Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals).
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals.

« Older discussions, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142

Contents

Allow some categorization in disambiguation pages (or within redirects to them)[edit]

The consensus is against the proposed changes.

Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like policy and/or style guidelines to be changed or clarified to be allowed to categorize disambiguation pages (or redirects to them), in certain cases.

Perhaps the problem is that some of these disambiguation pages could/should be WP:Disambiguation#Broad-concept articles, and perhaps one solution is to indicate that via {{dabprimary}}.

First case[edit]

Brainless is a WP:disambiguation page, nevertheless I wanted to add the following categories:

  1. Category:Nothing - no brain
  2. Category:Pejorative terms for people - see wikt:brainless

Alternatively, I could a) create a redirect (with the categories) named Brainless (pejorative) and b) redirect it to a disambiguation page, then c) add the redirect (to self) as an entry in the disambiguation page.

My attempt was reverted here, because "this is a dab page". It was not helpful - hence this policy request.

There are several preliminary questions. As a WikiGnome, I try to populate both preexisting categories with words already used in titles of Wikipedia articles. How important is it that such words are placed in those categories, especially as Wikipedia is not a dictionary?

The ideal solution is to write up an actual Brainless (pejorative) article, rather than a redirect, but I'm a poor article editor (for now) which is why I prefer to remain a gnome - perhaps simply indicating it as a broad scope article would do. I thought my solution (categorizing in a disambiguation page as it didn't belong in any actual article) was a good example of WP:Ignore all rules for improving Wikipedia, but it doesn't help against "prickly" editors - hence this request. See also WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#When to break Wikipedia rules.

Note that if the disambiguation page had a "(disambiguation)" in its title (because the main article was about another primary use, I would either need the redirect form, or the original article should have a section stating that the naked word happens to be a pejorative. This is certainly the case for many songs with one word titles, e.g., Mindless used to redirect to Mindless (film) but I turned it into a dab - that is not always possible. PS. I'm drafting a broad-scope article to replace the mindless dab.

Second case[edit]

Disambiguation pages are not articles, but they do complement categories and list articles - they are a recognized source of (non-article) navigation, e.g., WP:Disambiguations are cheap. Sometimes, it is useful to treat them as lists of names. For example, in an article (&category) about various ways of grouping/labeling things, I have

Kinds of Groupings - weak Equivalence classes
CategoryClassKindGroupTypeTierLevel

Each header of the table is a category, while all the entries are dabs. However, I wish to categorize these dabs under the header category, e.g., under Category:Category (grouping)

Now these dabs would not be of wide scope, but can I categorize them? I haven't read anything specifically prohibiting this, but more experienced editors have used this as an excuse to revert.

Disclosure[edit]

My categorizations and redirects are currently being questioned and/or reverted, so please invite User:DexDor and User:Marcocapelle to comment on this proposal. I believe the question of whether a new category that I had created should remain, is independent of whether some dabs can be categorized (often into prexisting categories that I had no involvement in). Dpleibovitz (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • I'm entirely confused by what you're asking. Natureium (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    Can I categorize DABs? Some editors don't allow this. Policy is not clear. Dpleibovitz (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    WP:DBC is pretty clear to me: Disambiguation pages are not articles and should not be categorized as such. Maybe you are referring to some other policy? --Izno (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
We categorize articles by the topic of the article - i.e. a category is a list (or set, if you prefer) of articles about a particular topic (plus there are maintenance categories - either hidden or on talk pages etc). Dab pages, by definition, are not about a particular topic so shouldn't be in article categories.
The OP of this thread has been doing some categorization edits that are strange (to say the least) - some non-dab examples where he appears to be categorizing a page based on a completely different meaning of the title are [this] and [this]. Quite frankly he should stop being a nuisance and take some time to learn how things work in Wikipedia. DexDor (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I agree with DexDor that a disambiguation page is "about" an ambiguous term rather than a topic. Sometimes all the entries happen to have a common theme, but often they do not. For example, it's tempting to add Symphony No. 1 to Category:Lists of symphonies. However, the term has other uses. That dab page quite properly contains a ballet, an orchestra, a play and two albums and is hence not a list of symphonies. It's even more tempting to add Symphony No. 2, which today happens to be a list of symphonies. However, that's not its purpose, and the categorisation will quietly become incorrect if Symphony No. 2 (book) ever becomes a best seller. Certes (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose categorizing disambiguation pages other than as disambiguation pages. If, by their contents, they are susceptible to further categorization, then they may be candidates to be converted to set index pages or broad concept articles. bd2412 T 22:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
While this is correct, if we want to allow readers to access symphonies by number, the alternative is to have a List of Symphonies No. 2 which either replicates substantially all of the dab page, or is transcluded thereon, or is a redirect to a section. I think this is what the OP is getting at. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC).

I understand the policy. I was giving two examples where I believe that exceptions to the policy can be made and to update that policy accordingly. This discussion is whether the exceptions make sense. Moreover, if there is a better way to accomplish my improvements to Wikipedia, I am all ears. DexDor is generalizing and cherry picking. I will present a broader picture. The following DABs (which he recently reverted) had been categorized under Category:Pejorative terms for people and some also under Category:Nothing: Fuckwit, Dull, Dork, Daydreamer, Buzzkill, Brainless, Bore, Bonehead, Blockhead, Bad Seed, Absurd, Careless, Drab, Dingbat (disambiguation), and Airhead. Some of these clearly indicate that the term is slang/pejorative, but had not been so categorized. In others, I added such an entry. Note that most are single word entries and that single word (or two word phrase) is known to be pejorative.

Personally, I think that in these cases, categorizing these DABs by WP:Ignore all rules is better then not. That is the question in this policy request - ideally the rules can be improved. DexDor, seeing all of these, he could have been more WP:CIVIL and suggested alternative solutions. I do agree with his Airhead revert (a primary topic) as Airhead (slang) is properly categorized and redirected to Airhead (disambiguation). The other cases don't have a (disambiguation) page - they are one. Cold fish doesn't exist, and I could create it as a DAB with one entry to Cold Fish, but perhaps this last one is a good example where a section in the Cold Fish article could be added stating the the term 'Cold fish' can be used as a pejorative - perhaps in a see also section with a link to wiktionary? Ultimately, are these categorizations useful, and rather than telling me what I cannot do, I would like to know how to go about doing so properly?

One of my first suggestions might meet most objections.

  1. Create "phrase (pejorative)" and redirect it to dab "phrase" or "phrase (disambiguation)" if it exists. Categorize the redirect, but not the dab it points to.
  2. Update the dab with an entry for this new redirect. Note that this would be circular.

This solution is imperfect for Cold Fish. Dpleibovitz (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make all these "Foo (pejorative)" redirects, the disambiguation pages would be inappropriate targets for them. We don't redirect unambiguous terms to disambiguation pages. We have Lists of pejorative terms for people, and probably have specific individual lists hosting the intended meaning of these terms. Compare how Frontal (anatomy), Anterior (anatomy), Posterior (anatomy), and Dorsal (anatomy) all redirect to Anatomical terms of location. bd2412 T 23:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Dullard is in Category:Pejorative terms for people. Dull, quite correctly, isn't. There is an argument for creating Dull (pejorative) as a redirect to an article (not to a dab), putting it in the category, and listing it on dab Dull, though I don't think we should do that because this is an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. But Dull itself is a navigation page listing things with the spelling D-u-l-l, such as a Scottish town and a musician, and is not about the insult. Certes (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it is already obvious in the above discussion that this proposal is going to lead nowhere, but let me add that I think the fundamental problem is that proposer has lost sight of the purpose of the categorization system as a tool that connects related content with each other. With a particular emphasis on the word "related" (discussions with proposer about this aspect, see e.g. here and here) - and on the word "content" (i.e. no dab pages, no redirects) - which is subject to discussion here. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose cases like Brainless, where the categorization is with other articles and based on a WP:DICTDEF (in this case one not included in the article). I'm neutral on categories intended primarily for DAB pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • For the article Cold Fish I have added a hat-note, pointing to Wiktionary. For the disambiguation page Brainless I have added a Wiktionary tag. A short definition could be added to the top of the dab page, this is often done. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC).
  • Close/Oppose, I am trying out your various suggestions. Am drafting several list articles, but also several broad concept articles. I think the real problem is that some disambiguation pages should become broad concept articles (with proper categorization), and that this process should be facilitated. Am drafting a separate analysis & recommendation for that. Till then, I am happy to close/oppose this policy suggestion. Dpleibovitz (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose, categories are intended to group articles and I think the potential for misuse far exceeds the corner cases where it might make sense. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox RFC[edit]

In closing the Civility in infobox discussions arbitration case, the Arbitration committee recommended ...well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted. As an editor who has not previously been involved in favor or against infobox usage and therefore a (hopefully) neutral party, I'm opening this discussion here. A prior call for discussion did not clarify standards for infobox usage. That leaves two policy questions in this latest recommendation:

  1. Are infoboxes necessary for articles generally
  2. How editors decide if infoboxes are necessary on particular articles

It seems logical to decide the first before the second.

The spectrum of options for the first question logically runs from "infoboxes everywhere" to "infoboxes nowhere". The previous infobox Arbitration decision, however, found that: [t]he use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. The extreme policy options of "every article should have an infobox" and "no article should have an infobox" are therefore not offered as options here. The spectrum of remaining options is:

  • Infoboxes are used by default on most articles – removing one from an article with one requires talk page consensus
  • Infoboxes are used by default on broad class(es) of articles (e.g., biographies, biological species, etc.) – removing one from an article with one requires talk page consensus (Note: the obverse is therefore also true, articles not in the defined class(es) by default omit infoboxes.)

*Infoboxes are used by default on some more-restricted subset(s) of articles (e.g., music biographies, invertebrate species, etc.) – removing one from an article with one requires talk page consensus (Note: the obverse is therefore also true, articles not in the defined subset(s) by default omit infoboxes.)

  • Infoboxes are neither used by default nor omitted by default – adding one to an article without one or removing one from an article with one requires talk page consensus
  • Infoboxes are omitted by default on some more-restricted subset(s) of articles (e.g., music biographies, invertebrate species, etc.) – adding one to an article without one requires talk page consensus (Note: the obverse is therefore also true, articles not in the defined subset(s) by default include infoboxes.)
  • Infoboxes are omitted by default on broad class(es) of articles (e.g., biographies, biological species, etc.) – adding one to an article without one requires talk page consensus (Note: the obverse is therefore also true, articles not in the defined class(es) by default include infoboxes.)
  • Infoboxes are omitted by default on most articles – adding one to an article without one requires talk page consensus

Wikiprojects would be the most logical place to determine which articles come under the "broad classes" and "some more-restricted subset" options, where active projects exist.

Request to !voters: To assist the future closers of this RfC in assessing consensus on so many options, it is requested that editors only place a support !vote in the subsection below that most closely aligns with their preferred option. Oppose !votes are not necessary and should be assumed for the remaining other options. I recognize that this "support only one option" request eliminates nuanced views but this is by design. Previous discussions have not yielded much clarity, so clarity is preferred here over nuance. Discussions to determine the exact parameters of the selected option, as well as question #2 listed above, will be presented later. Thank you in advance for your help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes are included by default on most articles[edit]

  1. This is the de facto status quo (and thus, this !poll is unhelpful) - the issue being around what is meant by "most", and under what conditions exceptions should apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support inclusion of Infoboxes wherever possible but agree with Pigsonthewing that "most" need to be clarified. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. There's a lot to be said for standardization. And hobgoblins.--GRuban (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes are included by default on broad classes of articles[edit]

  1. Consistency between similar articles is helpful, both to us editors and to the readers. And this consistency can best be achieved by consensus at the WikiProject level, where the discussion can also address exceptions to whatever general rule might be fashioned there. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Something that had been brought up in a previous discussion is the use of infoboxes when it helps to place people or other topics in a system that has a very strong hierarchical nature. For example, politicians, professional athletes on teams, leading executives of public companies, etc. That's usually where there's a lot of detail that doesn't need to be repeated word for word in the lede prose, but should be summarized quickly for placing that person or topic in this strong hierarchical structure. That's principally the only cases where such infoboxes should be a requirement, but that should be decided prior by appropriate discussion. Outside of this, the use of infoboxes should not be mandated (for or against inclusion), and decided on a more narrow basis. --Masem (t) 18:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Handling the issue at the Project level is the only option that makes sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    Most articles fall under several wikiprojects.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. For many classes of articles, infoboxes present data far more efficiently than prose. feminist (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. It does depend on the topic--many topicsare unsuitable. That does not mean giving the editors at a project the final say; as in other matters, their view of what a project requires needs at least acceptance confirmation by the general community to be effective. (As examples, among the sorts or articles I thin should always require an infobox areall biographies in all fields, regardless ofthe views of the editors in that particular field.) DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes are neither included nor omitted by default[edit]

