a serious look at the problem and appreciate that there is no one correct way, but having nothing is wrong. ClemRutter (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Partial blocks and bans[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Many of you are aware that the blocking system will get a major overhaul with the introduction of "partial blocks" (see Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Per-user page, namespace, and upload blocking). Partial blocks will fundamentally change how policies are enforced. Assuming that blocks remain preventative rather than punitive, I think partial blocks have the potential to make current enforcement policies obsolete.

For example, currently a topic-banned user is only blocked when they breach the ban. But with partial blocks, the user can simply be blocked from editing relevant pages upon the ban being enacted. This can potentially result in blocks and bans becoming practically synonymous.

I am not quite sure how our current procedures will change as a result of partial blocks. I personally feel that we could eventually merge blocks and bans together with this new system. But that's just what I think. funplussmart (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This board is not for musing. It is for proposing changes to policies/guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Category blocks will (thank god) not be implemented on en.wiki yet, even when article blocks are rolled out, and there would need to be a policy change when it’s technically feasible because of the major implications category blocks would have (it would transfer de facto blocking ability to non-admins).
Just because we have the technical ability to do something does not drive a policy change, especially when the technical change is a decade old dream that no one has bothered to rethink to see if it’s still a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure, partial blocks and category blocks will be great. We should’ve had them put in in the first place. I thought the Village Pump was the best place to bring up my thoughts on how it will affect the banning policy.
And Tony brought up something I didn’t think about: category blocks are affected by additions and removals from the relevant category, giving non-admins the ability to control the pages a user is blocked from. funplussmart (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
My point was that this will be a terrible change to Wikipedia and that admins should avoid placing them because of the chaos it will unleash (I will not place a single one), but like everyone else here has said, this isn’t the place for musing. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni:, suppose you see two unblockables edit-warring with one another over a single page that attracts a fair amount of edits .
Blocking would mean an inevitable drama-fest whilst sysop-protection would result in a disability for the mere mortals of the wiki.
I tend to think that a single-page block for both of them will be preferable than either:-) ∯WBGconverse 11:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree, though, that Category block is pure BS, unless we radically redefine how categories are maintained and manipulated. ∯WBGconverse 11:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I am all in favour of article bans - I think it would encourage narrower bans/blocks and would work well. Even in a TBAN it would probably make sense to place article blocks on the actual pages that caused the problem.
I am wildly against category bans - and this point would hold up even if the "non-admins can change categories and thus blocks" issue didn't exist. Categories are broad, varied, non-coordinated, frequently poorly created. A proposal to use them would have to demonstrate how the issues of using them were outweighed by the benefits, and I don't think it does. Does someone have a reasonable case - it would seem fairly crucial to any future proposal? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Category bans: If this feature can be constrained to particular categories, there's a way to make it useful: hidden special categories, which are only permitted to be applied by an admin (on pain of a block or something), which correspond to ArbCom cases that address particular topics (and maybe other ones, like topic bans created at AE or ANI). If someone's topic banned from, say, "mathematics and statistics" articles, an admin-operated bot could add all articles in those content categories to a new ban-tracking category that combined them (maybe something with a code number, so it's opaque to readers who see hidden categories).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Automatic United States Congressional Election updates via API driven bots[edit]

I've noticed that quite a lot of Wikipedia pages for Us Congressional Districts are out of date missing 2016 results. Two examples that I updated earlier today include the Colorado's 1st congressional districtand Colorado's 4th congressional district. This strikes me as quite surprising as given the existence of election resultAPI's. It would be fairly trivial to code a bot that automatically generates infoboxes containing such information and add them to the appropriate page. I'm myself a rather poor self-taught scripter with no experience creating wiki-bots but am willing to help code part of the bot if somebody is willing to perhaps help me with the wiki part of the bot. Zubin12 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Icons for interwiki links to sister project pages[edit]

I'm generally a bit surprised/annoyed when what appears to be a normal internal link leads me to a Wiktionary entry. It would be a lot less surprising and more helpful if I could know ahead of time that a particular link leads there, say, by including a small Wiktionary logo next to the link as a visual cue. I'm focusing on Wiktionary here because those seem to be by far the most common offenders. Other projects could be included here, but those are usually done with templates that set the link off and make the destination clear.

I'm not sure about the technical feasibility of implementing this, or if it's been suggested before and rejected, so any feedback would be appreciated. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:POP? Cabayi (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Interwiki links should have a slightly different color, which is my first cue. We can make those a significantly color for you if you are having trouble with these links by adding some CSS in your common.css page. --Izno (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Deacon Vorbis: As Izno mentioned, you can add a line or two to your Special:MyPage/common.css to make these links stand out. To make it a different color, you could add the following (replace "#066" and "#046" with the colors of your choice):
.mw-parser-output a.extiw, .mw-parser-output a.extiw:active { color: #066; }
.mw-parser-output a.extiw:visited { color: #046; }
If you want an icon similar to the external link icon, you could add something like:
.extiw {
	background: url(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Wikimedia-logo.svg/12px-Wikimedia-logo.svg.png) center right no-repeat;
	padding-right: 13px;
}
--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, all. That gives me something to tweak my own display with. I guess there's not much interest in making something more prominently visible like this the default, then? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

need push on improving social issues pages[edit]

Hello, I'd like to suggest a push to improve social issues pages. Maybe select 100 core issues and 100-500 recent events and try to get every page to WP:GOOD level. I am suggesting this because I am encountering so many pages I think really should present the public with solid, well thought out information that are a mishmash of ideas, are 4-6 times the recommended page size (WP:SPLIT) and have no idea about summary style (WP:SUMMARY).

Just to give a few examples of some class C social issue pages: Economic inequality, Affordable housing, Racial profiling, Police reform (US), Sexism, Public health, Education, Environmentalism, Police, Crime

Seahawk01 (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Feature Request: Add a 'Reading-mode' button to ease the reading of Wikipedia's articles[edit]

Hi,

I wish to read for hours articles as any user, but it occurs that the reading (on PC) of these articles is not enough comfortable as the white color background tires my eyes. I have to stop reading for a moment.

I wish to see a button called 'Reading-Mode' located before the title of article (Eye icon). By pressing this button, it will allow me to change the white color background of the article to a gray or yellow color (see example below). The purpose will be to let me choose as user what make my reading more comfortable.


example: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7RYcp.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmio (talk • contribs) 14:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexmio: Wikipedia is always in "reading mode" unless you click the edit button. However, if you want to change the background color, you can do so by adding the following line to your common.css file, located at Special:MyPage/common.css (replace #F1ECE8 with the color of your choice):
.mw-body {background-color: #F1ECE8;}
If you want to be able to toggle it with an eye icon, you can instead insert the following into your common.js file, located at Special:MyPage/common.js (replace #F1ECE8 with the color of your choice):
var readingBG = "#F1ECE8";
mw.loader.load( '//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ahecht/Scripts/ReadingMode.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' ); //[[User:Ahecht/Scripts/ReadingMode.js]]
--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Many of us that use Google on our 60+ inch TV's add the "Dark Mode" extension - chrome://extensions/?id=dmghijelimhndkbmpgbldicpogfkceaj . Simply a toggle button.--Moxy (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
This link goes to the extension on the webstore; I personally use this extension in general but use this nice vector dark skin on Wikipedia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Firefox also has something known as Reader view which removes a lot of clutter. There are probably extensions available for other browsers. Besides what others have noted above, you can also install a dark theme.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-automate the SPI/CU process[edit]

From what I understand, Checkuser is only performed when an admin requests it. But considering the wide prevalence of sock-puppets and the general dearth of administrators, can't this at least be semi-automated? If two editors from the same IP (appropriately extended to the same subnet) edit the same page or pages in the same domain within a specific time frame, they are very likely socks and their names/IPs should be added to a private list somewhere to be acted upon (perhaps by SPI clerks or similar). Editing the same talk page should throw up even redder flags somewhere. There are obviously legitimates cases like alternate accounts that need to be accounted for.

