The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. asilvering (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Definitely a good LinkedIn business person, but not Wikipedia-notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment: She definitely meets the GNG and SIGCOV criteria. The article just needs improvement. Based on what I found online, she has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works in reliable, independent sources, so she easily qualifies. Afro📢Talk! 12:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Kindly provide the sources you think make her meet GNG, thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@Vanderwaalforces will, as I mentioned, "Based on what I found online," as soon as I get back from the health center. Afro📢Talk! 13:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Agreed! This is an encyclopedia not a LinkdeIn profile therefore, being the Director-General of Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry is not inherently notable without significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Delete - while there's been some coverage, it's mostly just unreliable sources. Bearian (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Delete as lack of significant, independent, and reliable sources. The content relies mainly on self-published materials, promotional sources--LusikSnusik (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Merge to Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry: From a relatively brief search online, there are quite a few sources that mention Almona, including several from publications regarded as "Generally reliable" according to WP:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources (for example, this article from Independent Nigeria, as well as this one from The Nation—although the latter does feel a bit promotional). However, the vast majority of sources only refer to Almona in her capacity as director-general of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI), and any interviews (such as one with The Guardian (Nigeria) referred to in this article) only seem to discuss matters related to this role. Her LinkedIn profile lists several other positions and published books, but none of the independent sources I could find mentioned any of these, so it strikes me that she may not meet WP:GNG. Given the extensive coverage of her role as director-general of the LCCI, I think it would be worth merging this article into Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry, per WP:WITHIN. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to discuss sourcing identified by Pineapple Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Delete - Lacks independent reliable sources. I have found some recent articles which are mostly mentions. Yolandagonzales (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Mainly notability concerns per WP:ARTIST, as well as some ambiguity over whether all sources refer to the same individual. See talk page discussion for more details. Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Sources 7 and 8 are trivial mentions of the individual, not about his the artist... Nothing found otherwise, Getty ULAN only has a Pierre, born a century later [1]. There just isn't enough about this person to have even a stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete. The doggerel gives this stub a certain quaint appeal, but doesn't make up for the lack of notability. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Articles for Guna people and Guna language now both have the updated spelling, so for consistency the categories should be updated as well. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
I raise no objection. Your proposal is only logical. As for why the official orthography of stop consonants has changed, the Guna language article explains:
..."the long stop consonants p, t, and k are pronounced as voiceless, usually with longer duration than in English. The short counterparts are pronounced as voiced b, d, and g when they are between vowels or beside sonorant consonants m, n, l, r, y, or w (they are written using b, d, and g in the Kuna alphabet). At the beginnings of words, the stops may be pronounced either as voiced or voiceless; and are usually pronounced as voiceless word-finally..."
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Spelling guerrilla with one r is now "obsolete" and "a misspelling" according to wikt:guerilla. The article for Guerrilla art already has the correct spelling, and is a member of Category:Guerilla artists, so there's an inconsistency here. Other non-warfare articles using the term (such as Guerrilla marketing) also have the correct spelling, so there's no real precedent for keeping these two category titles as they are. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support for consistency. Pichpich (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Source: 1) McCusker, Kate (10 April 2025). Sledgehammer-wielding Musk critics smash up Tesla in London art project. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 10 April 2025. Quote: "Protective helmets were donned and sledgehammers wielded as Elon Musk critics vented their frustration at the Tesla boss and billionaire by smashing up a disused Tesla bound for the scrapheap. ... The destroyed electric vehicle, which retails for about £14,000, will be auctioned in the next few weeks, with all proceeds going to food bank charities." 2) Campbell, Hebe (11 April 2025). Tesla smashed to pieces in London protest against Elon Musk. The Independent. Archived from the original on 11 April 2025. Quote: "A Tesla was destroyed in London by protesters targeting billionaire Elon Musk and his ties to Donald Trump on Thursday, 10 April. The second-hand car, originally destined for the scrapheap, was smashed as part of a 'public art piece' according to the group Everyone Hates Elon, who organised the stunt. The group says it offers people a way to 'safely and legally' destroy a Tesla. The installation will be auctioned to raise money for local food banks."
Comment: This is my first DYK nomination, so not very confident! More than happy for the hooks to be reworded etc as needed. I've also reached out (per WP:REQFREE) to Everyone Hates Elon regarding images for the article; they have said they will release some of their images under CC and upload them to Wikimedia Commons, so depending on timescale and relevance of available images, an image could be included alongside this DYK if it's accepted.
This is not a review of the nomination, but I do think we should be aware that whatever the hook is, there is a good chance that Elon gets on Twitter and writes about the hook, and then it makes the news. There's two things to note: first, future commenters/reviewers, your behavior in this very discussion may be scrutinized. That doesn't mean "walk on eggshells", but it does mean "think twice before you click publish changes". Second, we should notify—not ask permission from—the WMF press team (comcomwikimedia.org) with ample warning. It's the right thing to do; they should not be blindsided by this. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 4 May 2025 (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'm going to be reviewing this article! I'm a new reviewer, so @It is a wonderful world has kindly offered his mentorship. I'll read through the article and start making some notes, hopefully today, or tomorrow at the latest. :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage Looking forward to working on this! Just two tips that I have noticed new reviewers sometimes struggle with:
It's a good idea to structure your review based on the criteria. Different reviewers do this in different ways. Some use the templates linked in the "GA toolbox" on the right, others just create section headings based on the criteria. I personally think the clearest way to do it is with this (feel free to copy+paste) or a similar structure, but you are free to use if you would like.