  1. For the umpteenth time this is the only "default" option that makes sense. It is the only option that truly is "one size fits all". Since the last time one of these came up I have edited on several thousand articles that don't have infoboxes and they don't have enough info to support one. There should not be a policy forcing one on them. It is my hope that this ends the repetitive nature of this. MarnetteD|Talk 21:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. As per above and below. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. I think the current policy is perfectly fine. A small subset of editors have behavioral issues in following existing policy, but that doesn't mean the policy is bad. I think ArbCom did a disservice by trying to advise the community that they should change policy when it's not clear that there are any current issues with it. This discussion is itself likely to get contentious, and I doubt anything will change. ~ Rob13Talk 00:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. This will have to be determined on each article's Talk page, I'm afraid. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. If an RfC can help (which I doubt), it's not about policy. Policy can't decide if an article is better with infobox or without. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Infoboxes obviously make sense on some articles (e.g. Golden Gate Bridge), they obviously do not make sense on other articles (e.g. Memory), and on other articles the answer is not obvious either way. Therefore this is the only policy about their default inclusion or exclusion that can actually work in practice - and it has been working. The problem around infoboxes is one of behaviour not of policy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  7. Isn't this what we have always, consistently come up with? Consensus over many years of discussions has ALWAYS been that Wikipedia policy is agnostic on the use or non-use of infoboxes. There is no way to reliably predict which articles it is appropriate in, and which it is not. As noted several times above, the problem is not the infobox per se, the problem is that some people aren't willing to work well with others; the problems in this field have always been with behavior. People who have been sanctioned about infobox wars would have been sanctioned for something else anyways. We need to continue with the default, existing, stable position we've always had, which is "Wikipedia has no position for or against the use of infoboxes in articles". The realm of when and how to use them is the scope of the Wikiprojects and of talk page discussions. --Jayron32 14:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  8. This has already been discussed to death. Natureium (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  9. Infoboxes should be included if they are useful in a particular article according to local consensus. This proposal seems unnecessarily WP:CREEPY. AdA&D 14:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  10. This really needs to be stated again?! How many nails does this coffin need? Jbh Talk 16:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  11. Any BLP, or geographic location, or many other classes of articles should have an infobox. None of the alternatives in the RFC seem to cover this properly. If someone adds a useful infobox then it should not be removed. Certainly to get a B class or GA or FA rating there should be an info box. But for stubs, it is not expected. It should not be "required" for articles, but their absence proves the immaturity of the article, and demonstrates their lower quality. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  12. Agree that it's down to an article-by-article basis. The !vote above on a quality bar has been dismissed before on several grounds (rightly, in my opinion), and to claim a lack of IB somehow demonstrates lower quality is laughable, given the large number of GA and FA articles without. The presence or absence of an IB is not, and never has been, any indication of quality. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  13. First, we are not writing a database, we are writing an encyclopedia. Articles are just fine without as long as they contain what they encyclopedically speaking should contain. There is no need to introduce an infobox to have a good article. That being said, for certain subjects having an infobox summarizing the key 'immutable' data certainly has encyclopedic value (and I am a strong believer that having a machine-readable infobox can help us in protecting and identifying the subject directly). On certain classes of subject it makes sense to, nearly standard, include one (as sometimes they include data that is senseless to put in prose, but is encyclopedically relevant) (e.g. as a chemist: unique identifiers for chemicals are senseless in prose, but are needed in the document as to uniquely identify, help in expansion and to be able to uniquely find it from outside Wikipedia). On other subjects it is less relevant as there is no (or not a significant amount of) unique/identifying/immutable data (memory, or as a chemist again, chemical reactions). So as a rule: certain classes of subjects should (not must!) have an infobox. That is to be decided on a per-class basis (which could be guided by WikiProjects) but with the strong realization that within said classes there will nearly always be odd cases within a class where an infobox does not make sense. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    Seen some !votes on the 'Infoboxes are included by default on broad classes of articles' I want to clarify myself here on a point: strictly speaking, 'classes of articles' do not exist. Yes, it makes sense to have an infobox on all living people (after all, they have some immutable data like a day of birth), but there will always be exceptions. 'Things' can fall into different classes, where one class is a 'generally yes', and another class is a 'depends strongly' - or some 'things' belong strongly to two classes where both classes are a 'generally yes', but would have distinctly independent infoboxes (chemical compounds are sometimes classified both as a 'chemical', but also a 'drug' (which is a chemical after all), when the situation is 'more drug than general chemical', then a drugbox is included, if the situation is 'a drug, but more general chemical', then a chembox is included - but there are chemicals which both have a strong drug-use and a strong chemical (Lithium is an extreme example, it is an element, a chemical and a drug). Many chemical elements have mainly a chemical use (and the elemental form is not encountered in real life), still we do not chose a chembox. And whereas metals are elements, chemicals (and sometimes drugs), mixtures of metals (alloys) are also chemicals (and some have distinct chemical use in chemistry), still this 'class' of articles does not have infoboxes (and IMHO, should not have).
    All those cases need independent discussion, even when belonging to multiple infobox-wielding classes, and independent solutions need to be found. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  14. This is really the only choice and it reflects current editing guidelines. It's a great foundation but falters amidst the guideline for its failure to formally recognize "consensus through editing".--John Cline (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  15. Editors are capable of determining which articles would benefit from an infobox in each article's talk page, without need for some global rule. Whatever wars start up over infoboxes are problems of individual editor behavior, not flawed policy. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  16. This is a behavioral issue that follows a familiar pattern: An editor goes around to dozens of articles adding/deleting infoboxes, changing every instance of "analyze" to "analyse", realigning photos or what have you. When reverted and asked to explain themselves, they act like you just told them that they should wear their pants inside out and give some variation of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT ("Disrupts the flow", "Looks atrocious", "it's disrespectful to summarize this person's life this way"). It's a tremendous time sink as editors are made to justify basic, commonly-accepted practices. I'm not sure if we have a specific policy for this, but it's the type of disruption that we should shut down immediately rather than humoring with endless content discussions. –dlthewave 17:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  17. - whether any given article should have an infobox (or not) should be determined on an article by article basis. For some there is an obvious benefit to having an infobox, for others there is a benefit to not having one, and for yet others it does not really matter one way or the other. So no default... decide on an article by article basis. The key is: If reverted (in either direction) -DON’T EDIT WAR over the issue... instead, go to the talk page and discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  18. This is clearly the site-wide consensus, and anything other than this risks driving some contributors to abandon the project. There are a variety of factors that can take a part. We should be talking about what factors to use, trying to break it down into a clear and consistent formula, not debating a general rule that won't work. Tamwin (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  19. There cannot be a rule about it. Infoboxes are suitable for some articles but not others and their use must be determined by consensus on a case by case basis.Smeat75 (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  20. Don't micromanage style. Carrite (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  21. Needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Kaldari (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  22. This can only be done on a case-by-case basis. AIRcorn (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  23. Agree that this can only be handled cogently on a case by case basis. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  24. Must be case by case. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  25. While ideally my preference would be to include infoboxes in broad classes of articles (the option above), I wouldn't be fond of a strict implementation in practice. Like, are infoboxes necessary for very short articles? I think they're useful and articles should ideally have them, but absolutely requiring them is unnecessary and editors should have at least some common sense on when they're needed and when they're not. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  26. I'm sympathetic to the idea of having them on broad classes of articles, but I think such a thing is probably unworkable. I'd prefer a situation in which an infobox is only added where it can be shown that it is superior to a well written lede in imparting information to the reader. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC).
  27. Qualified support: The originator stated this as: "Infoboxes are neither used by default nor omitted by default – adding one to an article without one or removing one from an article with one requires talk page consensus" which clearly conflates two separate questions:

    (a) Whether "Infoboxes are neither used by default nor omitted by default" - and this is the only option that makes sense; and

    (b) Whether "Adding one to an article without one, or removing one from an article with one, requires talk page consensus" - and this is an unduly heavy-handed approach. It tries to legislate the behaviour of editors who are clearly (in the main!) capable of reaching consensus without talking a topic to death - often silence implies consent, and many unexceptional edits are made daily to articles that require no further discussion at all.

    Also, while it seems that we're likely to find an infobox on most biographies of public figures, there are a few about whom we don't have enough facts for them to be useful - think, for example, of the founders of the major world religions, about whose lives little is known with factual certainty. Infoboxes do give facts at a glance, and aid categorisation and automated maintenance. They can also act as useful prompts to editors researching new articles, as to what facts to look for. An article is not automatically unencyclopaedic or of lesser quality because it lacks an infobox. Conversely, it's not automatically better with one. How about relying on the common sense of editors, and assuming good faith? yoyo (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  28. Support - I don't think any other policy can account for all the situations we encounter in articles. As I have mentioned earlier, we need to focus our discussion on what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted., as suggested by arbcom. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  29. Don't micromanage style. Local consensus decides. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  30. As (nearly) all experienced editors know. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  31. "Don't micromanage style" sums it up for me. Maybe if we came up with a way to make infoboxes less intrusive: smaller type, collapsing by default, less "white space" hogging the page, etc. then the lions could lie down with the lambs and this issue would resolve itself. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes are omitted by default on most articles[edit]

Additional proposals[edit]

Here are some additional proposals for the community to chew on. Maybe they'll let us get something out of this RFC. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk Page Template[edit]

After a discussion on the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox in a page has finished, a template should be placed near the top of the associated talk page. At a minimum, this template should include a link to the discussion, the date that the discussion concluded, and the result of the discussion.

Support[edit]
  1. This will allow editors to quickly see if there is an existing consensus for an infobox on any given article. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. I wouldn't make it policy, but it wouldn't hurt to have a link at the top of a talk page to an earlier conversation about an infobox or any other detailed discussion that results in consensus on that specific article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. I think infoboxes clearly are special in this regard, otherwise we wouldn't have been discussing them for this long. This provides a clear record of prior discussion so that hopefully avoid discussing things over and over again, or at least make people think twice about starting another discussion without a good reason. Tamwin (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. I support a some type of logging process for all RfC discussions at the top of the relative TP, not necessarily a template just for infoboxes. Example in use: Talk:Donald_Trump also includes open RfCs and decisions as well as local consensus. Atsme📞📧 13:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - WP:CCC, and hammering a talkpage with discussion like this is just plainly disruptive. Infoboxes are not special. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Dirk Beetstra. Segregating all things infobox from routine editing is merely continuing in the wrong direction at an accelerated pace.--John Cline (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose as noted above, the problems with infoboxes are the problems with the people editing disruptively, not with infoboxes in general. If the people involved just stopped being a problem (either voluntarily or with some "help" from the community) this would all go away, and we wouldn't need to remind people of these discussions. If we need to have the discussions, have them, but otherwise there's nothing inherently controversial about infoboxes. --Jayron32 14:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose For the most contentious cases, an {{faq}} is sufficient. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Weak Oppose Per Beetstra, and because there's already so much at the top of many talk pages that folks ignore it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Beetstra, this isn't a long term solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  7. Oppose When discussion on any issue has ended, why not make it a good editing practice (not policy or guideline!, just something that thoughtful editors do) to make a final entry summarising the apparent consensus at that time? That would be helpful. If more of us did this, we'd all save a lot of time trying to digest pages and pages of historic discussion now of no particular moment, in order to see whether an issue that concerns us has been canvassed before. yoyo (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion Intervals[edit]

Unless the article has changed extensively since the last discussion, a discussion on the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox should not be repeated within X months of the previous discussion closing.

Support[edit]
  1. As proposer Tazerdadog (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - per above, WP:CCC, and there is no time-limit for that. It takes only one diff to significantly expand an article whereupon an infobox may be warranted. However, hammering a talkpage with these discussions may be disruptive. Infoboxes are not something special. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per Dirk Beetstra. yoyo (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Proper value of X[edit]

Six months seems like a good floor, I don't think consensus is likely to change that quickly.