I'm assuming here that something like this doesn't already exist. If there are pages available that detail what goes on behind the scenes with SPIs, please link me to them. But, in this day and age where Machine learning has gone mainstream, there ought to be better technical solutions to handle the endless meat and sock-puppets on this site. Something needs to be done to allow editors to edit and collaborate in peace without having to deal this nonsense. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a bad idea, as it would flag lots of editors using an ISP with carrier-grade NAT. For example, if I ever edit from work, I'm sharing just 4 IP addresses with 65,000 people, many of whom are likely to share my interests. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Believe me, if we could automate sockpuppet detection, we would have done so by now. Checkusers do keep some relevant information on a private wiki, but none of this is anywhere near as straightforward as "two users on one IP = sockpuppets". Even small ISPs are assigned banks of IP addresses that consist of somewhere from 30,000 to several million individual addresses that users are randomly assigned each time they log on; for IPv6 these numbers are orders of magnitude more absurd (think quadrillions) and the addresses can be reassigned each time a request goes through a router. And even sometimes when we see edits coming from a single IP with identical useragents and overlapping within minutes, it's possible (because of network address translation) that they're still not actually the same person. As for requesting checkuser, anyone (not just admins) can request it if they think they have a good reason, but it's ultimately up to the checkusers to decide whether or not to use the tool since we're the ones accountable for its use. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ahecht and Ivanvector:: Sure. But all that can/should be taken into account. Even if 10 legitimate users are editing using the same IP, it's only immediately problematic if they're editing the same page(s). And multiple editors editing certain types of pages such as the same noticeboards or even the same talk pages can surely throw up flags. There could be some kind of scoring system to denote the likelihood of socking. This could at least be a start.
I believe that Wikipedia already has a system where it classifies certain subnets as belonging to educational institutions, etc. There are probably databases out there that also do this. Do institutions/ISPs that have migrated to IPv6 continue to use a small NAT pool?
Is there somewhere I can read more about how WP handles this issue and if it has anything planned?—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how the astronomically high ratio of false-positives (where positive means, in this case "A person who is using multiple IP addresses to dodge a block") in any way makes this a useful feature. That even ignores the liability-based and Foundation-level restrictions intentionally placed on the use of the CU tool, which this entirely bypasses. It should also be noted that CU use is meant to be confirmatory and not investigatory; that is CU evidence is meant to confirm what behavioral evidence has likely already determined. CU is far more useful in weeding out sockfarms or the like, but evenso, you need a reason to ask for a checkuser, and you're reason is generally got to be good enough that the evidence is likely enough to block the IP or username on it's own. --Jayron32 13:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm mostly interested in weeding out sock-farms. I don't see why there should be an astronomically high ratio of false-positives. If the requirements for a candidate match are strict, then the likelihood of a false positive comes down proportionally. As you and others have noted, there are so many parameters that could be used to narrow things down:
  • Exact IP address
  • Same subnet
  • Account for known IP pools and whatnot.
  • Browser signature
  • Recency of account
  • Proximity of edit timestamps
  • Page(s) edited
  • Similar page(s) edited
  • Same talk page(s) edited
  • Same noticeboard pages edited
  • Restrict analysis to a 48-hour window
Essentially, a bot will be building evidence the same way an actual editor would barring the IP address and browser signature. The bot would present the evidence privately along with a probable match score which will then be evaluated by appropriately privileged users. Yes, I suppose that this is a bit like fishing albeit, by a bot. The bot also need not be restricted to English Wikipedia.
Has the foundation or anyone else performed any studies on the prevalence of sock forms and manipulation of content on WP? Thank you.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This would be at the very least grossly unethical, and would likely expose the WMF to serious legal liabilities. No discussion on en-wiki could make this happen, since the WMF would immediately disable any such bot and probably globally ban its creator. (That there must be a valid reason to check a user is policy imposed at Meta level, not something from which an individual wiki can choose to deviate.) Unless and until you can convince the WMF board to allow it, no discussion of a checkuserbot is going to serve any useful purpose. ‑ Iridescent 20:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I do mean that this should be a domain-wide WMF-backed initiative. Where should one go to "convince the WMF board"? Is meta.wikimedia the place? I'd like to know all there is to know about anti-socking initiatives that have been considered/adopted by the foundation. If you are aware of where I can look these up, please let me know. Thank you.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 21:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This idea would not be approved by the community, and on the off-chance it does, will probably be vetoed by WMF-legal. It's a bad idea. Vermont (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts Cpt.a.haddock but I don't think that the parameters that you have set forth would help you catch the particular socks that you are after or very many sockfarms for various reasons. I created a report that may help you though. Everyone that has added the link in the last five years is there and it will include good faith additions as well as other false positives such as restoring the link from where it was pulled by vandals. This means you have some sifting to do...this is much like the false positives that Jayron alluded to. A bonus is that this gives you a cross wiki picture and lets you see who is adding it on other projects. I would also recommend that you post to COIN which may be better adapted than ANI to track promotional sockfarm activities.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Berean Hunter. That link is so much better than using insource: searches! FWIW, the ISHA gang is not the ones that really exasperates me. And I guess my questions here are better off asked on meta.wikimedia. Cheers.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Map colors[edit]

I find many maps on Wikipedia that are supposed to reflect rankings very difficult to understand. This is because the coloring or shading is either arbitrary or unclear (sometimes because on a map the shades and differences do not seem to be the same as they are against a white background). The coloring or shading should be visually intuitive and distinguishable. This means that, for colors, it should not be arbitrary. Consider the map at Social Progress Index. Instead of progressing in color along a scale of intensity or a standard hue sequence such as ROYGBIV, it jumps all around, making a reader translate it rather than see the message. There should be some guidance (guidelines)in making these maps so that they are useful tools rather than puzzles. Kdammers (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like something for Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions. There are challenges with standardized colors like maps at Commons, colors used in sources, and colors with special meaning or tradition for a subject. I guess commons:File:2017 Social Progress Index map.svg is inspired by the common association red = bad and green = good. The source https://www.socialprogress.org (doesn't depict the same year) has similar but not identical colors. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Automatically detecting paid revisions[edit]

I'm working on detecting paid revisions with a framework that requires weak heuristics for their detection. But I've no experience as an editor, so heuristics that I come up with probably aren't going to be very effective. Does this sound interesting to any experienced editors out here?

