Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-31/Discussion report

Discussion report

Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

How long is a lead to an article?

At Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Length the subject of the length of the lede to an article has been under discussion. User:TonyTheTiger opened the discussion by proposing that

"there should be some policy on what constitutes an acceptable length for an article's lead".

User:SandyGeorgia felt that

"THis looks like an attempt to turn a guideline into a hard-and-fast rule via instruction creep; we do not need hard and fast character counts in a guildeline. I oppose this whole thing; it's a guideline. [sic]"

User:SlimVirgin wanted editors to be able to argue on a case-by-case basis rather than in reference to rules:

'I would like to see people argue, "This lead is too long because it contains this, and this, and this, and these are not key issues. I don't want to see anyone argue, "This lead is too long because it's 1,000 characters over the guideline limit."'

User:David Fuchs commented

'I haven't seen any indications that we suffer a crisis from not having a set of arbitrary bright line "recommendations"'

User:Ottava Rima offered that

"common grammar school education (at least, when there was such a thing) use to say that a paragraph was 5 to 10 sentences. As such, no article should really have over 40 sentences in their lead."

What does no consensus mean for potentially non-free content?

User:King of Hearts opened a request for comment on 14 August:

"According to WP:NFCC, the burden of proof is on "users seeking to include or retain content"; this implies that no consensus closes for fair-use images default to delete. However, according to precedent (e.g. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 22#File:CherryCokeBottle.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 18#WbNORTHstand_gallery_470x313.jpg, among many others), no consensus closes for fair-use images default to keep. Question: What should no consensus closes default to?"

While User:Rspeer put the case for keeping such content in the face of no consensus:

"The proposal to take an action based on the lack of consensus -- something which goes against the entire idea of how consensus works -- gives considerable weight to anyone who is willing to destroy consensus. It gives no weight whatsoever to the policy, because the only way that Wikipedia policies work is through a consensus of editors on what they say and what they mean. You would create the opposite situation, where the way to make things happen would be to disagree. That is insane."

Anonymous editor User:81.110.104.91 countered:

"That isn't what the policy behind it says. Policy makes it clear that there should be a clear consensus to use NFC in a given context, and the onus is very much on those seeking to use it to justify it. The process should reflect this. Articles, templates, etc. are all entirely free content, hence this doesn't apply, so we ask for a clear consensus to delete. For non-free content at FFD, the process must ask for a clear consensus to keep the image, otherwise the NFCC are rendered toothless. It would also make administrators think more carefully about closing contentious discussions, rather than simply closing them for the sake of it."

Navigation templates

Due to usability and accessibility concerns, User:Cacycle has been working on improvements to {{Navbox}} at User:Cacycle/navbox demo. Most of the discussion regarding the changes has focussed on the positioning of an arrow meant to indicate the ability to show or hide information. Cacycle noted that:

"When using a wide window on a higher-res screen the show/hide buttons would be out of the context of the text or title."

More feedback regarding the changes is welcome, although there are currently compatibility issues with some versions of Internet Explorer at the present time:

"just figured out that MS-IE 8 in MS-IE 7 mode does not support :before and therefore does not display the arrows"

Polling

A round up of polls spotted by your writer in the last seven days or so, bearing in mind of course that voting is evil. You can suggest a poll for inclusion, preferably including details as to how the poll will be closed and implemented, either on the tip line or by directly editing the next issue.

Polling and discussion has opened regarding the criteria we will be using to grant reviewer status in the Flagged/Patrolled Revisions Trial. The poll will close at midnight (23:59 UTC) on Sunday 13 September. If the participation is less than 100 it has been suggested the poll be extended unless the result is clear cut.
A discussion on whether polling is a satisfactory method for gauging or helping to find consensus was initiated on the Wikien-L mailing list. Tony Sidaway questioned the use of polls, noting that "ban discussions on WP:AN [are] being turned into polls, and attempts to undo this are resisted by people who apparently believe they're following Wikipedia policy."[1] Tony Sidaway is possibly referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#GoRight community ban, in which the page was re-factored a number of times. User:SirFozzie tried to calm the issue down by stating "The next person who adds or removes other people's postings in this section will be blocked." User:Tony Sidaway reminded editors they should "try to avoid turning this discussion into a vote. This isn't new policy and since most of the people using this page should be aware that voting is harmful to consensus there really shouldn't be any surprise about the edits I made." To which SirFozzie replied "Have no problem with you SAYING that, Tony. I do have a problem with you unilaterally removing many posters comments because you disagree with them."