Non-stub biographies default[edit]

If a discussion on including or excluding an infobox in a non-stub biography reaches a result of no consensus, the result should be:

Include the infobox[edit]
  1. The vast majority of non-stub biographies should ideally have infoboxes. This nudges the process in that direction. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Exclude the infobox[edit]
Maintain the status of the longstanding version before the discussion started[edit]
  1. As for pretty much every other sort of discussion where no consensus can be reached. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC).
  2. Yes Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Other discussion[edit]

N.B: The "broad classes" and "some more-restricted subset" options given above include to some extent their own obverse interpretations. The reason that I have given both options is that defining these groups by inclusion or by exclusion may yield different results. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this again. The ArbCom proceedings haven't gained any clarity and it keeps coming up over and over again. If we don't try to nail down something it will just keep going and going... Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Its going to get 'no consensus to do anything about infoboxes whatsoever' again because infoboxes are a subjective content decision that is highly variable depending on the article content, and so cannot be mandated yes or no on a site-wide basis. The very premise goes against consensus article writing. Which is why it hasnt gone anywhere previously and is unlikely to go anywhere now without a mass-exclusion of people from both sides of the constant infobox argument from participating. And the more choices in an RFC the less likely any sort of firm consensus will appear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The options in this RfC don't really make much sense. As far as I can tell, every single option amounts to the same thing: "Infoboxes should be used on some articles but not others". Using nebulous terms like 'broad' and 'most' are not going to stop discussions on individual pages, even if consensus could be reached (it wont). RfC's with multiple options almost always fail, but in this case I don't even really see more than one option. In any case, just more wasted time arguing about infoboxes. The RfC could have asked something simple like: "In the case of articles where there is no consensus about whether to include an infobox, the default should be to include/exclude the infobox." (i.e. override the current situation of 'maintain the status quo when there is no-consensus'). In that case it might have been food for thought (not that I would expect a consensus anyway). But as written, this RfC is even more of a time waste than the infobox discussions themselves (no offence meant toward Eggishorn). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere:, no offense taken, although I think that summary misses the explicit requirement to get consensus before changing infoboxes. I tried to present options based on prior discussions. From what I can tell, the pattern has been: raging argument on some page -> AN/ANI community -> punts to Arbcom -> Arbcom Case/AE -> ArbCom punts back to community -> around we go again. If this RfC fails, well, so be it. At least its then clear that RfC's won't work. I obviously hope that editors will read the options closely and pick just one. Maybe they will, maybe they won't but at least it will have been tried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talkcontribs) 19:01, March 28, 2018 (UTC)
  • This RfC should be withdrawn as it cannot help and is only another place to berate opponents. Either infoboxes are mandatory or they are not. Anything else cannot solve the problem of what happens when drive-by editors add an infobox to an article they have not developed and do not maintain. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I have simplified the options based on the feedback so far. SInce nobody has indicated preference, I doubt this changes anything. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
But what should happen when a drive-by editor adds an infobox to an article they have not developed and do not maintain? Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: whatever happens to any other "drive-by" edit. Drive by edits have no inherent lack of worth and article maintainers have no ownership of articles. If the consensus was that adding an infobox required talk page consensus, then one added without discussion, whether by a drive-by editor or not, would be removed. If the consensus was that adding an infobox was the norm, then one added without discussion would be an improvement. It's no different from drive-by BLP edits, for example. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
It's easy to say that, but here we are after years of fighting. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
There are also drive-by infobox removers. The real problem has been that, until now, edit-warring has been the usual way of deciding on infoboxes. Requests for Comments are a better way of deciding than edit-warring. I am aware that there will be a lot of RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Can we give this a break for awhile? It hasn't been very long since the last discussion/RFC, so I dont think you're going to consensus if you haven't already. Please try again later. RudolfRed (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The extreme options not being offered due to ARBCOM commentary is way off the mark (mind you, I doubt you'd find consensus for them), as ARBCOM wasn't saying "the community is not allowed to require such" (they don't get to decide that), ARBCOM was saying that "these !rules literally don't exist right now, so anyone acting as if there are !rules on the matter is offbase". --Izno (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • As much as I don't like it. It appears as though an 'article by article basis' is the only way. An across the board rule, just isn't going to get an agreement :( GoodDay (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This RFC won't solve anything. My opinion is that talk page consensus should only be necessary for inclusion or exclusion if an infobox is disputed, with the "no consensus" outcome dependent on how long the infobox was in place for. IffyChat -- 13:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    I fully agree. Unfortunately, unless WP:INFOBOXUSE is changed, this kind of sensible approach is superseded by the guideline. A review of this discussion can shed light on the kinds of argumentation one can continue to expect unless the guideline formally recognizes "consensus through editing" which it currently does not.--John Cline (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@John Cline:, I believe that the results here, being a more high-profile and better-attended area of the project than the MOS talk pages, can be considered adequate to modify the Manual of Style section. For example, this page has 3,235 watchers and the MOS talkpage has 243 watchers. Please correct me if that conclusion is wrong. Thank you for your comment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Eggishorn, I take issue with the phrasing of option three, Infoboxes are neither used by default nor omitted by default – adding one to an article without one or removing one from an article with one requires talk page consensus.
What happened to WP:BRD? As far as I'm aware, the status quo is that people can usually add an infobox to an article without taking it to the talk page first. AdA&D 15:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Eggishorn and Anne drew Andrew and Drew: BRD does apply in practice - in almost all cases where someone adds an infobox to an article it is uncontroversial and no discussion is required because people, by and large, don't add infoboxes to articles where they are not appropriate. The addition or removal of specific fields in an infobox requires discussion more often, but again this is a minority of cases overall. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be best if this RFC ended with a consensus on what factors should be weighed in the decision to add an infobox. I think there is a broad consensus that arguments to the effect of "I don’t like how infoboxes look" are not valid reasons to exclude infoboxes (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). In contrast, I feel many editors would likely agree that infoboxes should be excluded if the proposed content is subjective classifications for which WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Billhpike: I agree that your first example is "IDONTLIKEIT", however your second example is not a good one as the answer depends on context - e.g. what other fields are the in the (proposed) infobox? (i.e. one subjective field does not alter the objectivity of other fields), is or can the subjective content be attributed? (infoboxes can contain references), how relevant is this to the subject's notability? is there an alternative way of expressing the information that is (more) objective (e.g. putting "the hardest-working man in showbusiness" as a nickname rather than known for)? How controversial is the subjective statement? (e.g. if essentially everybody agrees that Major General Smith was the most flamboyant commander of the Fooian Wars that's very different to describing someone as the most controversial president of the 20th century (a quick google search suggests arguments are made for JFK, Nixon and FDR at least)). Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Billhpike:, I thought, in structuring the RfC, it would be best to determine inclusion status before inclusion factors. That is, if the "all by default" or "none by default" options were to gain consensus, then that would create a different follow-up question than if the "broad classes" option were. I hope this helps. Thanks for your comment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment All the options seem to want "talk page consensus" to add or remove an infobox. Personally, I think they are helpful to some articles, and I have added them without realizing that talk page consensus is expected. They don't usually contain contentious or dubious content, so why do we need "consensus" to put verifiable facts into a concise format? If I put a proposal for an infobox on a talk page, do I need one person to agree? Ten people? Do I wait a week and add the infobox if nobody replies, assuming that means there are no objections? Or does it take a month? On the other hand (although I'm not sure why anyone would remove an infobox if the entire content is relevant and verifiable), if someone wants to remove an infobox, do they need one person to agree? Ten people? Wait a day, a week, a month? This makes what I thought was a routine inclusion in various articles (such as buildings, companies, locations, people) into a contentious issue, despite the fact that I don't remember ever seeing anyone object to an infobox on my watchlist. I've never had a dispute with anyone about either adding or removing an infobox, and rarely even about the content of an infobox. Why are we having this discussion? Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • No you do not need to 'consensus' first. You only need consensus when someone objects. If no one has objected previously, and no one objects to you after adding it. Consensus is considered to be implicitly given. WP:EDITCONSENSUS - the likely explanation is that you have not added an infobox in a topic area/article where it doesnt really suit. If so, great. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jacknstock:, thank you for your comment and to add to what Only in death says, the reason we are having this discussion is the Arbitration Committee decision linked in the RfC statement above, which is actually the second time the issue of inclusion or omission of infoboxes has been brought to that committee. There have also been innumerable other infobox disputes, AN/ANI threads, and other disruptions as some of the above comments and !votes indicate. There is a Manual of Style page on infoboxes which says: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article and that inclusion or exclusion is determined by consensus. You've been obviously complying with that already. The options here add to that the explicit requirement of talk page discussion to add or remove one and also clarify whether infoboxes should or should not be considered the default option. The rest of the questions will (optimistically) be clarified in later discussion. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I imagined "talk page consensus" was different to implicit consensus (i.e., involving an actual talk page discussion). Only in death does duty end seemed to say that was not the case, in which case I can go on my way and consider this no further. However, Eggishorn has muddied this by saying that "the options here add to that the explicit requirement of talk page discussion to add or remove one." So, I'm still confused. The current consensus seems to be that I can WP:BOLDly add an infobox. All the options offered seem to involve adding to policy "explicit requirement of talk page discussion" before I can add an infobox. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jacknstock:, Only in death is correct, you don't have to change anything in your editing at this time. Whether you will in the future or not is still undetermined. Even if the RfC determines that talk page consensus is required, then simply stating you have added one is likely enough in the articles you have been editing (see (WP:SILENT). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that all four listed options include "requires talk page consensus." Another option is to keep the current policy that does not require talk page consensus. I support this fifth option. The vast majority of editors implicitly (there's that word again) support the status quo; if not, we'd already have literally millions of discussions about infoboxes on talk pages, yet, from my experience, it appears the vast majority of articles with infoboxes do not have a discussion about the infobox on their talk pages. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted. A possible outcome of this discussion would be "No, do not adopt any policy", but the RfC jumps right into "What should the policy be?". I believe that the ArbCom remedy will be sufficient to address disruptive behavior that is already counter to our community standards without adopting additional policies. –dlthewave 18:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm very concerned that everytime this is brought up, there is a broad group of editors very interested in shutting down any type of discussion about it, it doesn't seem right and it prevents us from having a meaningful discussion. Perhapse we need an administration intervention to start a discussion where users are not allowed to criticize the meta aspect of the discussion itself.I think, at this stage. this is the only way this can be sorted out. --Deathawk (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this is going to go close as status quo as I really don't see any huge movement to change things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I feel that the best resolution would be for us to reach a consensus on how different factors should be weighed in closing individual infobox discussions. If we reached such a consensus about meta issues, we could avoid much of the acrimony in discussion about infoboxes in individual articles. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment despite all the sturm und drang here, there actually is a consensus in most areas of the project as to where infoboxes are useful (with figures in the entertainment industry (actors, composers, etc.) being the primary exception). I don't see any of these options being beneficial at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC[edit]

An RfC on the use of Wikidata in infoboxes has just started. Please !vote and/or comment on the RfC page.--Moxy (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Lists of current/ongoing X[edit]

WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Recentism "can" be used to justify deleting articles which solely focus on current events, and as time goes by, existing content is to be deleted in favor of completely new up-to-date content. I am proposing to restrict this arbitrary creation of "current event" articles in mainspace.

Motivation: WikiProject Current events (now defunct) original scope says, "This project was established on 6 April 2006 to improve and standardize articles pertaining to current events."

Problem: WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Recentism do not offer a solution to this. They don't talk about this kind of articles at all, so we're left guessing.

Almost all articles about current events have and should have the current year in the title, because we're talking about that year, and that article will stay on Wikipedia after that year. Per this RfD, we shouldn't create redirects that have "current" or "this year" in the title, because their target changes every year.

From this, I gathered an exhaustive list of examples for variations of "current event" lists:

I don't necessarily agree with removing all of these articles, I am only putting all of them here for completeness. Please describe which articles you would remove from mainspace as they are right now, and propose what we should do with them. I am not opposed to moving most of these under "Portal:Current events/". When we are done, we can discuss what to do with redirects. wumbolo ^^^ 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having an article with "current" in the title, these will change with time, and that is the point. For instance if we had two articles, one called "List of 2018 X's" and another called "list of Current X's" both would serve entirely different purposes. One would be for people to look at how things went down historically and one would be for informing people about the current developments, with the understanding that the latter will change frequently. I'd also like to point out that the RFC you posted does not seem to say what you think it does. It was deleted because it served little to no purpose, and should not have any bearing on this discussion. --Deathawk (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I'd keep all of these, they seem useful, well defined, and easily referencable. Everything a good list needs to be. --Jayron32 14:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Are templates copyrightable?[edit]

A user copypasted the content of Template:Kochi Metro stations, which I created, to Template:Kochi Metro (without any attribution) and then replaced the text of the template by smth else (unrelated to me). I reverted and nominated the template for deletion as copyright violation, however now I doubt whether this was a good idea. Is the content of such a simple template copyrightable? If not, is it ok to throw away my edits without attribution? If not, what would have been the best CSD criterion? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jinoytommanjaly: who have copypasted the text of the template.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Ymblanter: A template copypasted needs attribution.? I have no idea about that. I have replaced the Template:Kochi Metro stations to Template:Kochi Metro for some reason and has been described in Template:Kochi Metro stations edit summary. I have no issue to give attribution. If needed it's ok for me.jinoytommanjaly (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It should have been moved, not copypasted. For the article, we call this cut-and-paste move, which should be immediately reverted, and the mover gets a warning. For the template, I am not so sure, this is why I ended up here.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter:As a part of improvement of articles related to Kochi Metro stations, as per the Template:S-line i have modified some templates and created new templates related. For that purpose some templates needs to be taken which are already been created. One among was Template:Kochi Metro stations. So I have created Template:Kochi Metro first with the copypaste Template:Kochi Metro stations and modified the Template:Kochi Metro stations per the Template:S-line. This edit was done to improve services section of Infobox. -jinoytommanjaly (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
See WP:CWW. That has a bunch of waffly text but the bottom line is obvious. Do not copy stuff you did not write. Ever. Not unless authorship is properly attributed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes they are copyrightable. When I copy paste, I usually tend to link the revision that I copied from in the revision (as I do for archiving talk pages). But even then, copyright is a bit muddy often in template space. I mean template protection and template sandboxes already cause problems on this front, that we readily accept/ignore. You could argue that often the history is 'reconstructable', but it definitely is NOT completely tracked in the revision history. So my answer would be.. give credit where credit is due, be a good citizen, but don't over do it either. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Undated and images needing a US/URAA status confirmation.[edit]

For starters:

Category:Images_with_an_unknown_US_copyright_status.