The framework that I'm working with. Paper supporting the framework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apiarant (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be concerned that such a heuristic can't tell the difference between paid editing and COI editing, as different policies apply to both. Or worse, not tell the distinction between paid editing and editing on an organization page as extensive edits to organization pages can be symptoms of spamming, paid editing or mere interest. Heuristics don't have mind reading powers, after all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
This is no rocket science. Heuristics cannot differentiate paid and COI editing. Even humans only do so by looking at the surrounding factors, prior knowledge or confession not by merely by looking at revisions. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I should've been a bit more clear and gone in a little more detail about the framework. Indeed, the difficulty with detecting paid editing is that we don't read minds. And so, any auto-detection method that uses what we already know (like revisions made by self-disclosed paid editors) doesn't have much base knowledge to work with in the first place. Snorkel (the framework above) tries to improve this limited knowledge problem by trying to squeeze more out of shakier sources of knowledge, like experienced Wikipedians' judgments and their personal heuristics. A short summary of how it does this:
(1) Instead of applying heuristics directly, Snorkel (the framework above) can take a large collection of heuristics (which are never wholly correct) and model the ways that they are correct and incorrect with respect to each other, as a whole.
(2) From considering all heuristics, Snorkel can then make probabilistic claims about revisions. It can declare how unsure the sum of the heuristics should be.
(3) These probabilistic statements can be applied to edits that no one's really sure about. But now we have newly explicit knowledge that we didn't have before -- even if the knowledge is fuzzy. This probabilistic knowledge can improve other methods. Like the types of models that ORES works on.
Snorkel is a state-of-the-art thing that made a little splash. But it isn't a quick and easy solution; there's a lot of work to do. A first step is collecting a set of heuristics to model. And of course, if its performance looks shaky when testing offline, then it won't be brought online. Apiarant (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how this could possibly work in the context of Wikipedia. As a concrete example, I've created numerous articles on artworks currently in Tate Britain; how could your system possibly detect whether I'm doing so out of an interest in the topic (unproblematic), because I'm an employee of the gallery and consequently know a lot about its contents and want to share this knowledge in my spare time (legitimate COI), because I'm an employee of the gallery and hope to boost interest in my workplace (inappropriate COI) or because I'm a PR agent hired to the gallery to raise its profile (unauthorised paid editing)? Even expert human admins find it very difficult to distinguish between interest, COI and UPI. Any attempt to automate the process will generate huge numbers of false positives, and Wikipedia is not going to look favourably at any system which flags significant numbers of good-faith editors as potential spammers. ‑ Iridescent 10:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Apiarant, MER-C generates a list of suspicious (possibly COI/PAID) articles regularly. Probably someone you'd want talk to about this; and other editors who frequent WP:COIN. The heuristics could help in finding paid rewrites of existing articles that slip through the cracks. One identifier of paid spam is promotional articles from new editors that are too well done (someone who is paid often try to do a good job of it). Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Victims lists are becoming a source of constant debate and argument[edit]