It's a good idea to keep track of how you evaluated the criteria as you go along, even if you find no issues. It means others can see you are checking everything, and allows you to keep track of the review better. For example, when evaluating the scope/broadness (criterion 3), you might write "The structure appears to follow the same structure as other GA and FA articles on this topic. I see no major omitted areas".
Hi @IAWW, thank you for these tips! I was actually just about to add TM:GAList2, so I will add the template below. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Great, I look forward to your comments. IAWW (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the review! This is also my first GA nomination. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 17:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage You are reviewing really well. I added a few thoughts below, but you are doing a great job of checking every criteria and engaging well with the content of the article. Feel free to keep pinging me when relevant. IAWW (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I'm relieved to hear it's not going too badly, as I've actually been quite enjoying it (apart from the frustration of there not being as many sources available as we would like, because it's such a small language). Thank you for your feedback below, it's really helpful to hear your thoughts—especially on some of the more nuanced criteria! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @It is a wonderful world! I'm just checking in, as I'm aware I've done quite a bit of editing of the article since I started the review—so much so that my Xtools authorship is now 25.8% (even though I've mainly been copyediting and rearranging, rather than actually writing new content). I've had another look through the GAN instructions and done a quick search in the discussion archives, but I haven't been able to find any advice specifically on the issue of what to do if a reviewer becomes a "significant contributor" to the article during the review. WP:GAN/I#R2 says reviewers can't have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review, which I hadn't, but because I'm so interested in languages and linguistics, I've been able and willing to actually work on improving the article during the review, as opposed to remaining detached and exclusively noting areas in need of improvement on the review page. Do you think there would be consensus for me carrying on the review despite this? Or should I step back and allow someone else to review it now that I'm a significant contributor? Apologies if this is a silly question and/or there's a super obvious answer to this that I've missed, but I just wanted to clarify and make sure I'm okay to proceed. Either way, I think for my next review I will try and choose an article in a topic area I know less about and am less interested in! :) Thank you, and sorry this turned into such a long message! Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
It's a good question. I think in this case it is fine, because I'm also checking the review. >25% is quite a lot though, and you would generally want to request a third opinion particularly on the parts you have been involved in. IAWW (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay thank you for this! Yes, this is what I was thinking; if the review hadn't already had your oversight, I would definitely have looked to get a second/third opinion! Your feedback and guidance have been essential so thank you very much again for generously offering your time. I hope you've found the process/article interesting too! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I think some of the detailed linguistic discussion could be a bit more accessible to a wide audience. Explaining a few technical terms might make for easier reading. Most of the technical terms are already wikilinked, which is great, but a non-specialist reader would likely not want to have to click on every single term they don't understand in order just to understand the sentence; I'm quite experienced with linguistics and have studied languages at degree level, and I found it challenging to keep track of the §Grammar section given how many wikilinks I was having to follow (or add in). It might be an idea to add brief explanations to the most important important technical terms for each topic, especially ones that are repeated several times (eg. marginal in §Consonants, coda in §Syllable structure, headedness and attested in §Word order, etc). Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I've tried to add more definitions for technical terms. Let me know if anything else is too technical or unclear. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 22:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
That's great, I think those have made a difference! Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on WP:MTAU for this article? (Especially if you don't have loads of experience in linguistics!) Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I certainly do not have loads of experience in linguistics, and WP:MTAU is definitely a big and relevant consideration for this article. I originally was going to read through this section an tell you all the ways I was confused, which is often the best approach, but I don't think it is best in this scenario because I think it would take too much explaining to make this understandable to your average layperson. Note the GA criteria says it should be "understandable to an appropriately broad audience", and in this case I think an appropriately broad audience at least for the more technical parts of the article would include people who have at least some experience with linguistics. However, I still think this has some improvements to be made in this regard:
Write one level down. This means the article should be understandable to @Pineapple Storage, who has studied language at a degree level, but not necessarily understandable to me, without me having to follow several links.
Add concrete examples – Nahuatl seems to do this quite well. If you can source some concrete examples, they would really help.
Try to avoid explaining everything in a parenthetical like this: "The language primarily uses postpositions, though at least one preposition (the comitative) is attested (or that we have evidence of such a feature existing), and a locative suffix is attested." It makes the sentences very un-concise and makes them harder to follow. Where the terms are used just once or twice, either cut the technical term(s) completely, or leave them as a link. If the term is used several times, then an explanation is appropriate, which could be done in a parenthetical.