This category has numerous sub categories relating to some changes in various PD templates to account for URRA restoration concerns.

However, in many instances, what should be a straightforward backlog to clear, has resulted in a backlog of images with a currently uncertain status.

To retain images with a copyright uncertainty indefinitely is unreasonable, however a mass deletion of all the files in the sub-categories would be highly controversial, given that many many images are used in a situation where WP:NFCC could be legitimately applied if the images concerned had restored copyrights in the US. The lack of dating information on some images under laxer image rules existing on the project in the past has also not assisted matters.

Therefore, the policy change which would be desirable would be that:

  1. For new uploads (after a given cutoff date), a rule be implemented that media has to be "provable" as PD (in the US) within 7 days of upload or NFCC criteria are applied automatically, irrespective of whatever PD status is in the nominal country of origin. Uploaders could be suitably informed, if such absences were found.
  2. For existing uploads in relevant categories, uploaders are mass-contacted (with tool-assisted editing) if needed, requesting dating information and confirmation as (PD in the US). Should such information not be forthcoming within 90 days, all images not confirmed have NFCC automatically applied 90days after the last revision of the file description pages.
  3. That appropriate bots are allowed to be used to ensure media content is under the correct licensing, and that any relevant US status is fully confirmed.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the images in Category:PD-Australia images with unknown US copyright status, almost every one of them is actually legitimately PD in the US. So mass deletion would be highly inappropriate. All that is missing is the tagging. The most desirable course of action would be to move the images to servers outside the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Everipedia's wikibot copying more of Wikipedia content[edit]

I found out that Wikibot, a bot designed by one of co-founders Sam Kazemian, has been copying articles from Wikipedia without mentioning CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported, in contrast to the WP:Reusing Wikipedia content policy. One instance is an article about Wikipedia (history) copied from either this or that revision of the "Wikipedia" article. I emailed the webmasters and Kazemian about this, but that went a dead end. Also, I went to the WHOIS records page and was able to contact its service provider via one of the website's servers. I emailed a DMCA request twice, once in February and once in March. I've not received one email from the service provider saying that it would take action against Everipedia.

I brought up Everipedia copying images from the articles without giving attribution and licensing notices. If the service provider (still not publicly identified) won't respond, what else can be done about this? --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@George Ho: I suggest you snail mail them a letter to their agent here:
C3880540 EVERIPEDIA, INC.Registration Date: 02/29/2016Jurisdiction: DELAWAREEntity Type: FOREIGN STOCKStatus: ACTIVEAgent for Service of Process: MAHBOD MOGHADAM 972 HILGARD AVE #203LOS ANGELES CA 90024

and/or

Name: CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANYAddress: 251 LITTLE FALLS DRIVECity: WILMINGTON County: New CastleState: DE

Generally, if you assert how they have personally violated your own copyleft you will get more attention as well. As for as the DMCA, where did you validate the hosting provider and how did you serve them? — xaosflux Talk 00:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like they may be on Azure, and MS has a report page here. — xaosflux Talk 01:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I was able to go through the website of its name server Cloudflare, filed a form at this page, and then had Cloudflare forware the email to Everipedia's service provider. The email revealed the email address of the service provider to me. --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There's a tread about this on Twitter, starting with my post at:

https://twitter.com/pigsonthewing/status/982917458326622208

Sam Kazemian of Everipedia has replied, here:

https://twitter.com/samkazemian/status/983597269290139648

with set of proposals for future action. He offers no explanation, much less an apology, for taking images without credit, in breach of the CC by-sa licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Men, senators giving birth, & Wikipedia[edit]

Nobody has got any idea as to the content of the proposed changes, (if any) and umm..., this looks more like a socio-political diatribe, as Cip says.~ Winged BladesGodric 08:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First, let me say that I'm a middle-aged white male, raised in the suburbs of a West Coast city, married with children. Which means that I'm often not an example of progressive thinking; I often find that my preconceptions are out of date by a few decades. Second, I need to say I'm more than a little angry about the following; he following may achieve nothing more than allowing me to vent.

When I learned that Tammy Duckworth, a sitting senator in the US Senate, had given birth, I knew it was a big thing. For those of you under the age of 40, you may not know that within living memory women were actively discouraged from holding "serious" jobs due to the fact they could create life. Employers were worried that if they hired a woman (instead of a man), she might decide to get married & quit her job. Or get pregnant & quit her job. Or need to leave for a while to give birth, raise her kid, then expect to be hired back after a few months. Apparently they expected the job came before family in all regards. But sex discrimination was a very real thing that happened at many levels of society, mostly excused due to the fact women could create life. (Have a look at the article American Association of University Women: one of the first studies that group commissioned was to refute the belief that a college education harmed a woman's health & could cause her to be infertile.)

Further, this sexism is very apparent to many women. One of the problems Wikipedia has is attracting a proportional number of women editors, & it would make sense that acknowledging this achievement on our front page might encourage a few more women to edit Wikipedia. And despite WP:Other stuff exists, the fact that a woman having a child while serving as a US Senator was at least as important as discovering a distant star, or a bus crash that killed 15 people. So I submitted it for consideration at Wikipedia:In the news.

Now I'll admit that my judgment about things can be wrong -- & sometimes I'll even admit that I was indeed wrong. However, what made me angry about my submission wasn't just that it was rejected. It was that a total of two men decided it was not newsworthy, & on the basis of these two votes it was rejected as a SNOW CLOSE. All within 2 hours, & without any chance on my part to explain the larger context to those who may not understand it. So I consider this rejection a big fucking deal: we are trivializing the concerns of about half our audience & potential editing pool after insufficient discussion.

We men often act in sexist ways out of ignorance. I know I do, as hard as I try, since I'm married with two daughters: not so much to set a good example to them as to avoid embarrassing myself in front of them. So I have to wonder if this submission would have been given the bum's rush had we far more women Wikipedians; maybe proportional to how many men & women out in the real world. And that we won't get there if we don't consider the interests of people who aren't college-educated, suburban white men under the age of 40. -- llywrch (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'm not sure what policy suggestion is being made here, but I almost certainly oppose it. If no policy suggestion is being made, it should be speedy-archived as irrelevant to this page. I note WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in response to the OP's comments power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Proposal that SNOW closes require more than two votes in two hours. "I'm not sure what policy suggestion is being made here, but I almost certainly oppose it" is paraphrasing Groucho Marx? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not exactly sure what I'm opposing because In can't figure out what you're proposing, but I don't think any change in policy is needed in response to a senator giving birth being declined by ITN. I agree with that decline, and if it weren't closed, I would have opposed. Natureium (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose close, that seemed way too premature for a SNOW closure. I do not see a policy change that could reasonably be considered based on this incident however. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • While I agree that 2 comments in 2 hours is far too short a time for a snow closure (personally I would have just reopened it if it was my nom) "Woman gives birth while keeping job" may have been significant 30 years ago. Its not significant today as you point out Llywrch. Everyone knows how difficult it was to do so historically, but ITN is about significance *now*. This nom was unlikely to pass under the current ITN criteria. While being the first senator to do so is interesting (as TRM pointed try DYK where this sounds like it would be a shoe-in), it would happen sooner or later. Plenty of women for decades have managed the feat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Also this discussion really belongs on the talkpage of ITN candidates rather than here, because this is about site-wide policies, not appealing local discussion closes. Could someone who hasnt commented please move it (rather than just close it) as it does merit further discussion - at least regarding the overly speedy close. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If there is any policy change being proposed in here, it seems to be lost within the sociopolitical diatribe of the original post.--WaltCip (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion notice: RfC about adding instructions for starting RfCs[edit]

The RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RfC about adding instructions for starting RfCs asks the question:

Should the instructions for starting RfCs be modified to include telling the filer to link any previous discussion pertaining to the request being started, that may have occurred?

Please participate there. ―Mandruss  04:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

why are 'with privacy' pics allowed on Wikipedia?[edit]

I did a search, no results. check the log. Certain pics do not show up on my browser. This should not be allowed. CorvetteZ51 (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@CorvetteZ51: Can you give us more information about what is going on? Your description doesn't make a lot of sense. --Izno (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

May be as easy as clearing your cache. When I go too long without doing that the images stop showing up (not all of them, but many, so it causes white space rather than an image). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you using an ancient browser? I wouldn't expect cache management to work like that on a modern browser. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion related to proper use of the Template namespace[edit]

A move discussion is being held at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Requested move 10 April 2018 which may be of interest to editors following this page. It relates to the Wikipedia:Did you know nomination process and the Wikipedia:Template namespace guideline. -- Netoholic @ 19:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Specifying the code of football at first reference in team articles[edit]

Should articles on professional football teams (any sort of football) specify what kind of football the team plays, at first reference? 19:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Background[edit]

The use of the word "football" is contentious, particularly among sporting fans from different countries. Wikipedia long ago came to an accommodation whereby the main football article would cover all kinds ("codes") of football, rather than choosing one of them to have the unmodified name "football".

The question here is what should be done about articles on football teams. In general, articles on professional American football teams specifically say "American football" at first reference. However, many articles on professional association football ("soccer") teams simply say "football" at first reference, albeit usually with a piped link to association football. I have not checked in detail about the practice for other codes (such as Canadian football, Australian rules football, rugby union, rugby league, Gaelic football).

There are related questions about other articles related to one of the codes of football (the most obvious one is players) but I prefer not to raise those here. That brings in a complication with the word "footballer", which is arguably specific to association football (or at least not used much for American football), so it is possibly less of an issue. Also I prefer to concentrate on professional teams, to avoid having to worry about the locution college football, which is arguably specific to American football.

Survey question[edit]

Should articles on professional football teams visibly call out the code of football, at first reference?