The inclusion of lists of non-notable victims is becoming problematic. It seems that they are being added by editors to articles dealing with mass casualty WP:EVENTs which is causing frequent, often lengthy and sometimes acrimonious debates over whether such lists are appropriate and/or violate WP:NOTMEMORIAL and NOT:EVERYTHING with local consensus proving either elusive or dramatically varying from one article to another depending on shows up and how determined they are to bludgeon their way through. This is getting out of hand and we really need to establish some kind of guideline for the sake of consistency and putting a stop to these endless debates. I personally believe that in most cases they are unencyclopedic, add nothing of substance to the article and violate, at least in spirit, NOTMEMORIAL. But even if a decision is made to allow them, which I would strongly oppose, that would be better than the status quo. My personal preference would be to amend NOTMEMORIAL to expressly prohibit lists of non-notable victims. Obvious and commonsense exceptions would include otherwise nonnotable victims who were significantly involved in the EVENT. Which is to say they did more than just die. Generally these will simply be named in the article narrative. I also would be fine with including an WP:EL external link to a suitable memorial website or news site that lists the victims. I do realize that this has been discussed before, but the status quo is just not working. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I also think that these lists add little to the article narrative. If a person had a notable role in an event, as documented in reliable sources, their role can be noted as part of the prose narrative of the event. If the person is otherwise wiki-notable (has or could have a stand-alone article based on their life outside of the event) then they can also be mentioned in the prose of the article. I am at a loss as to what the possible use is of lists of otherwise unnotable names, dropped into such an article without context, serves in the story of such events. Such lists serve little more than to act as a memorial to the victims, and while they can often be referenced, they rarely serve any relevant purpose, and as such, should go. --Jayron32 15:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
We've gone round in circles on this issue at Talk:Thousand Oaks shooting and it was previously discussed here. I'm firmly in the "no unless the people are notable" camp, but some people aren't and always try to have a list.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • This needs to be broadened somewhat to include participants or crewmembers. USS Monitor contains a list of crewmen who are non-notable and don't perform any important actions. People who do something significant should mentioned in the text, but a list of people who were simply present has no value, regardless of their status as victims or whatever.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Citing lists from more articles that should also be removed doesn't really help build a case... --Jayron32 15:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • They should be removed in general. Where one or more victims had a role, as was the case in the Sandy Hook shooting, they can be described in prose. Makes it very easy to draw the line of what to not include. --Masem (t) 15:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • To add to my argument, victim lists tend to be a matter of RECENTISM as well as sensationalist reporting (if the incident involved innocent civilians). A question to ask is if twenty years later, will those victim lists be essential to an article? Nearly all the time, that answer is no. I do realize that locally/regionally/nationally there will often be memorials to such victims, but that's just not information appropriate for an encyclopedia if these people were non-notable. What value is there knowing that Jane Smith and John Doe died in the event if they otherwise had no role in it? --Masem (t) 17:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
We are not "memorializing" anyone. You have to know intention to charge that we are memorializing. Show me where "Jane Smith" or "John Doe" died in an incident. Names happen to often reflect ethnicities. Names are often "non-generic". Hometowns, ages—all of humanity is not a pile of undifferentiated biomass. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
In 10-20 years, unfortunately, yes they are, if they are non-notable persons before the event. The vast majority of humans are non-notable, and rarely gain notability post-death. And why do we care about ethnicity, save for cases when that was a reason for the mass death (eg the recent shooting in Pennsylvania) in which case we can say the broad description about them. --Masem (t) 18:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"why do we care about ethnicity" I don't know. But we do. And it is not just ethnicity. It is age too. And a minimal few other factors. Occupations and home towns have informative value. Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
This is fundamentally an WP:ILIKEIT argument. Whether an individual picks their nose has some degree of informative value. Whether it belongs in an encyclopedia article or not is a different question. Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"Whether an individual picks their nose has some degree of informative value." That is why we exercise judgement as to how extensive our coverage is of the lives of decedents. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
But you just said "all information is constructive" - you can't have your cake and eat it too, my friend. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't speaking about Wikipedia. All information is informative. Most of it fails to inform. The value of information is a function of our ability to decipher it. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"All information is informative. Most of it fails to inform." GMGtalk 18:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
We can summarize any critical ethnicity/gender/age/etc. breakdown if it seems appropriate in the prose given what the event was (eg we frequently break down nationalities of passengers in international aircraft disasters, or in cases of school shootings, how many were students and how many were teachers/others). We absolutely should not be guessing on names, hometowns (which doesn't confirm anything on ethnicity) or other details. --Masem (t) 19:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Bus stop, you literally said "Our primary purpose is compiling information. You are mistaken if you think our primary purpose is providing constructive information. That is because ultimately all information is constructive." (until you removed it after I pointed out you contradicted it here - rather poor form, I'd say). So unless you have a mouse in your pocket, and you're working on your own website, I can only assume you were talking about writing articles on Wikipedia. Again, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You either make distinctions about what information is useful for an encyclopedia article and what isn't (like you seem to suggest above) or you don't (like you did in the comment you have now removed). If the former, you need to provide an explanation about how such information as you'd like to include is relevant in an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a newspaper article or a genealogical archive, for instance), and if the latter, then you have no leg to stand on, policy-wise. Parsecboy (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Let's stop being silly. If there aren't space constraints, editors should be allowed to build articles. This is the sort of information being removed. The "Casualty" section is entirely constructive to the article. We see no excess of information in that "Casualty" section of that article, which of course I am presenting merely as an example. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    That sort of information probably should be removed. There are practically never space constraints, but we still don't include every piece of information. It's just article bloat – that's what WP:INDISCRIMINATE is for. Continuing to use this article as an example, I can't see how someone wanting to read and learn about the collision could ever care about the names, ages, and home towns of the dead. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    I would say many readers would "care about the names, ages, and home towns of the dead." I know I would. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    Well, it's trivial to find a minimum of 1 person in the world who would be interested in anything. However, I think the better test would be to look at the general trends at Wikipedia towards lists of people's names. There's nothing inherently different between, say, the list of people who died in a particular event compared to say, the list of people who attended a certain school or worked for a certain corporation or attended a particular concert or some such. What is Wikipedia's guidance for those sorts of events. Whatever that is, we should probably have similar guidance here. There's nothing extra special about dying over any other life event, after all. --Jayron32 16:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    Perhaps so, but show me an encyclopedia that lists that information. They'll give the number of casualties, but not details. Similarly, you'll often find histories of individual ships that are seriously damaged or sunk that lack detailed information on crew losses or casualties. Hell, a lot of my sources have different loss figures for the same event. The key thing for me here is WP:SUMMARY; naming the casualties/participants/etc. isn't summarizing anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Responding to Jayron32 and Sturmvogel 66—the specifics matter. Part of the huge impacts these events have are their fatalities. There is a risk in generalizing. It is not "there were 7 deaths". It is "these are the people who died." We should not want to elaborate beyond a certain point. But it is also ludicrous to think that we have covered an incident by lumping all of humanity into one pile. There were specific people who died. There are minimum identifying features that should be included if we are covering an incident. That includes names, probably ages, and perhaps a few more identifying features. In the case of American sailors the hometown is a logical and completely defensible piece of information for inclusion. Do we want to know their dog's name, whether they are married or not, number of children, hobbies? No, we don't. Specific people with specific identities died and our coverage of these topics should allude in some small way to their identities. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Specific people with specific names also attended a university, or worked for a corporation, or attended a concert. You've not established how these lists are distinct from others where we avoid naming otherwise non-notable people in them. --Jayron32 17:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"You've not established how these lists are distinct from others" Nor need I. Reality has established the distinction of these lists. We are not here primarily to educate people. Yes, most of the time we try to digest information in accordance with the views of sources. But identities of decedents do not require any special explanation. We are documenting by minimal means the identities of the fatalities that are of central importance to the incident being written about. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
You keep repeating that. It doesn't become true merely through your will to say it over and over. --Jayron32 18:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"We are not here primarily to educate people." GMGtalk 18:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussed in November 2017 as linked by Ianmacm above. Discussed more recently in July 2018, here. People keep bringing the issue to the community, and the community keeps punting, saying that it needs case-by-case evaluation and even a default guideline would be bad. This, despite the indisputable fact that the arguments are the same in every case. If any argument has ever included something particular about that case as distinct from other cases, I haven't seen it. That means that case-by-case evaluation is a ridiculous waste of editor time. Until it can be brought to the community without case-by-case on the table—or the community magically comes to its senses—I don't see how we're not condemned to the status quo indefinitely—repeating the same arguments again and again, with the outcomes variously determined by who shows up for the discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Summarize the core arguments with links to examples, in an essay. Anyone can do it - demonstrate the repeating arguments. It would be a good first step to creating a guideline. -- GreenC 17:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Does the inclusion of victims names add to the understanding of the articles subject for the general reader? I can think of some cases where it does but generally no it does not. Therefore I would support a policy along the lines of "Normally victims should not be mentioned by name in articles. Exceptions should be discussed on the article talk page and a consensus formed before being added." Lyndaship (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This seems like a parallel discussion to one ongoing at WT:NOT. --Izno (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • IMO, the ultimate where trying to write the article without a victim list would be completely bizarre is Ariel Castro kidnappings...Naraht (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    That article does not have a victim list, so it is a bad example. --Jayron32 17:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    Maybe look again? The victim list is in the very first sentence of the article. Not all victim lists use list formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    No, that article does not have a victim list. What that article has is three people whose story of integral to the prose narrative and we, of course, don't scrub their names from that narrative, which would be stupid. That article has zero connection to what is being discussed here, which is a list of people who died during an event, without any part of the narrative. So no, that article is not in any way a useful example because nothing in this discussion would change a single character of text of that article regardless of what the consensus comes up with. Try again. --Jayron32 04:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    Naming victims that are essential to properly summarize the crime/event in the prose of the article is fine. You just don't need a separate table for that. --Masem (t) 18:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's a matter of scope. Including the names of victims of a crime where there is only one victim (Killing of Jamal Khashoggi as an extreme example) is necessary. A "victims list" of hundreds of people is obviously not necessary; for example listing all 851 people injured at 2017 Las Vegas shooting would clearly be excessive. Even listing 58 people dead is likely excessive. When there are roughly 10 victims, it's often the case that the media will cover all of them in enough detail. I'd lean towards including it on the Thousand Oaks page or the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting article, but could be convinced otherwise. I certainly don't see any advantage to saying the victims included a 48-year-old bouncer; a 33-year-old Marine Corps veteran; and a 27-year-old Navy veteran over giving names (with references that have further info). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The first question we really need to address is, what value does a list of names of non-notable individuals really add to an article? Unless you personally know the individual in question, a name is meaningless. The second question is, should an encyclopedia be in the business of providing enough material on a non-notable individual that their name is not meaningless? No, we obviously should not. News outlets generally include such information, which is all well and good, but we are not a newspaper. Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"a name is meaningless" Doesn't a name sometimes suggest an ethnicity? Bus stop (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes, but frequently not. Without clicking the link, tell me where Vincent Rodriguez III is from. Moreover, what relevance is that for an encyclopedia article about an event? In other words, it would be relevant to know where a person is from if the article is about that person, but if the article is about an event, and they are a non-notable individual where their place of origin has no bearing on said event, why do we care? Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As unhappy as I am about lists of names of non-notable people in articles, I think that battle is lost: Passengers of the RMS Titanic. - Donald Albury 19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I find interesting a section for Passengers by ethnicity. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
We routinely include breakdown numbers by nationality/ethnicity in any mass-transport international accident. --Masem (t) 19:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a summary to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Some people are hyper-involved ("geeky"?) with the Titanic, they known every passenger and their background. Books on this subject. Not a typical example. -- GreenC 21:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"they known every passenger and their background" And why do you think this is so? There may be reasons particular to the Titanic incident, but I don't think that explains all. No matter the incident the reader wants to know the identities of the people involved. Editors here are arguing that this information shouldn't be in the article. But who are we writing the article for? Oh, we know what is best for the reader? That is the height of hubris. We are not talking about extraneous or tangentially related facts. The identities of the deceased are clearly within the scope of the article. I don't think it is our role to deprive readers of relevant information just because we think they should not be interested in this information. And I will be the first to admit that I am interested in this information. The reason we are interested in knowing a little bit about the identities of the deceased is because we want specifics. When it comes to fatalities we want specifics on who died. It is unsatisfactory to simply be told "7 people died". The reader has an appetite for more information in the form of "which 7 people died?" Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It doesn't matter that some editors think the reader doesn't need to know this information. The ultimate question in this discussion is one of WP:WEIGHT. Obviously too much information on decedents is too much weight. But names and ages clearly are not too much weight. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • A random idea is if what if these lists existed at Wikisource (as long as they are properly sourced)? They can then be linked too from WP articles. --Masem (t) 19:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Often people who are victims will then receive coverage in the media, so that they become notable, but it is just a one-event situation, so then they should be listed or mentioned in the article about the event. So if adequate sources exist then the victims should be included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Victim lists proposal #1[edit]

So OK. Normally I'm of the mind to let the editors decide, but if it is true that "Victims lists are becoming a source of constant debate and argument", that wastes energy. So how about a compromise? Make a rule called WP:VICTIMS with something like this:

Articles on events in which two or more people were killed or injured -- airplane crashes for instance -- may usually give the names of the victims if there were ten or fewer. If there were eleven or more, articles should usually not include the names of the victims.