Deletion round-up

Your writer has trawled the deletion debates opened and closed in the last week and presents these debates for your edification. Either they generated larger than average response, centred on policy in an illuminating way, or otherwise just jumped out as of interest. Feel free to suggest interesting deletion debates for future editions here.

Articles

Is our article on the Kennedy Curse original research? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Curse (2nd nomination), first nomination in 2007
User:Black Falcon nominates List of wars in the Muslim world based on the scope being "problematic" with regards to guidance on lists
Article Ashida Kim is facing its sixth nomination for deletion. It was first nominated in 2004, with its second nomination made by Jimmy Wales
Another article first nominated in 2004, White Dawg, is facing its fifth nomination
Is the article on the Chodaczkow Wielki massacre based on reliable sources or instead presenting information from a point of view? See debate
The deletion debate on Suspect guest house, Jalalabad has been re-listed for another week as no consensus was reached as to its notability. The re-listing admin did not clarify why re-listing was preferred over a "no consensus" close
The deletion debate regarding Zenisha Moktan has been re-listed three times now, having been open since 10 August and attracting four participants. Opinion is still split
The notability of articles on Jackson Davis, Catheleen Jordan, Jack E. Robinson III, United States House of Representatives Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations, Nan You're a Window Shopper, List of oldest NHL players and American Herbal Pharmacopoeia and Therapeutic Compendium is discussed at their respected deletion debates
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agni Yoga reminded your writer to bookmark WP:TLDR
List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006 is facing its third deletion debate on the grounds that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a memorial ground"
Do we need articles on both Vegetarian and Vegetarianism? Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegetarian is split between redirecting and keeping
A number of articles on schools were nominated for deletion based on notability concerns on 26 August by User:Majorly
Is the article Master Shake in breach of the deletion process, or can you create a new article without a deletion review after a different version has been deleted? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Shake (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Prix 2005 (snooker) considers a number of "by year" articles on the Snooker Grand Prix for deletion
Does Supporters of marriage equality in the United States violate Wikipedia is not a directory? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters of marriage equality in the United States
Is Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States original research? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States
Have you heard of Skishing?
Michael Jackson finds his way into a deletion debate on Methods of falling asleep, as the nominator states that the article's prod tag had been removed "as this could have saved Michael Jackson's life"

Files, templates, redirects and stubs

Is {{Lolblock}} inappropriate?
Is {{Intro-synonyms}} redundant to {{POV-intro}}?
Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Torchic an acceptable sandbox or an end-run around deletion debates?
Is the redirect of British Royal Air Force Cross to Air Force Cross (United Kingdom) a plausible one based on potential search queries?
Should Right breast and Left breast redirect to breast? Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Right breast
Should State of Oregon redirect to Government of Oregon or Oregon? Debate is split
IS File:InstrumentOfSurrender.jpg replaceable since the text the image captures could be as easily relayed in text?

Briefly

Editors are trying to push towards a consensus over television schedules at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Rationalizing towards consensus.
The move of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to Wikipedia:Requests for administrator assistance is held up as people once again support the idea. It is unclear when the move is to actually happen, even though it appears to enjoy warm support from the community.
"Future" templates are currently being deprecated based on a discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. User:Drilnoth's bot, User:DrilBot is removing instances of such templates, although debate continues as to whether to speedily delete the templates or list them for deletion at the appropriate forum.
The proposal to return to secret ballots for ArbCom elections has been closed as being soundly endorsed. The debate was open from the 29 July to 28 August. Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) has already expressed support for such a transition.
Previously mentioned in the deletion round-up, the deletion debates regarding the articles Alan Roger Currie, Isola (fictional island) and African admixture in Europe are all currently listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.