Straw-poll: Specifying the code of football at first reference[edit]

  • No - because in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases it's not ambiguous. GiantSnowman 19:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, in the vast majority of cases, it is ambiguous to me, and to many others. This is because the vast majority of articles are about soccer, and in my mind "football" means something else. You already know this from the previous discussion elsewhere. Why do you repeat your false claim here? Very poor behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. Or failing that, we should stop doing it for American football. --Trovatore (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes It is ambiguous for most of the major primary English-speaking countries (Australia, USA, Canada, Ireland) who have other football codes (and as far as I know there is rugby also in the UK, though I have no idea if it is referred to as football there). Furthermore the first reference should be full, just as the first mention of a person's name is their full name and afterwards they are referred to by the family name. --SuperJew (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
At least in this bit of the UK, you would only use "football" to mean rugby if it was obvious from context that you didn't mean association football. And even then it would be a touch strange. Kahastok talk 22:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, Andy Capp used to refer to rugby as "football". At least I think it was rugby. It was some ball sport where you carried the ball. The comic strip appeared in our paper when I was a boy. A lot of the cultural references were lost on me, I think. --Trovatore (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per the ambiguity concern. Usually other context makes it fairly obvious, but sometimes not. --Izno (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No this appears to be primarily a gridiron problem. For the vast majority of football related articles, a football team means association football. It seems ridiculous to specify the type of football played in a Kenyan professional football team article because Americans use the term to describe a purely American sport. SportingFlyer talk 20:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @SportingFlyer: As I mentioned above, it's ambiguous in at least Australia, USA, Canada, and Ireland, which all have other football codes as well as association football. --SuperJew (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Even if a majority of football articles may be about association football, but for about half of English Wikipedia's readers, the term is ambiguous at best (or misleading at worst). --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 16:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. I prefer to avoid piping when I can, so [[association football]] rather than [[association football|football]]. It takes only a little writing skill to avoid repetition like "American [[American football]] player." I don't see much point in editing every football-related article to achieve this, but it should be the preferred style and corrected when convenient. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No For countries that it maybe ambiguous then sure use what will be easier identified for those articles like what already happens in Australia with WP:NCFA but in countries like Germany, England, even my country New Zealand, piping Association Football to football is fine. NZFC(talk) 21:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Is it obvious to non-New Zealanders that this is the case, when visiting an article on an NZ club? --Trovatore (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC) I think if you asked most people here to name a "New Zealand football club", they'd look puzzled for a second, and then come up with the All Blacks. --Trovatore (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
      • No most could name a football club and would name either the Wellington Phoenix or Auckland City as the two they would know if they knew very little about football in this country. All Blacks and everything else like them use Rugby. Competition is called Rugby Championship, Super Rugby, they don't use football. Also one of the reasons New Zealand Football officially changed their name from New Zealand Soccer to New Zealand Football in 2007 as it was more commonly used term for the sport in the country. NZFC(talk) 23:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I think you missed the use by Trovatore of the word "here". HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per MOS:COMMONALITY and per WP:PARIS. On first reference (and only on first reference in general) it makes sense to make it clear what sport we mean. I accept of course that most people know that football in Germany generally means association football, but not everyone will - young people or people less familiar with European sporting traditions may well be unaware - and those people may be using Wikipedia as well. Kahastok talk 22:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No - In general, the code of the game is not ambiguous when you consider the context of the article (i.e. any obvious national ties the subject may have), and in cases where it is ambiguous, the link should be sufficient to allay that. If that means articles about players of American football start referring to their subjects as "football players" whereas before they would have said "American football players", I'm okay with that. – PeeJay 23:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
To a fan of another football code, it is always ambiguous, until one reads enough of the article to figure out the context. Why put that load on readers? HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes — given the sudden and inexplicable movement, within the Australian press, apparently driven by the death of one Johnny Warren, to sequester the term "football" for soccer. Lindsay658 (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Players of Australian Rules football are universally described as "footballers" by fans of that game and in local media coverage. The sport itself is described as "football" by its fans. The clubs (many of them older than almost all Association football clubs, beginning in the late 1850s), are similarly described as "football clubs". In relevant articles on Wikipedia efforts are made to make the sport involved 100% clear at first mention. The same should apply to Association football articles. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Why risk ambiguity, when it can easily be avoided? It is highly unlikely to be ambiguous if a German reader reads and article about a German footballer, but much more to be so if an Australian reader reads about an Irish footballer (Does he play association football? GAA football? Aussie Rules football?) Avoid ambiguity as soon as possible. By the way, Encyclopædia Brittanica seems to always refer to it as "football (soccer)" eg. in this article, which seems sensical. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I would personally agree, but for reasons I have never understood, a lot of soccer fans seem to actively dislike the name "soccer", at least here in Australia. It's stronger than simply preferring the name "football". I have even been told "soccer" is offensive, but have never been told why. (These discussions can be quite difficult.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that the "soc" part of "soccer" derives from "association". So etymologically at least, soccer is an informal colloquialism. In America, it's the name of the sport, notwithstanding the efforts of a few extremists enthusiasts to popularize the name "football" for it. I gather the same may be true in Australia. But it's not an Americanism or an Australianism. It is arguably informal, at least in origin, and I can understand why the more serious sort of fan might not like that. --Trovatore (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
That makes some sense, but it's only a recent thing in Australia. Until 2004, the peak competition in Australia was the National Soccer League. I have felt like it's a form of Newspeak to which we are all expected to conform. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - if it's an article about a football club/team of any code is "obvious" enough to not need the code mentioned, it's also obvious enough to not need the sport mentioned. Everyone who knows that Juventus is an association football club also by definition knows that Juventus is a football club, so why do we even mention that? The answer there is that we include it because - despite the presumptions of some comments here - many people have no idea what Juventus is, and more importantly because it's a very important piece of information about the club that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Even if we want to pretend that it's immediately obvious to everyone on earth what Hungerford Town F.C. is, Wikipedia has no policy that something which is deemed obvious should be excluded from articles. In fact, WP:OBVIOUS states precisely the opposite. For example, Hand currently says "The human hand normally has five digits", and Sky has "During daylight, the sky appears to be blue [...] At night, the sky appears to be a mostly dark surface". I don't think that "Tokyo Verdy is a Japanese association football club" is an unreasonable clarification. SellymeTalk 03:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No The first sense of the term is the one that is most popular in the world. All others may need some clarification, such as American football, Australian football, which in my corner of the world is called Australian rules football, Canadian football, and any of the other variants. It's appropriate to set it up as [[association football|football]] in the vast majority of articles as that makes it clear which code is being discussed in case it's not clear from the rest of the context of the rest of the first sentence. And why is this in the policy section rather than proposals? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Taking the last point first, this is the "policy and guidelines" sections; this would be a guideline. As to your main point, frankly, that's the attitude on the part of association-football fans that's most objectionable, namely that association football is "real" football and everything else needs qualification. That's not the agreement that was reached at football all those years ago. --Trovatore (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • (On a less emotional level, no, the link does not in fact make it clear. You can't assume people will follow links. Context has to be established in the visible text. Links are good for background, but the reader needs to have notice that there's some background information required.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • The question isn't whether it's the most popular in the world, since this is a discussion purely about content on the English Wikipedia. According to the latest stats, 51.8% of enwiki readers are from the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and South Africa, where association football is refered to as "soccer". --Ahecht (TALK
      PAGE
      ) 16:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes There are enough fans of different codes around the world that this can become ambiguous. Although a lot of articles would have enough context to state which code it is, most readers generally only read the very beginning of an article (unless there is a strong specific interest to read on), therefore, I don't think it hurts to provide clarity by adding one or two words to the first reference of football. Flickerd (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - I think User:SuperJew, User:Kahastok, and User:Sellyme have articulated several good points. --Khajidha (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No A blanket rule like this is pointless and will be in conflict with WP:ENGVAR. If an article begins with the sentence "Footown United is a football club based in Footown, England", then there's no ambiguity as to what is meant by the word "football" in that case. Number 57 13:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • For the editors claiming that "association football" would be less ambiguous, do you think editors who don't understand what code of football is being referred to in articles by the context are more likely to know what "association football" is? The sport is very rarely called by that name – it's either football or soccer, and as I noted in the section below, when I asked someone what association football was, the answer I got was "rugby". As such, I don't think "association football" is any less ambiguous than simply "football" because I'd guess that fewer people are likely to recognise that name for the sport than understand what "football" is meant by the context. Number 57 11:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, articles should be written for a wide audience, not only for people who already know that in a particular locality "football" means one particular variety. olderwiser 13:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes MOS:COMMONALITY directly applies here. The essay WP:POPE is also relevant. Anomie 13:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per BKonrad - no good reason not to (it seems the reason given is 'too much information', which is rather bizarre for a brief mention and also rather bizarre for writing an encyclopedia) and this is generally helpful in use of language for a broad audience (no one has ever been harmed by learning multiple words for the same thing, and they have most likely been helped.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes To avoid ambiguity. As in the - slightly altered - example of User:Number 57 If an article begins with the sentence "Footown United GAA is a football club based in Footown, England", then there's no ambiguity as to what is meant by the word "football" in that case.. In fact I doubt that severely. How many non-Europeans would understand straight away that this is about Gaelic football? The Banner talk 14:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC) By the way NFL is also not necessarily about American football as there is also the national Football League run by the GAA, as you can expect for Gaelic football.
    • Unfortunately I think that example is a bit of a straw man because you're combining Gaelic football and England. "Footown United GAA is a football club based in Footown, Republic of Ireland" would have been a proper comparison. Number 57 14:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Whatever y'all decide is fine with me and I mean that!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the issue I have with this is the areas where football has multiple meanings already have been disambiguated. Sydney FC or Columbus Crew SC call themselves a soccer club in their article - for people in Australia and the United States, this is a much better descriptor than association football. North Melbourne Football Club call themselves an Australian Rules football club as well, but the continuing and constant disambiguation in Australia is normal (personally I've heard "footy" used to describe it much more than "football"). I'm not sure most Americans would know what "association football" is. (Columbus even call themselves a soccer team!) Shamrock Rovers F.C. Also, nobody uses the term "association footballer," a Google search shows it's only used basically twice and on Wikipedia. My concern is in the interests of clarity, we will actually cause more confusion. SportingFlyer talk 14:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, except for cases where context already addresses the ambiguity (i.e. prefer "The Toronto Argonauts are a Canadian football team..." over "The Toronto Argonauts are a Canadian football team from Canada..."), and preferring [[association football|soccer]] to describe North American association football clubs ("Toronto FC is a soccer team..."). With the exception of a handful of defunct teams in Category:Canadian football teams in the United States, there is no cross-border overlap. Australian rules football teams seem to already describe themselves as "Australian rules football teams" ("football" doesn't predominantly describe Australian rules football in Australia the way that "football" describes gridiron football in North America, at least it seems that way to me) so that doesn't seem to be an issue. Doing this would match the treatment in other sports: for example, North American hockey teams are most commonly described in the lede as "xxx is an ice hockey team" even though ice hockey is the strongly predominant form of hockey played in the continent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
You really must visit my home city of Melbourne, Australia some time. You may get a surprise. The word "football" alone is used to describe the game invented there almost universally in local media and in conversation. (OK, it's also shortened to "footy" quite often.) We add "Australian" and sometimes "rules" when we know we have a broader audience. That is all we are asking of soccer and its fans. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No not because this would necessarily be a bad thing to do, but because it doesn't need to be policy. Especially because it might conflict with MOS:ENGVAR and specifically MOS:ARTCON and MOS:TIES. The sport of association football is referred to as "football" by the English and others of those that follow that sport, including those readers that do not come from Anglosphere countries e.g. Germany, France, Spain, various African countries, South America, etc. I don't see why the readership of other anglosphere countries means this should be rigid policy. The main reason this particular proposal isn't so bad is that it is referring to clubs rather than players. Imagine David Beckham being referred to as an "association footballer." No one would understand what that means or why it's different from just calling him a footballer. Whereas with a club there might be some ambiguity for those that haven't heard of a major club like ACF Fiorentina or Brescia Calcio. But since the lede then refers to the specific code of football, should the rest of the article use that code? Once using association football to describe a club, does one then use "football" for simplicity or "association football" for consistency? I don't see how this kind of blanket change is helpful.
As a side note, I think the discussion above referring to the pushback against soccer, and equilibrating it to Newspeak as HiLo48 did is entirely inappropriate. This is not the place to be having such discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
User: Jay eyem: Just saw your last question above, about what to do at second reference. The question doesn't specify, but my assumption is that, once context is established, articles (about all codes) will fall back to just saying "football". There is no consistency problem here; calling out the code at first reference establishes what you're talking about, and after that you use a natural style.
(Though I suppose this would be modified for cases like soccer clubs in the US; for those articles you would use the common term for the English variety. Similarly, if there are American football teams in the UK, I would expect those articles to keep repeating "American football".) --Trovatore (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
1. Can you explain the "pushback" against "soccer"? I would truly like to understand why something acceptable for over a century suddenly became unacceptable?
2. Players of Australian football are (outside Wikipedia) known simply as footballers. Does that make David Beckham a player of Australian football? Please realise that what you see as common around where you live is NOT common everywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Because "footballer" is most commonly used to refer to association football internationally. If it is used in Australia, then that would make it the exception, not the rule. And I'm not answering your question about the pushback against soccer since you are competent enough to google that and see for yourself rather than making pointed arguments about it. Not only was that swipe at a large group of people unnecessary, you are starting to WP:BADGER people that disagree with you. You need to not respond to multiple comments, such as you did to GiantSnowman or NZFC and now to me, without trying to create more substantive arguments. Please watch your tone before responding to me again. Jay eyem (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Please drop the threats. My arguments are strong in this subject area. They have been well tested in other discussions. Please discuss what I say, rather than telling me to stop saying it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not threatening you and you know that. You made a callous swipe at GiantSnowman and literally likened those pushing back against the word soccer to Newspeak. That's remarkably inappropriate for this discussion. And once again you have failed to bring anything substantive to the argument with this response. You repeating that "football" means something else to you several times in this thread already contributes nothing to the discussion. We are all aware that "football" means something different to people in different countries. You insisting that I answer your question about the pushback against the word soccer has no place here and you know it. You google the word "footballer" and every link you see for several pages only relates to the sport of association football. You are badgering others and not demonstrating good faith. So unless you are going to make a substantive argument, rather than accusing others of threatening you for calling out your behavior, don't respond to me again. Jay eyem (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Google tailors results for you based on what it knows you're interested in. The result of your search there is meaningless in a global discussion. I did not insist on anyone answering any question. I asked it, because I would truly like to know the answer. (Do you know the answer?) I keep repeating the fact that "football" means something different to me because I keep seeing posts here claiming that it's never ambiguous, even after I have pointed out that it is (maybe people should read other's posts first), or that it doesn't matter if it is because the people to whom it's ambiguous don't matter because they are a minority. I will respond to you or anyone else as often as I feel necessary, because I think facts and logic are important in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The objection to "soccer" boils down to WP:ENGVAR. "Soccer" is not a word that is used in this context in British English and if we were to use it it would rather imply that the article was written in American English or for an American audience. In British English Manchester United is a football team. "Association football team" sounds neutral and appropriate if disambiguation is needed. Calling it a "soccer team" is not far off referring to Shane Warne as a "pitcher" Kahastok talk 09:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry. Thanks for trying, but that doesn't work for me. I am Australian. In Australia we had a National Soccer League until 2004. I grew up in the 1950s and 60s surrounded by English immigrants who happily called the game soccer. They enthusiastically played the Soccer Pools, hoping to make their fortunes. Now soccer fans hate the word. Something changed. What? Why? When? HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