As always, common sense exceptions may be made. Bluelinked names are exempt from this rule, may always be given, and do not count against this "rule of ten" limit. There is no requirement to give victim's names; it is allowed if someone wants to (and there are ten or fewer).

The names and descriptions of victims should be in sentence or paragraph form, not list format. Normal sourcing rules apply, of course.

What's good about this is that it quashes arguments, pretty much. Why ten? I dunno -- got to have some number. Make it eight or twelve if you like. Ten is not really an imposition on the article. You can ten names and bit more into a short paragraph. It doesn't unbalance the article.

As to having the names in paragraph rather than list format: 1) it makes them a little less prominent; they don't take up half a screen, and 2) lists of victims just drive some people nuts, perhaps for that reason. Let's try to gruntle both sides a little.

Sure this is arbitrary but arbitrary works. Like for baseball players, there's an arbitrary rule: if you had even one at bat in the major leagues, you get an article, even it it was in 1887 and we don't even know your first name. If you had a fifteen year career in the minor leagues, you're not in. (Unless you meet WP:BIO and someone can successfully argue for you.) Fair or not I don't know, but there are virtually no arguments about ballplayers. We have lots of rules like that -- state legislators, etc. Works a charm. Herostratus (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you are addressing the core issues here. Sure—we can place arbitrary limits. But what are we discussing? Names of deceased fall squarely within the scope of articles on incidents with fatalities. Certainly we can't include all decedents in World War II. But it is entirely incorrect for us to decide that readers should not want to know the identities of people who lost their lives in incidents. Elsewhere this information exists for current tragedies and there is no reason I know of to make Wikipedia the truncated source on these tragedies. Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I would oppose that if proposed, as my objections to the lists have nothing to do with the size of the lists. You won't find "hey it takes up so much space in the article" in any of my arguments to date. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I would oppose that. (The baseball thing is not arbitrary, but basically an objective means to determine if a player played in one profession game). It is a number that will be gamed. It is better not have to have the lists in the first place. --Masem (t) 23:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"It is better not have to have the lists in the first place." The same can be said for anything—"It is best not to include the names of alleged assailants", "It is best not to include the make and model of the gun used", "It is best not to include the street address of the venue of the incident", "It is best not to include the name of the venue". In your wisdom you feel the reader should not satiate their appetite for information pertaining to the identities of the deceased at our article; they will have to go elsewhere if they want that despicable information. You are making an arbitrary value judgement. Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
We're talking about victim lists, not prose information. If any of those elements are essential to be able to summarize the event clearly, then they should be included. Victim lists are rarely essential - there may be victims that were known to try to take action to stop the event, but those names can be included in prose. --Masem (t) 00:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that we are talking about victim lists. I strongly favor victim lists of otherwise non-notable people including only rudimentary information such as name and age and sometimes a few other bare pieces of information such as occupation and hometown if applicable. That is the crux of this discussion. My examples might not have been good—you are correct to point out that my examples take place in prose. I stand corrected. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Herostratus, I think that's a functional proposal. You'll need to add some weasel words to accommodate the existence of the Passengers of the RMS Titanic (and similar) list articles, but I think that won't be too hard.
The hard part will be getting entrenched editors to compromise on a rule that would let them get back to the work were all WP:HERE to do, instead of setting ourselves up for having this discussion at least twice a year for the next decade. So for all those who are thinking about opposing it: If you want to have lists, wouldn't you at least like to start with something that says that it's possible, under certain circumstances? And for those who hate these lists, do you really want to have this discussion again next week over the Camp Fire (2018) victims, or could you live with a compromise that at least rules out victim lists that include the names of dozens of non-notable people? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
No, I do not want to have this discussion again at Camp Fire or any future articles. What I want is for the community to confront the issue head-on and decide, once and for all (or at least for the next decade or so, since WP:CCC), whether the lists should be included as default or omitted as default, with provision for exceptions by local consensus in either case. While I would prefer the latter, I would much prefer the former to the status quo. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you think that the default needs to be either "yes to all" or "no to all"? Wouldn't "Yes if it's a short list, and no if it's not" be an acceptable compromise? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: As I said above, my objections to the lists have nothing to do with the size of the lists. These principles are not something it's ok to ignore as long as you only ignore them in small quantities. But if the community decided on include as default, I can certainly see the need for a rule-of-thumb limit on size. As a practical matter I wouldn't try to address both issues in one proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing—Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. A separate page for listing brief identifying factors pertaining to fatalities such as name and age is feasible when the number of victims would take up too much space to be practicable on a main article page. Bus stop (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Enh, what I'm seeing here is a couple-few guys who who don't want to compromise. Whether my idea is good or not, whether it could be adopted or not... who knows? When the most clearly expressed positions are "No, we must never list victims names, and no, no compromise from that position is possible" versus "Yes, we must always allow all names of all victims, and no, no compromise from that position is possible"... We're not going to solve the problem and you're going to have these discussions forever. You will; I won't, because I will have forgotten about it, because I don't much care, because it doesn't matter, really. The best-for-the-Wikipedia thing to do is to fix this problem. Holding fast to an entrenched position -- any position -- is not the best-for-the-Wikipedia thing to do. There's no core policies at stake here, and there's no "right" or "wrong" position. Give a little. Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Opppse. Just for the record. My reasons are already documented. - wolf 15:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Victim lists proposal #2[edit]

As a different suggestion, I would argue that fully sourced victim lists can be listed over at Wikisource and linked back to the en.wiki article, eliminating any victim lists within en.wiki. Articles in prose can still discuss notable victims and talk about specific victims that had a role in the event, but the tables should be omitted in favor of the Wikisource version. (This also makes those lists available for other Wikiprojects). --Masem (t) 00:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Why at Wikisource? Why not a separate page on Wikipedia? Why wouldn't a separate article called "List of decedents in XYZ tragedy" serve that purpose, and only in instances where space constraints require that solution? Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that Wikisource accepts those. Wikidata would, and Wikibooks might. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
This is quite a good idea I think. Herostratus (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata sounds fine by me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata sounds good. The proponents of these lists state that they have some sort of informative nature, data wise. Wikidata sounds like the perfect place for this kind of info. Numbers, birthplaces, occupations....that's all uncontextualised data. How about it @Bus stop: and @Dennis Bratland:? You get to keep these lists and encyclopedia articles will stop looking like bad journalism. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing from preventing people from making lists of Holocaust deaths, deaths in the World Wars, deaths in automobile accidents in (insert region). Why is a person who died in a collision more important than a Holocaust death? Or what is the difference between a ship collision or an automobile collision? Because one was a soldier? Well then, what if it was a soldier travelling to work? Those sailors on the ship were sleeping. Llammakey (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Whether is Wikidata/Wikisource/whatever, I am fine with any sister project that is designed to take raw data without additional commentary. That's the whole point of the suggestion. --Masem (t) 15:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
And yes, this could be used for things like Victims of the Holocaust. The only key criteria is that the lists should primarily be sourced to reliable third-party sources... an obvious "next step" I could see would be arguing for the alumni of every high school and college on the same principle, but those lists are not published by third-parties (outside local papers), and thus not appropriate. --Masem (t) 15:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Both of the two proposals so far follow the unexamined premise of here, that casualty names in articles and lists are becoming a problem. Not so. They have always been an unresolved bone of contention. There has never been strong consensus on what this policy means.

    I strongly suggest going to the WP:NOT archives and searching for NOTMEMORIAL and similar terms. Review the perennial debates over this policy. NOTMEMORIAL was added in 2004, and in the 14 years since, it has been tweaked slightly here and there, and a lot of effort has gone into what belongs in the non-article namespaces. But the part about the article namespace has not really changed meaningfully, and the meaning has remained controversial throughout.