In Australia we had the Victorian Football Association for nearly a century. For most people "association football" means "Australian football". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not Australian, so I can't tell you what happened in Australia. Maybe your English immigrants just accepted that "football" meant something else in Australia and were integrating. An English immigrant to the US might do the same. I can believe that the change might just have been a marketing decision that kinda took hold among the Australian fanbase. (Wasn't it around the time of the Greek Euro 2004 win? I seem to recall that being far more significant in Australia than previous European Championships had been.)
No, what happened was that the different codes of football are all descended from a common and recent ancestor. Complaining that they are all called football is like complaining that half your cousins share your surname. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
At this point I'd just like to mention that the question is about visibly calling out the code of football at first reference; it doesn't specify how. I have been consistently saying "association football", for that code, because "soccer" seems to engender a fair amount of dislike in some ambits. But if "soccer" is the better word for Australian articles (as I think it is for US articles), I think that counts as specifying the code. --Trovatore (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
But more pertinently, I would note that the case that I have endorsed above for disambiguating to "association football" doesn't apply to "soccer", as you can't use WP:COMMONALITY to insist on a word that is not used in the variety of English you're claiming to be writing in. Kahastok talk 16:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per user:older ≠ wiser among others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per Hilo and others. Like it or not, the term football is ambiguos for a large portion of the English-speaking world. Calidum 17:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes to prevent ambiguity. By the way, the same policy should apply to "hockey". — Stanning (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll second the suggestion about hockey. --Khajidha (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No, unless we're going to pipe to [[association football|football]], which would be fine. A vast number of people don't understand that "association football" means the normally understood code of football to 90% of the world's population. If we don't pipe, we're going to get a lot of timesink with people changing it back, and I don't see the utility of messing about with thousands of articles where for the the vast majority the sport is obvious. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • What you mean? We cannot link to football, there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what you mean. I am saying that we should pipe association football -> "football" except in the minority of (association football) cases where there may be ambiguity (i.e. teams in Australia, Ireland). Saying that "Manchester United are an association football club" sounds simply ridiculous. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
        • But "Manchester United Football Club is a professional association football club", sounds fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
          • No, it's spurious. The article is completely fine as it is. We don't need to specify "association" where it is obvious, and should only be doing it where there is the danger of confusion. This is just another pointless change that will cause a timesink for many others. To begin with, there are 16,660 articles in the "Association Football Clubs" category alone. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
            • Who is going to define those times when it is obvious, and when there is danger of confusion? To me, the word "football" means Australian football, because that's what I was brought up with. Therefore, every time I see the word, I am potentially confused. In fact, you should be too. If not, you are pretending there is only one meaning. And that's the problem here. People who cannot see things from the perspective of others. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
              • I don't think I've ever confused an article about a UK football club as being about a different sport. But then, why would I? For the UK example, the very small amount of such articles that aren't about association football (i.e. London GAA) make it very clear what they're about, for obvious reasons. Obviously, articles about Australian (and possibly Irish) teams are different, and there's absolutely no problem there with making it clear. But in countries that have few or no professional football clubs of other codes, what's the point? Why mess about with tens of thousands of articles where it is perfectly obvious what their subject is? Black Kite (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
                • You haven't. But then, you apparently write on UK-specific topics (your user page mentions a couple of articles on British Rail or some such), so if not British yourself, you apparently have an interest and likely expertise in British culture. So the disambiguation is not for your benefit, but for the benefit of readers less familiar with British culture. --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
                  • You're missing the point. If I was reading an article on an Australian football club (or an Irish one, for that matter), then yes I would expect the article to tell me explicitly what code of game it is. But that doesn't arise in 90%+ of countries. But I'm pretty sure that Australian readers, if they come across an article on a football club in the UK, or Germany, or Brazil (or pretty much everywhere else) are unlikely to be suddenly confused that it might be about an Australian rules team. There's also an issue of WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME here. The COMMONNAME in those countries is "football", not "association football", and changing them all would appear to be against those guidelines. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
                    • Part of WP:ENGVAR is WP:COMMONALITY, which in my view supports naming the code of football at first reference. As for COMMONNAME, this is just disambiguation. Once the term is unambiguously explained (with text, not a link) I have no objection to falling back to "football" in the rest of the article.
                      By the way, in the States, the common name of American football is also just "football". So should articles on American football teams drop the "American"? That would be a possible way to restore equal treatment between the codes. But it would do it by removing information rather than by adding it. I would prefer to add information. --Trovatore (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
                      By the way, COMMONNAME is actually about article titles, which are not under discussion here. --Trovatore (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
                      • I can sort of see your point, but my view remains that it's an enormous amount of work for little return. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
                        • As with style guidelines generally, there's no work required of anyone. There is no proposal to immediately go correct all articles, or anything like that. It just would allow someone who wanted to make the correction, in a particular article, to do so, and to be able to point to this outcome as justification. --Trovatore (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
          • It sounds very pedantic, honestly. “Manchester United” “Association Football” brings up 720k results on Google, while “Manchester United” “football” -“association” brings up 6.6 million. Seems the pedantry largely extends to historical articles and academic journals. SportingFlyer talk 22:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
              • You mean it's used where people are explaining things, like in an encyclopedia, we could go with "football (soccer)" [1], but since we have association football to distinguish the type of football it seems nice for people wanting to learn to do that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes where it might be ambiguous, but no otherwise. In other words, we don't need a guideline for it. We just use common sense. I regularly create shitty stubs when newbies start at ITFC, and I always say they're an association football player but invariably pipe it because we never say "association football" any longer. But I get the issue, that some odd gridiron fan or Australian will be so confused by the article I've just written that they'll immediately assume that it means Australian Rules Football. Or, when I was a Sea Scout, we did a lot of crab football (which hurt, but made you a stronger man, and whose link ironically redirects to "crab soccer"). 99.5% of the time this disambiguation is not required in articles, but if piped appropriately I see little harm in giving the code of "football" in the opening sentences. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • The point is specifically not to pipe it, but to call it out visibly, as the question states. --Trovatore (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Why, though, if the article is unambiguous? Why are we making pointless work for volunteer editors with nil return from it? Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
          • A "yes" answer would not require any work from volunteers. It would just establish that this is the way articles ought to be written. Eventually. There is no deadline.
            As for them being unambiguous, that is far from clear. While I understand that if an article about a UK club says "football", it almost certainly means association football, you can't count on that being clear to all readers. Articles on professional American football teams almost always say "American football" at first reference, and I just think American football and association football should be treated the same. --Trovatore (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Indeed, okay well forget it then. I don't want all the trad association football articles needing to state "association football" when it's not needed. I was already erring towards the common sense argument, if for some reason some individual played in two different codes of "football" then that would need to be addressed but otherwise, it's looking unlikely that we need to do this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I say again. "To me, the word "football" means Australian football, because that's what I was brought up with. Therefore, every time I see the word, I am potentially confused." And I do read widely. (That's why I'm here.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
            • I also read widely and am a big Australian football fan and I literally have never come across this potential confusion. It’s pretty clear when an Aussie rules footballer is an Aussie rules footballer on this site. Same with clubs. And you also know any international article is hugely unlikely to be an Aussie rules team. SportingFlyer talk 23:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
              • It's your use of qualifying words such as "pretty" and "unlikely" that prove my point. While at a rational level I know differently, over half a century of living somewhere where the word "football" means nothing but Australian football means that it's what my irrational mind automatically tells me the word means every time I see it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes: At a cost of 12 extra characters, it reduces ambiguity for a large number of our readers. It basically costs nothing to make Wikipedia more useful. --Jayron32 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. Simple way to avoid any potential confusion with minimal effort. The undisambiguated "football" means different things in different parts of the English-speaking world, so including the specific code only can serve to clarify. oknazevad (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. Maybe there's a hint at WP:LEAD which says "A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell". Disambiguating the code is a surely a basic. Moriori (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per MOS:ENGVAR, WP:NPOV & the avoidance of ambiguity. Cabayi (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No. The survey question says "visibly", and there's generally no need to spell out "association football" in the visible text in the lead of an article. In most countries where "football" would be ambiguous, the article would use "soccer" per ENGVAR. Of course, even for Manchester United F.C., it's useful to link the word "football" to the specific type of football; this is the benefit of being a hypertext encyclopedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    • The thing is, readers may not know in what countries "football" is ambiguous, or what it means in a given article or country. If all our readers were American, we could always say "football" for American football and "soccer" for association football. If they were all British, we could always say "football" for association football and "American football" for American football. But our readers are from all over. We have to assume that articles on English clubs will be read by Americans, articles on American teams will be read by Brits, articles on Australian teams will be read by Canadians. It seems reasonable to give all of them a heads-up as to what the article is talking about. --Trovatore (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
      • The problem with this logic is we have different guidelines for different countries. If "association football" were called "soccer" everywhere, this would not be a problem, but we already disambiguate the sport based on where the club is located, and it's not really a big concern. I would not mind a guideline for players making "football (soccer)" a disambiguator where a disambiguation would be welcomed, as this to me is strongly preferable to association footballer, which is a ridiculous phrase. SportingFlyer talk 05:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
        • So the thing to note here is that WP:ENGVAR includes WP:COMMONALITY. It is perfectly fine for an article to be written in the English variety of an English-speaking country with which it has "strong national ties", but it still needs to be understandable for readers from all varieties. That's why the RfC refers to calling out the code of football at first reference, not for the whole article.
          As for players, though it's a related question, it's not strictly speaking in the scope of this RfC, which is about teams. --Trovatore (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per Black Kite. I don't want to see the clunky intrusion of "association football" in thousands of articles when the vast majority of readers will know that Liverpool F.C. or Ronaldo play that particular code of football. Use the piped version, that way everyone wins. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I think you already !voted, but in any case your answer seems to be "no". The RfC is about calling out the code in visible text. Obviously I don't agree that "everyone wins" with the piped version; that's why we're having the discussion. --Trovatore (talk)
  • No per the confused Rambling Man - piping is enough in the vast majority of cases. Gridiron teams in UK, soccer teams in Australia etc would need to do it. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • So just to clarify, you're fine with articles on American football teams dropping the American at first reference, as long as there's a piped link? As I say, that would be another solution, though it seems a slightly Harrison Bergeron type of equality. --Trovatore (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, if they want to, and don't mind risking confusing Hispanic & other global readers. Presumably they do it because they know what the world means by "football", despite the local situation. Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused by the label Hispanic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
So by extension, are you saying you don't mind confusing American readers? --Trovatore (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a problem if a similar football code policy in place in Australia gets implemented to US articles, if it does not already exist, which calls football "football" with a pipe. SportingFlyer talk 04:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I assume you mean "calls American football 'football' with a pipe", correct? That would at least remove my irritation about the disparate treatment of American and association football. But it seems to me it would do it the wrong way. What's wrong with being more specific, rather than less? --Trovatore (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No per Black Kite for teams/players in countries where American, Australian, etc. football forms a very small minority of all references to "football", which is most of the world. Unlike American football, to many people it's probably unclear to what "association football" refers. The first few times I saw this term (and I haven't seen it anywhere outside Wikipedia) I believed it referred to gridiron. Therefore, I believe it's not going to lead to extra clarity for people unaware of the meaning of the term, and those who are probably already know which countries overwhelmingly practice other forms of football (there being about 5-6 of such countries ignoring tiny ones like Samoa). DaßWölf 01:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean by "football"? HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
What are you referring to -- the preferred form of football in my own speech, or is there something ambiguous in what I wrote? DaßWölf 00:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It was a kind of rhetorical question, highlighting that you, probably quite innocently, used the word "football" twice in your first sentence, without making it clear what on earth you were talking about. It made your whole post ambiguous. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious what "American, Australian, etc. football" is supposed to signify -- non-soccer. The second time I was referencing the word "football", not any sport. I didn't expect this would need an explanation... DaßWölf 17:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
On second thought, I suppose it might not be obvious to everyone that I was grouping American, Canadian, Gaelic etc. football, which are all capitalised and named after countries or regions, as opposed to association football, which just has a plain old noun adjuct. DaßWölf 23:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes as the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Ireland, where just the term "football" is ambiguous, make up 51.8% of traffic on enwiki. If a simple change can make wikipedia more understandable for over half of our readers, shouldn't we make it? --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 16:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes because many readers will not know the context, it will be a service to them. Those that do not already know about the game the team plays will be assisted. Those that know the sport will not be disadvantaged. We should have it as a guideline, although we won't be forcing the soccer fans to make the change to say "association football", we will expect them not to change it back to simply "football". The argument for the non-English speakers is bogus, because they would be preferring their native language name for the game, and they too will be educated by seeing a more specific name of the code played, rather than an ambiguous name, that may be mistakenly disambiguated in the reader's mind. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No per reasoning below, related to numerous policies, guidelines and essays but mostly leaning on what's the problem this solution is fixing? It isn't clearly defined as to how our user base are clamouring for this solution. Hiding T 12:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
What? See, Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. Just because you are all up on buffalo, it's self-referential to expect everyone else in the world to be, and being self-referential in writing an encyclopedia is undoubtedly a problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest you tone back your own self referentiality. There is no well defined problem here beyond I Don't Like It. I don't see the problem and see the proposal as therefore lacking in utility. Hiding T 17:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
What are you referring too? See, football if you don't understand the well defined problem, it's quite well defined. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
This isn't the solution to whatever problem you might have with the football article that you have still not defined. I still don't see the problem we're trying to solve here. Where's the voice of our readers who allegedly have a problem? It isn't here, therefore it is a made up problem and the solution proposed is to fix an I Don't Like It issue. Hiding T 18:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
What? It has nothing to do with liking or not liking anything, it has to do with football which has multiple meanings that's just a fact (are you saying you don't like facts) - and distinguishing is the common and ordinary way to fix when a word has multiple meanings. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Hiding - You ask "Where's the voice of our readers who allegedly have a problem?" It's all through this discussion. Have you actually read it all? HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes I have. Can't see it. Only that of editors who Don't Like It as it currently is. Hiding T 15:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Usually a good idea, but no to mandating it The wording should be simply what is needed to communicate clearly to the reader. If the context makes it obvious, no need, if not, put it in. It's likely that some folks have a second agenda......to promote the idea that one particular style of football has "dibs" on the term by saying that the term with no qualifier automatically means their style. Wherever it may exist, that consideration should be dropped; an encyclopedia is to inform readers. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: Specifying the code of football at first reference[edit]

One question I have is whether readers would be more likely to know what "association football" means than understand what "football" means in specific contexts (I have just asked my partner what "association football" was and the answer was "rugby"). I suspect that more readers would be in the latter category than the former, which makes me think that removing the piping would probably be a net hindrance than a benefit. Number 57 14:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that there is no perfect disambiguator for association football. As you say, association is little used "in the wild". Everyone knows what soccer means, I think, but it seems to be actively disliked by association-football fans, so it's probably out, except for American and Canadian clubs.
But I don't buy the argument that, just because there's no ideal disambiguator, we shouldn't disambiguate at all. If nothing else, if a reader is unfamiliar with the term association football, they at least have notice that there might be something to learn by following the link. If they think they know what football means, why would they bother to click on it? --Trovatore (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
What do you think "football" means in Sydney, Australia? HiLo48 (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know, but I also don't really see what that has to do with the point I was trying to make about a blanket usage of "association football" not necessarily being an improvement on using simply "football" where it is pretty obvious from context (perhaps your point is that Sydney is somewhere where it isn't obvious, in which case it might be an improvement, but as I said in the section above, a blanket rule is going too far). Number 57 14:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
In Sydney, I think it means soccer to many people in the west and footy to the rest. I don't think people confuse it with rugby league unless you start getting really formal or informal. SportingFlyer talk 14:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
And what is "footy"? --Khajidha (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
That'd be Australian rules football, which is a bit like rugby except the players are required to bounce the ball on the ground, like in basketball, while running with it. --Jayron32 14:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
In Sydney, they have The Footy Show, which is about rugby league. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There's much, much more to the world than Australia, and it only seems to be Australian editors who are pushing this. And indeed, other than Australia or Ireland and US/Canada to a much, much lesser extent, there aren't any countries where 'football' has multiple meanings and so, for the vast majority of readers/editors/articles, there's no ambiguity with codes. 'Football' has one meaning in the UK, for example. Same with France, Germany, China, Peru, Egypt... GiantSnowman 15:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The proposal is from an American, not an Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this is ultimately what is being ignored: the fact that other non-Anglo countries use the English wikipedia is extremely relevant. Many, and probably most, of these countries do not recognize the term "football" being used to describe anything other than association football. The fact that some readership that is also Anglo may have some confusion doesn't mean that this should be a necessary policy to implement. Jay eyem (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
What? -- just where do you think readers of English live. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
All over the world. See List of countries by English-speaking population. And we need to counter systemic bias even if those people do not use the internet. Jay eyem (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Since they live all over the world, and all over the English world "football" is used variously, then it would only show bias if you don't write with precision by acknowledging that there is association football and other codes, as the world of football is diverse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Well except that it isn't really used variously all over the world. In most non-Anglo countries the word "football" refers only to association football. Pretty much all of Africa and Latin America use "football", as do much of Asia and Europe. Many of those countries would probably not understand what "association football" is, they wouldn't recognize that term. I don't see why that shows bias, if anything it is a common name. For the record I am largely neutral, and only slightly opposed, to these changes being made. What I am largely opposed to is making this policy, which I've discussed below. Jay eyem (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
We are not writing in a non-Anglo language we are writing in English, and in English our football article say Football' is used variously and commonly in a number of ways in English, as does: "Football, any of a number of related games all of which are characterized by two persons or teams attempting to kick, carry, throw, or otherwise propel a ball toward an opponent’s goal.. . .For an explanation of contemporary football sports, see football (soccer); football, gridiron; rugby; Australian rules football; and Gaelic football."[2]. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The vast, vast, vast majority of English-speaking people understand the word "football" to mean "association football" only. Of course there are other uses for the word football in the English language, I'm well aware of it. I grew up in and live in the US. But the way that most people understand the word "football" is singular around the word, whereas rugby (league or union), gaelic, Aussie rules, Canadian, and American are actually exceptions to that rule. Again, and I'm sorry about emphasizing this, my main opposition to the proposal is not that I think it's a bad idea (I'm largely neutral), but that I think it shouldn't be policy. Jay eyem (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
You have a funny definition of "vast vast majority". According to English language, there's roughly 400,000,000 native speakers of English. Given that there are about 237,800,000 native English speakers in the U.S. (per Languages of the United States) and 21,500,000 native speakers in Canada (per Languages of Canada), that means that, of Native English Speakers, roughly 259,300,000/400,000,000 native speakers live in countries where "football" means something other than association football. That's more than 50%, which means your statement isn't even true if you remove the hyperbolid "vast"s. If we just go to "working knowledge of English", that's about 1,100,000,000 speakers, of which some 272,900,000 live in the U.S. and 28,400,000 live in Canada, and while that's no longer a majority, that's still roughly 1/3 of speakers of English who live in countries that would recognize "Football" to mean something other than association football, too large to be insignificant, and again, not a "vast majority" who would know it as only "association football". --Jayron32 16:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah you see how I wrote about systemic bias earlier? That would include not biasing towards native English speakers. ALL speakers of English should be taken into account. Jay eyem (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Right, which is why 1/3rd of them cannot be called a "vast vast vast" minority; that is not insignificant, and alienating 1/3 of your readership to save 12 characters of text is bad policy for any international encyclopedia. It costs nothing to be more precise, detracts nothing from readibility, and allows better understanding for a sizable proportion of the readership. Insistint that we deliberately confuse 1/3 of the readership of the encyclopedia for no gain is beyond silly. --Jayron32 16:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
You're right, and I will strike out the "vasts" because they are hyperbole, but the majority certainly remains true that most speakers of English only understand "football" to mean "association football", and would not recognize the term "association football." As an Anglo who understands the differences, the changes wouldn't affect me, but it might not represent how people actually understand the word "football". And I don't see how you came to the conclusion that this is done with the intention to "deliberately confuse". It's just as much "deliberately" confusing to force the specific code in the introduction. There is a clear cost in that changing "football" to "association football" is confusing for those that don't understand what the latter term is. Jay eyem (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
It's no more confusing than using terms like "American football" or "Australian rules football" in those contexts. The phrase "American football" is also unused in the U.S.; but we use it here because we have the expectation that some sizable amount of our readership benefits from the elaboration. Likewise, while not a majority, enough of our readership benefits from the elaboration of "association football". --Jayron32 16:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we've reached an impasse. I appreciate your points and for correcting my error, and I'm interested to see where the rest of the conversation continues and its result. Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
(e/c) If there's a cost to learning the phrase "association football", then its no more than the cost of learning (which is provided free),-- providing more knowledge about the world is rather our purpose - as it is a purpose for writing an encyclopedia in the first place ('the sum of all knowledge', as they say). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The exact same thing could be said as an opposing argument i.e. that you can just learn the codes themselves and leave the pages just saying "football." That doesn't address that it isn't how most of the world actually understands the word "football" or how it should be represented on the given pages. Jay eyem (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I really don't follow this. "Learn the codes themselves"? You mean, the readers are supposed to know all the different things that are called "football"? How is that even close to the "exact same thing" as what Alan is saying, which is that we tell you what kind of football we're talking about? --Trovatore (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Because most people don't understand what "association football" is or what "American football" is and instead only understand it as "football". The same could be said for rugby union/league, Aussie rules, Gaelic etc. It's not a huge step to assume that people can just as easily learn all of the codes and where they are referred to as such since it's literally on the football page. Especially if it's not ambiguous, like Chelsea F.C. or the Cincinnati Bengals, you don't need to call out the code because people already understand it. People know that Chelsea is association football and that the Bengals are American football, and most people wouldn't need the disambiguation of the specific code. It would be easier just to pipe it to the specific code and then people could click on a link to that code, specifying the code by writing it out would just make it more confusing for people not understanding the idea of different codes and their specific terminologies. Jay eyem (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
No. They will just be informed, which is our job. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jay eyem:It's not really "all over the world". We can break it down exactly using https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm, which lists country of origin for traffic on the English Wikipedia. According to http://www.businessinsider.com/football-vs-soccer-map-2013-12, the term soccer (or varients of it) are used in the US, Canada, Ireland, Japan, the Southern Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (plus smaller countries like Papua New Guinea, Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe). From the stats, we can see that that makes up 53% of readers of English Wikipedia (plus whatever fraction of "Other" those smaller countries make up). That means that, while your assertion that most of these countries do not recognize the term "football" being used to describe anything other than association football is probably correct, it is not true that most readers of English wikipedia do. In fact, it's pretty close to a 50/50 split. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 21:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
While I hate to bring it up again, I will again link to WP:SYSTEMIC and specifically the section about those not having internet access. You need to take into account more than just the people using Wikipedia. Using Wikipedia views and readership as a global representation of how the word is used seems like a dishonest representation. Jay eyem (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I really don't see how users who don't have Internet access (?) can be confused by anything we write here. We want to serve our actual audience. That, by definition, is people who use Wikipedia. That's not bias. Of course we don't want to fail to sufficiently cover people who don't have Internet access, but we don't have to worry about writing for them as readers.
In any case, the demographics are a bit beside the point. We're not deciding who's "right" about the use of the word "football". We do have a desire to accommodate all major English varieties, and that's where failing to visibly specify the code of football falls short. --Trovatore (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I completely disagree that there isn't a bias issue here. That's exactly what WP:SYSTEMIC discusses. The goal is to be a representation of a global encyclopedia, not just people who use said encyclopedia. People do not understand these various sports as being associated with their specific code and its specific name, they understand them as "football". I also completely disagree with the notion that failing to specify the code is somehow less representative of a variation in English when people don't even understand the various codes. Nobody refers to the sport with their specific code name in mind in their own country, they just refer to them as "football". Again, I don't see how specifying the code is more helpful than just piping the specific code in question. Jay eyem (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, there is a bias here, and its in your argument that everyone just understands football. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Then they can learn that the English language uses football for multiple things. Putting the disambiguating term on soccer teams should mean that they would be less confused when they see "football" used elsewhere for something else. --Khajidha (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
In Canada at least and probably also in the US, "football" does not really have multiple meanings, except for people who are already sports aficionados. Football is the gridiron sport played in the NFL and CFL. Association football is not a thing, it's called soccer, so much so that our top-level league is Major League Soccer, although several teams in the league do call themselves "football clubs". When people from abroad immigrate to our countries and learn English, they learn that the English word for the sport they know from their own countries is "soccer".[citation needed] Yeah, people are generally aware that what we call soccer is called football in other parts of the world, but it's the sort of thing that people point out to be pedantic, or that comes up at trivia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC) -- written from a part of the country where neither football nor soccer predominate
@Ivanvector: - I only mentioned US/Canada because of NFl v CFL - I'm fully aware that in those countries 'football' is gridiron, just as 'football' in the UK (and most of the world actually) is soccerball. Just goes to show that only Australia/Ireland have this confusion. GiantSnowman 18:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Right, I think we're trying to make the same point. As for CFL vs. NFL, in my experience in Canada "football" refers to either one depending on context, i.e. the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the Buffalo Bills both play football, but it's recognized without needing to be clarified that the two teams play different sports. But really they're just two somewhat different rulesets for the same sport. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, the gameplay and equipment for Canadian Football and American Football are similar enough that most North Americans consider the two to be variants of the same basic sport, in a family along with games like touch football and Arena football. --Jayron32 14:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not a strong argument why it should be made policy though. For the record I am not opposed to the changes being suggested, I am opposed to the notion that it must be policy. Jay eyem (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
How strictly are you using the word "policy"? I agree it should not be "policy", in the strict WP sense of the term. If the RFC passes, I will propose adding a guideline somewhere, probably in the Manual of Style. (I suppose I could have raised the question specifically at the MoS, but that's a fairly specialized group of editors — the question seems likely to be of interest to people who aren't particularly interested in what kind of dash to use in Mexican–American War or how to capitalize The Who.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I was in fact interpreting "policy" strictly to refer to the policy of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I'm not 100% clear on what this discussion entails (it's my first time engaging in such a discussion), so I just wanted my personal take, as far as that's relevant, to note that creating a policy would be unreasonable. I'm somewhat neutral on whether or not it needs to be a guideline but I think it unquestionably should not be a policy as outlined at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree. It wouldn't be a "policy" in the WP-specific sense. It's not the sort of thing that policies deal with.
Note though that this page, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), is for both policies and guidelines. --Trovatore (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I discovered this after posting some of my other comments on this page, but I thank you for directing my attention to it anyway. Cheers! Jay eyem (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Association football is the title of the article on the sport known commonly in the United Kingdom as football and in the United States as soccer. Due to ENGVAR as well as the sheer volume of articles referencing it, it's for all practical purposes impossible to change that. Piped links (or linking to a redirect) are generally the solution to any problems that may arise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that piped links are not sufficient to establish context. You can't assume people will follow links. The solution is to mention the code of football being discussed, explicitly in visible text, once in each article, at first reference. --Trovatore (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