    This isnt like COI or BLP or RS, where new editors have trouble understanding policy, but after some time and experience, we all converge on a general agreement on why these policies exist and what they mean. Wikpedia's best, most experienced editors split into two entrenched camps on whether or not 'not memorial' applies only to article creation/retention, or if it also restrictes consents within articles. No revision of the text in 14 years has touched that simple question because there is no consensus on that question.

    It would be great if a proposal could pass that said in plain terms whether or not, like WP:NNC (Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article), it does or does not limit content of articles. If anyone thinks they can win global consensus for a clear decision one way or the other, more power to them. Please do so, and put this debate to rest.

    From what I can tell, it won't pass because Wikipedia is deeply divided. If we can't agree on that, then we have to admit that NOTMEMORIAL isn't much of a policy, since it doesn't represent a global consensus. There is probably global consensus that content with no purpose other than to honor the dead doesn't belong. But the obvious question "does this content in this article serve no purpose except to honor the dead?" has to be answered on a case by case basis. Decided by local consensus. No easy appeal to the top-down dictates of policy, like some simplistic 10-victim rule. No way is there global support for assigning an arbitrary numeric limit like 10 casualties, and no way is there consensus to shift all of it over to some other wikiproject.

    The best, most realistic outcome would be a frank admission that this isn't something that Wikipedia has a firm position on, and it will vary from article to article. There are beautiful FAs and FLs with no casualty names mentioned, and beautiful ones with non-notable casualties included. It depends, and that's fine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

    It will (continue to) vary from article to article only because the participants vary. The arguments do not vary from article to article. (While I haven't survey-studied all past discussions to make sure that's a 100% true statement, I've made the claim numerous times in numerous venues and it has never been disputed, let alone shown to be untrue. I think that's a reasonably fair test of its accuracy. It's true for the half-dozen or so article-level discussions where I've participated.) ―Mandruss ☎ 13:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    Reading on, I see your comments about a ship collision. Note that I'm speaking only of articles about random mass killings. The wider the scope, the more complex the question and the less likely any consensus will be achievable. I suggest keeping the scope narrow for that reason. Random mass killings have very little in common with ship collisions, so I don't see how it makes sense to lump them together. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Can anyone point to an article that they feel has been negatively impacted by the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims? Bus stop (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Using this article as an example, it is about a collision between two ships. There are people involved that are mentioned by name because of their role in the investigation and its outcome, and they are already notable per WP:MILPERSON. There are otherwise non-notable people mentioned by name because of their involvement in the cause of the collision and/or the outcome of the investigation (eg: the commanding officer was criminally charged). As a result of the collision, seven non-notable people died. This is where the debate comes in: there is no need to add these names, either as a list or in prose. They have no relevance to the article. Except for the few people that might actually know them, these names are essentially meaningingless. You swap out any of those names for "John Smith" or "Bob Jones" and it would make no difference to the reader. The names do not lend, in any way, to the reader's understanding of the subject matter in the article. They have nothing do with the cause of the collision, they play no active role in the outcome. They just had the misfortune of dying. Noting that seven people died and they were all from the US ship is all that is needed, along with the numbers injured from each ship. Adding the names just needlessly memorializes them and Wikipedia is not an obituary. A couple editors, specifically Dennis Bratland and Bus stop, have argued vehemently to have the names included, but so far, despite numerous posts on multiple pages over several days, have failed to show how these names are in any way relevant to the article.
  • This is an example of same type of debates taking place on multiple pages, with these two, and a few other like-minded editors, arguing to have memorial lists of non-notable victims in articles about mass-death events. Some of these pages now have these needless lists, and they are being used to bolster an WP:OSE argument in support of even more such lists. This is why we need clear language in a WP policy to address this, and prevent further debates which have become massive timesinks, for years now, causing a great deal of discord, disruption and clearly irrelevant content. - wolf 07:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Short numbers of names (as proposed by Herostratus above take up a handful of bytes and don't seem too out of place (users read articles, not policies). For longer lists why not simply create a page "List of victims of XYZ" and hat-note to it? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Thewolfchild, I pointed to sources that gave detailed reasons why the particulars of the 7 casualties mattered, and why they were not interchangeable with just any 7 people anywhere. You have repeatedly claimed nobody has given you reasons, and every time I remind you that indeed I have, you ignore it. Now you’re coming here to repeat the same false claims. If you disagree with the reasons that were given, you could criticize them directly. But instead of doing that, you pretend they don’t exist, and repeat your demand to be told what value the names add. I told you, others told you, and you responded by demanding someone tell you. What you’re doing is called sealioning. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
So, resorting to insults now, Dennis? That's disappointing. You've lowered yourself and diminished your standing in this debate. I have read all your lengthy comments, it's one of the reasons I mentioned you by name. I have not "ignored" your responses, the fact remains that despite all the "reasons" you've given, you have not provided any kind of sufficient rationale to justify the inclusion of those names. You have not shown how they, in any way, are encyclopaedic, relevant to the article, or enhance the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter. You keep claiming that none of the policies or guidelines cited by any opposers apply, while relying heavily on wp:ose as a justification to add those names. Tell you what; explain why those seven are so special, or explain why WP should list of all 2300+ military personnel killed at Pearl Harbor, all 2900+ civilians killed during 9/11, or all 80 million people killed during WWII. You can't justify one without the other. - wolf 15:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Insults? Listen to the way you denigrate the editors whom you don't agree with. You describe them as unresponsive, unreasonable, criticize them for lengthy responses yet go on and on repeating the same demands for answers. You get answers that you happen do disagree with, and instead of simply saying so, you paint those who disagree with you in a negative light. But you're the one who feels insulted?

It would be much more productive to 1) stop re-fighting the Fitzgerald ship collision debate. You won, in case you forgot. Never seen anybody complain so much after getting a majority of editors to support them. Hate to see how bitter you can be when you don't get your way. Let it go now. 2) Seriously read the old discussions on 'not memorial'. The ones from 2006, the ones year after year after that. The thing to notice is how many editors (names you recognize as admins, from writing FAs, as leaders with years of contributions) confidently see a place for lists or prose mentions of people who were casualties but not main actors in events. Your point of view has many adherents. Many fine, experienced, important editors. But there are just as many fine editors who don't feel obligated to list thousands or millions of dead for every event, just because they do list some names for other events. You say "You can't justify one without the other" and that's fine. Many editors think a consistent standard applies to every event of any kind, and many say, no, it depends. For 14 years, nobody has formed a strong consensus on it.

Maybe now you can change that and get a policy change that settles it. But history suggests you won't, in which case you ought to try to make peace with the reality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield; it's not about size, it's about relevance. Non-notable victims of mass-death events simply do not need to be mentioned on WP for any other reason than being one of the unfortunate to die in that event. Wikipedia articles are not obituaries, it's not the purpose of an encyclopaedia to memorialize such people. However, if people want to find or create a well-sourced off-site list and link to it as an external link, that is a different matter. - wolf 15:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Just for the record. I don't see a problem with this proposal at this time, as I just mentioned in reply to a similar comment just above. - wolf 15:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Victim lists proposal #3[edit]

Bare lists of victims, which only compile names and basic information (age, birthplace, occupation, etc.) are to be deprecated. Victims of crimes and disasters and other tragic events may be named as a normal part of a quality prose narrative, but lists of names with no context are not useful to most readers anymore than lists of names are in other Wikipedia articles, and advice for creating lists of names of otherwise non-notable people are as applicable to victim's lists as anywhere else in Wikipedia, and victims lists are not accorded any special exemptions from the normal practices of creating lists of otherwise non-notable people.