I want to make a point here, one that some editors have attacked me for repeating above in a certain style of comment in the Straw Poll section above. So I shall make it once in this section int the hope it gets read by newcomers before they post above. The most recent example of this comment includes the words "In most countries where "football" would be ambiguous, the article would use "soccer"". My point is that Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. I, as an Australian, read articles about things and people in many countries, particularly but not only the various European countries from which my ancestors came. That comment rightly acknowledges that "football" could be ambiguous to Australians like me, as it would to Americans, and Canadians, and South Africans, and...? So what happens when someone from one of those countries happens upon an article about a player of "football" from a European nation? Obviously the word is still ambiguous. Fans of Australian football reading this may be surprised to learn from Wikipedia that "Gary Ablett was an English professional footballer". (I certainly was!) Others will almost certainly be surprised to learn that two other people with that name (father and son) have been professional Australian footballers. (Both very successful and famous ones too.) All three have Wikipedia articles. The articles on the two latter gentlemen both say, right at the start, that they are/were Australian rules footballers. The article on the English gentleman just says he was a footballer. So, of course, were the Australians. I have looked at all three articles. I hope all reading this can see that the article on the English gentleman is ambiguous in a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Having come from a similar background, I still disagree with you. Gary Ablett (not Jr. or Sr.) has the title (English footballer) on the title of his page. To me, this is not only obvious, this is enough of a disambiguator. (To those of you not familiar with Aussie rules, Gary Ablett Jr. and Sr. are of the most if not the most famous father/son duo to ever don a footy jumper.) SportingFlyer talk 05:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone make a count how many footballers article, football club article, Football in X country article , national football team article are there in wikipedia? It would probably a single massive change that related to WP:ENGVAR and MOS:COMMONALITY. As i was stated in WP:Football, even in Australia the use of the word "football" and "soccer" for association football were both observed, SBS, a major broadcaster, used just football for their UCL and UEFA Europa League live match, so there is not possible to have Australian assuming football meant Aussie-rule or American football only. Most argument was in fact within WP:ENGVAR, and if people assume German football club meant for code other than association football, it seem more likely to based on their narrow world of view, as most country only had one code of football, association football as well as rugby is called rugby. Those wording difference was solved by automatic word changer in zh-wiki, but until such featured was introduced in en-wiki, both color and colour were used in en-wiki and depends on the article was more likely to associate to UK-English and US-English, those wording difference is existed everywhere in en-wiki. Matthew_hk tc 13:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

So, you would have multiple sentences of, 'X is a football . . . .', meaning some different football, and you would rely on how much the reader loves football to grasp the point? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Leaning heavily to oppose simply based on the wrong version. The argument to change seems to boil down to some people are confused as to what code of football is being referred to in an article. To my mind, if someone can't infer from the context of the article, I'm unclear why using the particular code will help as they won't be able to understand that context either.

There also seen to be a lot of OWN issues on both sides, it reads to me that there's an expectation that all US readers will base their assumptions on outdated comic strips removed from cultural cues that they read in their youth. So I'm not sure our personal habits, opinions and upbringings can be brought to bear, because we can't say to someone you're wrong because you were brought up in the UK, I was brought up in Australia so I'm right.

Is there a problem we need to fix? Are readers confused? Is there a survey or a mass IP editing consensus to suggest this confusion? Or is it one of our making as editors who are over thinking?

I also like the use of statistics, in that 51.8% of Wikipedia readers come from these geographical places. Last I checked consensus needed to be stronger than that, and that presupposes all 51.8% of the population of those places think the same just to get a small majority.

So I guess I think there's no real need to change for the sake of change, no need to make something else a guideline that will bite us in the backside, no need to stir this particular best of wasps, or hornets if you prefer.

My alternate suggestion is to redirect all references to Football like so football. Hiding T 11:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I know there's a lot to read here, and I will forgive you for not having read it all, but saying "Are readers confused"? without having read it all is pretty darned rude. Almost every time I see "football", "football club", "footballer" or "F.C." I am potentially confused, because for all of my longish life I have lived in a place where those terms refer to Australian football. I know there are other forms of football, but my brain automatically thinks Aussie Rules first, just as yours probably thinks soccer first. Once I realise I am reading something in an international context I have to put in extra rational thought to work out which form it might be. I have already written this fact multiple times here, and been growled at for doing so, but comments like yours make it necessary to repeat it again, and again, and again, and again....... I note that it's only soccer fans who insist that no-one will ever be confused, and I really wonder why. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Intriguingly you are only potentially confused. That's not actually confused. I'm not going to argue with a potential. I may potentially not be confused, and so may all other readers. Your position, you prove it. I have no burden of proof here. Hiding T 15:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I am confused every time I see the undisambiguated term "football" used in an article that has not previously specified which code is being discussed. I do not know what countries may be primarily soccer, primarily rugby, primarily Gaelic, etc. Or even primarily some variant of football that I am completely unfamiliar with. Nor should we expect our readers to know this. --Khajidha (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
THIS! With the added hurdle that, in my dialect, "footballer" is nonsensical ("Football's a verb now?" "How does one football?") and F.C. is basically unknown. --Khajidha (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

List of interracial marriages[edit]

Amidst the pending nuptials of Prince Harry of England and Meghan Markle, Who will undoubtedly vie for the title of most famous interracial couple in history, I thought it timely to make a list of famous interracial marriages. But as I started gathering up info bits I came upon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interracial couples, wherein just such a list as this was voted to be deleted, some twelve years ago. Looking at that process, it seems that a major complaint was about the list being unwieldy and unsourced and unreferenced and that sort of thing. I don’t want to start something like that only for it to be shot down as too similar to something that was already deleted, and I don’t actually want to undelete the last list, as I am sure they would largely be a collection of problems. But I strongly feel that in the age of Harry and Meghan, Kim and Kanye, Seal and Heidi, Taye and Idina, etc, it is wholly proper to have such a list as this if the sourcing and other requirements are met. What’s the best direction to go from here? Pandeist (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to argue that a AfD consensus from 12 years ago is binding today. It's also hard to envision a page that is more than celebrity gossip, and doesn't have serious issues regarding a definition of race. I would recommend contributing in some other way to the project, but if you really want to work on this, you should probably create a draft article first, and then get feedback on whether it is encyclopedic. On an unrelated note, the WP:Teahouse is probably better for this type of question. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
We would go by the reliable sources for what is considered interracial but I think that such an article could be too broad possibly. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Surely such a list, in light of scientific evidence would encompass almost everyone on the planet, since DNA testing has verified that race is a social construct and all humans are admixtures of varying cultures and ethnicities. SusunW (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Race may well be a social construct, but it is a reliably source one. We have after all other articles on interracial topics, like list of interracial romance films. Pandeist (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with this. Sources will lean to whichever race it is opportune to pass for in the current culture, and nowadays there are many skin tanning or bleaching products. Even in places like 18th century USA, in the age of slavery and anti-miscegenation laws, when interracial relationships were rare and people could still somewhat reliably descend down the family tree to ancestors who physically came from Africa or Europe or were pre-contact Native Americans, there was already a host of various classifications. Today we would really have to go with something like the criterion from the page you linked: "A professional critic has identified it as an interracial romance film". Having a References column for this for real people and their relationships comes off as race-obsessed if not racist to me. This is without getting to the fact that even with such criteria there are obviously far far too many such relationships to list on a single Wikipedia page. DaßWölf 00:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think interracial romance films are a good analogy either, because they are more about identifying a narrative than a race. Actors who are clearly different ethnicities will be cast and the plot will be driven by that dynamic. I know two sisters from a one black/one white parent setup and while one girl clearly looks black the other passes for white. I strongly suspect that if both sisters were to date the same white guy only one of those relationships would be regarded "interracial" by society, so I suspect such a list would invariably reflect that kind of thinking i.e. it would essentially be about color more than race. Betty Logan (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Following up on SusanW's post such a list would bump up against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Silly idea. Race could never be defined well enough and universally enough for such an article to make sense. My country doesn't even categorise people according to race. I wonder if people from countries where they do think we have inter-racial marriages here? Please keep such tabloid nonsense out of this "quality" encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
You are aware, right, that there are other countries outside of Australia? 128.227.190.104 (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:CIVIL, and moderate your tone. My point is simply that there can be no universally agreed definition of "race", and hence no universally agreed definition of "inter-racial marriage". HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Heck, I had seen photos of and read stories about Harry and Meghan for some time before I ever heard or even suspected that this would be an "interracial" marriage. --Khajidha (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal creating an event coordinator user right[edit]

There is currently a proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Event coordinator proposal about creating a new user right for event coordinators. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose change to WP:IMAGERES[edit]

WP:IMAGERES currently provides a link to this tool to calculate new image dimensions so that it's resized to a certain number of megapixels. However, this tool mistakenly uses Math.round (which rounds 5.5 to 6) instead of Math.floor (which rounds 5.5 to 5). For an image of 800*600 size, this tool gives 365*274=100010, while it should be 365*273=99645.

The author seems to have left Wikipedia for good. I fixed this and archived it here: this tool. Now I propose to change this link in WP:IMAGERES.--Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 05:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dingruogu: Please just adopt the former tool. Having many old unmaintained tools with broken functionality laying around just creates confusion. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

GDPR[edit]

I'm having a hard time finding anything either here on on meta about Wikipedia's response to the EU's General Data Protection Regulation. Are their any steps which need to be taken, any threats. Is their any prior discussion?--Salix alba (talk): 06:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Salix alba: It came up on the mediawiki list in February. Haven't really followed it much since. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Salix alba: let's try that ping again. hate typo's ;) —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)