The goal here, is not to scrub the names of victims from articles, but to avoid the bad writing of slapping in "contextless" lists just because, or to afford "special status" to people because they died during a notable tragic event. The role of Wikipedia is not to create a remembrance of people who died in such ways, though we should also not be afraid to include names where the actions of those people during events would have come up anyways in the course of writing a prose narrative about the event. Simply put: if you think a person's role in an event in which they died bears coverage, it should be covered in the prose narrative. Simply creating a contextless list of non-notable people is not good writing, in this type of article or in any other. --Jayron32 12:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

In the case of random mass killings, there are often a few reliable sources reporting enough about each victim that someone could construct what they believe to be a "quality prose narrative" that includes every victim. So, for those who oppose the lists largely for privacy reasons (in the same spirit as WP:BLPNAME), this proposal as worded does nothing to address those concerns.
What each victim was doing, or what they said, just before they got killed is simply not encyclopedic information, but news organizations report it because they are not encyclopedias. Similarly, we rightly omit much of the tabloidish play-by-play detail about the killers' movements and actions in these events.
Further, inclusion of little bio blurbs about each victim—that she was a mother of three and he was active in school orchestra—is nothing but memorialization, feeding the purely emotion-based desire to give the victims as much individual attention as the killers. Again, that could and would be considered a "quality prose narrative" by some editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Which we could thus probably add in a bit of BLP1E: if the names of persons that are victims of these events meet BLP1E, then even if there are mini-bios of each person from RSes at the time of the event, we don't include them. (The fact that they are generally memorialized that way is, to me, a sign of sensationalist news reporting, to prey on sympathy from the reader, which at WP , has no place). --Masem (t) 15:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
No, the point is that we don't treat victims of tragic events differently than we treat people in any other event. If a person does something worth note in an event, we don't conspicuously avoid naming them during the narrative. For example, let's say we have some fire which dozens of people die, and one of the victims rescued several people before succumbing. Let's also say that consensus is that this part of the story is relevant to the overall narrative. Saying "John Doe, one of the residents of the building, rescued several other residents before dying himself in the blaze". If John Doe's involvement is important enough to the story of the event, we don't avoid naming him. What we shouldn't do is include the names of people whose role in the story is not noteworthy of itself except that they died. "Jane Smith was watching TV when she died in the blaze" is a rather mundane event. "Jane Smith was watching TV" is not, under normal circumstances, a relevant, noteworthy detail of her life. That she died while doing it is unremarkable, so it doesn't bear writing about in the event. So we needn't mention that event (thus not her name) in the narrative. If she did nothing in the course of the event that is important for the narrative, then we don't also need to create a list of victims just to make sure they are named. Naming is not of itself sufficient reason to include. If we would include a person anyways, go ahead and name them. If we have no other reason to include them except that they were present and died in the event, we shouldn't. Just like we wouldn't include a complete list of people who were present, in an unremarkable way, at other events. --Jayron32 16:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Fine, but you're reading a ton into "quality prose narrative" that is not present in the proposed language. Many others will interpret that vague phrase very differently; instead of endlessly debating the meaning of NOTMEMORIAL, we would now be endlessly debating the meaning of this new guideline. My goal is to substantially reduce the endless debating, and in fact that's a goal consistent with the heading of this level 2 section which I didn't initiate. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
That's fine. Lets work out a better wording then that captures the spirit of the proposal, but has less ambiguity here. This is VPIL and not VPP for a reason. This isn't a vote, this is a workshop to create the new policy so we have good stuff to bring to a vote. Feel free to propose something else. --Jayron32 17:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Ok, let me sleep on it once or twice. It's far easier to shoot something down than to offer a better solution, I know. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Simply creating a contextless list of non-notable people is not good writing, in this type of article or in any other." (Jayron32 12:07, 20 Nov) I precisely disagree. I prefer contextless lists in many instances. The crux of this discussion happens to be contextless lists of non-notable people. Can anyone point to an article in stable condition that is negatively impacted by a contactless contextless list? User:Thewolfchild above attempted to do that above but did not link to the past version which contained a section called "Casualties". It is worth examining that past version because I would contend it is constructive to the article. "Contextless" is not the negative quality it is purported to be. I'll admit that I was surprised that one of the most starkly contextless lists made it into the 2016 Oakland warehouse fire but even there I would defend it as entirely constructive to the article. I argue we do not have to digest all information for the reader. We are not producing articles that tie up all loose ends. It doesn't matter if some things do not make sense. We are discussing articles in which "senselessness" is a key quality. The argument some of you are making is to take away all crumbs of clues as to the nature of what transpired in the addressed event. Everything is a clue even if an incomplete clue. We should step back and let competent and seasoned editors that are familiar with our already-existing policies and guidelines do what they do pretty well—create articles on the unfortunately proliferating series of tragedies—especially lone gunmen shooting up establishments. No one would disagree that the senselessness of these events defy description. Consider 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Whether there is a victim list or not almost doesn't matter. We should let editors write articles. I think that in every instance that there is a victim list it is constructive to the article. What I find unproductive is the attempt to control other editors. It is not the end of the world or the doom of Wikipedia if "contextless list of non-notable people" are included in articles. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone point to an article in stable condition that is negatively impacted by a contactless [contextless] list? That's the second time you've asked that question in this discussion. It was ignored the first time I suspect because it's such a vacuous question (that's certainly the reason I ignored it). List opponents feel that any article containing a list is "negatively impacted" by it—for the reasons we have thoroughly articulated in discussion after discussion, of which you are fully aware. That you disagree with those arguments goes without saying. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Every argument you are making is countermanded by replacing "articles about events where there were lots of deaths" with "articles about literally anything else". Any argument you make for these types of articles should be applicable to articles on other subjects. What is the harm in including a list of every graduate from a University? What is the harm in including a list of every person who attended Live Aid? You've asserted that dying somehow makes these people special, but to make special note of someone merely because they died, and for no other reason, is the exact definition of a memorial. And consensus has determined that memorializing the dead is not, of itself, sufficient grounds for relevancy to an article. --Jayron32 16:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Mandruss—a productive discussion might involve not only pointing to articles negatively impacted by uncontextualized victim lists but also speaking about how that particular article is damaged by the presence of such uncontextualized victim lists. Can you possibly criticize this uncontextualized victim list? It contains Jewish names and ages. I contend that a reader derives tons of information from such lists—in almost every instance. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure, that's illustrative. The article already clearly establishes that the dead were Jewish. You don't need "Jewish names" to show that (as if most readers know what a "Jewish name" is anyway). As for ages, that too can be summarized if it's deemed relevant; we could say that the dead ranged from 54 to 97. That's encyclopedic information. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
That's like saying we don't need additional information if we already have information asserting a given point. There is no rule about that on Wikipedia and there should not be any rule about that on Wikipedia. Why would you prefer a range of ages when a particular person, identified as male or female, can be associated with a particular age? And all Jewish names are not the same either. Jewish names can break down into more religious-sounding names and less religious-sounding names. The question which you are not addressing is what is wrong with the list. My original question was—can you point to an article and show how the victim list damages the article. We know there are alternative means of including information. But why are you going to great lengths to prevent other editors from creating an article such as the linked-to section of this article. Please tell me what is wrong with the present version of that article. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the list bloats the article and includes information which is not vital to the narrative. --Jayron32 16:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
"the list bloats the article" The article is not overly long. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The length of the article is irrelevent. The level of detail is. Details which are not vital to the narrative should not be included, even in short articles. Look, you know that you don't win this argument by simply repeating yourself over and over, right? I think your position is clear, and I'm not sure it will be worthwhile to respond to your increasingly repetitive demands. We get it. You want to include the lists. Lets hear from other people on the matter. --Jayron32 16:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Why would you prefer a range of ages when a particular person, identified as male or female, can be associated with a particular age? For the reasons I've given in discussion after discussion, including several where you've been present and I know you've seen them. You have a particular talent for not hearing opponents' arguments, repeatedly demanding that they give reasons that they have already given countless times, and I'm beginning to fantasize about a topic ban from victims' lists. I'm not aware of a single other editor that does this in this topic area. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
"For the reasons I've given in discussion after discussion, including several where you've been present" I must have been out to lunch. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Finally, something we can agree on. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
"You have a particular talent for not hearing opponents' arguments, repeatedly demanding that they give reasons that they have already given countless times, and I'm beginning to fantasize about a topic ban from victims' lists." Perhaps you should learn to repeat yourself. Just because you've said something once, especially in another thread, is not a reason you cannot say it again. You are shying away from debate. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I promise to consistently "shy away from" repetitive debate. You know very well where to find my arguments if you truly have any interest in them. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
"I promise to consistently 'shy away from' repetitive debate." When a person asks you a question you should answer it. It is as simple as that. You don't know where they are going with their line of reasoning. You are stymying debate by constant grandstanding. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
No, what you're doing is trying to win the debate by sheer force of will: You seem to think that because you spoke last, you won. That's not how these things work. What you're doing is repeatedly asking the same questions over again, once you've been given the answers, as though by asking the question again, you invalidate the prior answer. That's called sealioning, and is not a productive means of reaching consensus. It's much better to make your point and go on. --Jayron32 17:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Jayron32—I think everyone is trying to "win the debate by sheer force of will". This is a debate between allowing editors of adequate competence to construct articles as they see fit, with Talk page discussion as need be, versus creating many more rules to supplement the already existing rules. WP:MEMORIAL actually does not apply to anything. That is because WP:BIO already serves the purpose of preventing the creation of articles on non-notable people. The question of whether there should be a list of victims is a simple decision best left to editorial discretion. My argument is simple. Bulleted lists have their value. I don't understand why a fuss is made over such lists. But if editors want to argue over them, let them argue over them on article Talk pages. In short I don't think Ad Orientem should have started this discussion. I'm sure Ad Orientem meant well but this is a can of worms. Bus stop (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
We actually do have a rule about arbitrary information, that's WP:NOT#IINFO (you could also argue that a victim list without context falls under WP:NOT#STATS too). --Masem (t) 17:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a good proposal. If there's some information about particular victims that would be valuable to the encyclopedia and is well-sourced, then the names can be included as part of that. For example, if there were a disaster or shooting and many sources discussed the actions of one of the dead victims during the event, then that might be worth including in the description of what happened. If there are many sources about what a survivor did in relation to the event afterwards (activism, writing a book about it, whatever), then that might be included in the article as related. Basically, if a survivor's name cannot be included into prose containing some significant thing they did related to the event, then it probably shouldn't be included at all. Even if that's the case, inclusion should of course be subject to the normal BLP and NPOV restraints. I just don't know if lists of unlinked names should be included except maybe on list articles. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon—I disagree. The absence of contextualization in this instance is not a problem. There is nothing that needs to be fixed. We are only talking about rudimentary details about lives lost. Not only does the inclusion of that material not matter but in fact it is constructive to the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I think everyone knows you disagree. You've made yourself very clear in your 21 posts on this subject so far. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Red Rock Canyon—"context", in the final analysis, is a red herring because tons of information can be conveyed in the absence of context. This version, which unfortunately has been reverted, tells us tons of information on the 7 people who died in a ship collision. How can that be construed as unconstructive to that article? Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Because it's not a encyclopedic summary of the incident. Too much detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a proposal that is closely in line with my own thinking and preferences. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, in theory. Just for the record. Agree there shouldn't be lists. If a person in the event being documented is notable, either for having a bio/blp page of their own, or they played a notable role in the event, other than being injured or killed, then they should be noted in the article prose, along with appropriate sourcing. This proposal could would in conjunction with proposal #2. - wolf 16:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I too like this proposal. I do feel though that we need a rider along the lines that Editors who wish to add names need to obtain consensus on the talk page to add them if challenged ie the default is no names and the burden to add is imposed on the editor who wishes to add. Lyndaship (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I'd go that far. I think that we let people write the narrative, and if some event in the narrative is determined to be trivial, we remove that event. The name itself would go with it. Efforts to shoehorn in unremarkable text into a narrative are rather obvious, and most everyone will see through such efforts to work a "list" in the back door that way, per WP:GAME. However, WP:BOLD is still good policy, and we shouldn't demand that people avoid names during the normal writing process. Prior approval is not required for good-faith editing. --Jayron32 16:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an improvement on the previous proposals. There are different approaches to article content. But it's still simplistic, and it's one of those broad laws that only begs the question. What is sufficient context? Wikipedia has thousands of stand alone and embedded lists. Non-prose lists are very often a very good format, following various acceptable approaches found in guidance like Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. Saying names are fine in a quality prose narrative again begs the question. Now editors will debate whether the prose is of sufficient quality. Why not recognize that local consensus is what really decides all of this? If you're going to let local consensus decide whether a prose list is of sufficient quality, why not trust local consensus to decide if the article as a whole works structured one way or the other? There will never be global consensus for ideas as broad as "there shouldn't be lists". If embedded lists of casualties are bad, what about embedded lists of songs, even though none are bluelinked? Or a list of albums, some bluelinked, many not.

    What about this embedded list of patents for things that are mostly not very significant in of themselves, but taken as a whole, tell a story. It brings us back to why we endorse redundant categories and lists and navigation templates and portals and prose containing the same information. A prose description of an inventor who has a long series of patents for inventions great and minor is fine, but the same information can also be given in bulleted list form, and for some readers, convey meaning better.

    We can't prescribe what to do in every case in a top-down directive. Perhaps the real problems is treating names of the dead as a special case. Articles are full of things, in prose and in lists, and some of those things are highly notable, of great significance, and some of those things, names, patents, inventions, filmography or discography, that are worth mentions but not otherwise of great importance. It depends. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

    We can't prescribe what to do in every case, but we certainly can decide on a default that would require a local consensus to override. Arguments to override would be required to show what sets the case apart from the majority. This would reflect the fact that the factors are the same in a very large majority of cases. As I expressed above, the scope should be narrow enough to make the preceding statement true for the cases within that scope; i.e. random mass killings wouldn't necessarily be covered by the same guideline as ship collisions or aircraft crashes. I see this as little different from different article title naming conventions for different categories of articles, which AFAIK has worked fairly well without an excess of debate or edit-warring. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    Sure, but do we need a policy-level directive for that? We already have a default: WP:LISTPEOPLE. It says bluelinked names. Then it goes on with "some common exceptions". WP:CSC does the same: lists of blue linked items, and plausible red links are the "standard", but lists of non-notable things are OK, though it cautions editors to "consider carefully". We have enough guidance here, we have a default, with "don't try this at home" cautions for those daring to try advanced kung fu. What we need is to focus on the perpetual debates caused by WP:NOTMEMORIAL's vague wording. Admit consensus doesn't support it limiting article content so we can stop arguing over it and focus on more subtle discussions over whether this list in this article makes it better or not. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    I've never seen LISTPEOPLE cited in a victims list discussion. I assume the reason is that it applies to list articles. Same for CSC. For the most part—although "list of victims" articles have actually been proposed at least once in this saga—we're not talking about list articles but about lists within event articles. In my opinion LISTPEOPLE and CSC would support arguments for a new guideline establishing a default of omit, but they aren't substitutes for one. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)&oldid=869838953"