@PharyngealImplosive7 Could you go through the article and especially the "grammar" section with these points in mind, and then Pineapple and I can read through to see whether it is understandable enough? IAWW (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Looks great to me! The clarifications you've put in really help, and as there are plenty of wikilinks I think it should work well for most readers. What do you think @It is a wonderful world? Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes I think it looks much better. I could not understand the first subsection of the Grammar section at all earlier, but I can follow it a lot better now. It is weird that that subsection is the only one with examples though. Are there any other examples available for the other subsections? IAWW (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world: The noun section seems pretty self-explanatory to me, but I could add examples there. I also have added one example of serial verb constructions to the verbs subsection. Let me know if you would prefer any more examples anywhere else, as Kjelsvik (2002) has plenty. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 19:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@PharyngealImplosive7 Do any sources support the opinion that the phonetic inventory is "large"? If not, that specific opinion should be removed IAWW (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, just realized I replied to the wrong comment with this. I meant to reply to the lead discussion. IAWW (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world: An average phonetic inventory is around 20-30 consonants as per WALS (large (34 or more consonants)). Considering that this language has well over 60 different consonants, I think it is safe to assume that it has a large inventory. Not sure if this qualifies as WP:OR, but I think its fine. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is not fine as it is OR IAWW (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Kjelsvik (2002) p. 9 says The Nizaa language has a fairly complex phonology and tonology, so I think it would be reasonable to put in the lead Nizaa has a complex phonology, with over 60 consonant phonemes... or similar, and then back this up with further info and a citation ([1]) in §Phonology and orthography. Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and said that it has a complex system of phonology and cited that in the phonology section. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 03:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Layout — Section headers: for clarity, and consistency with other language articles,[2] it might be good to retitle §Phrases as 'Sample text' or 'Example text'. This would also mean that a 'Phrases' section could be used to discuss eg. idioms, if this aspect of the language is discussed in future sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I renamed it to 'Sample text'. I got the idea of naming it 'phrases' originally from Taa language#Phrases, but I agree that it doesn't seem quite right. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 00:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Lead section — Summarising body text: I feel like at the moment the lead section doesn't really summarise the rest of the article, as it introduces several different pieces of information that aren't repeated later on. Would there be any way to expand this info into its own section(s) and have more of an overview in the lead? Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes it is looking better. My biggest concern is that most of the second paragraph does not appear to be supported by the body. E.g. "as well as a rich system of tones" and "Nizaa also has a rich system of kinship terminology, with different words being used for different levels of respect". Although some examples exist in the body, these strong statements do not appear to be supported. IAWW (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Additionally, it could do with some expansion. IAWW (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The language was not extensively studied before the 1990s, when Christian missionaries Rolf Theil Endresen and Bjørghild Kjelsvik, began to document the language. This is interesting, and would be good to include in the body (along with a source), but at the moment it's new (and unsourced) information in the lead, so could probably do with a revisit? Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Love the idea of a history section! My only concern is the use of "Christian missionaries", given that Theil Endresen and Kjelsvik don't seem to use the term to describe themselves. For instance, there's a chance that they were just language enthusiasts looking for a way to work with the speaker communities of the languages they were studying, and that Christian mission organisations were the only ones that provided this kind of opportunity in Central Africa/Cameroon at the time, and that as part of this work they were expected to translate the Bible. (Even today, SIL Global—an evangelical Christian organisation, ie. originally a Christian mission—is both the registration authority for ISO 639-3and the publisher of Ethnologue.) Alternatively, it could be that they are/were actually "Christian missionaries", but would object to the use of the term... etc. Do you see where I'm coming from? It might be worth replacing "Christian missionaries" with (eg.) "Norwegian linguists"; you've mentioned their work with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Cameroon so the connection has very much been made, even without using the term "Christian missionaries", which isn't explicitly backed up by the sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage: Yeah, I totally understand. I have changed the wording to reflect that. I also have done some rough machine translations of the French (and used my knowledge of Spanish) to add some information to the article using Endresen (1991). Could you also quickly review if the translations are accurate to ensure the sources are being represented accurately please? – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 03:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Yep that all looks good! All pretty much accurate, as far as I can tell. Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @PharyngealImplosive7, Nice work. "Nizaa has a complex phonetic inventory" is now fine as it is sourced. I don't see where "60 consonant phonemes" (shouldn't it be 65?) and "its grammar is similar to most other Mambiloid languages" are supported in the body. IAWW (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Rolf Theil Endresen at Oslo University was appointed Associate Professor of African Languages (Hausa, Fulfulde) in 1978 and Professor of African Languages in 1994. Around 2000, the position was changed to Professor of General and African Linguistics in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy (currently Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies) of the Historical-Philosophical faculty. Endresen studied varieties of Fulfulde and the Bantoid Nizaa (Cameroon). The study on phonology included, for example, Nizaa, Kafa, and Koorete. He carried out grammatical studies on Fulfulde and Subiya. Endresen supervised nine PhD students, seven of them from Africa, before retiring in 2017.
As neither this summary, nor any of his 'Acknowledgements' sections that I can see, mention any Christian missionary organisations, it looks like he might not be associated with any; meanwhile, I also found this profile of Bjørghild Kjelsvik as an associate professor at NLA University College, which is a Christian (again, specifically Lutheran) college. For me this reinforces the idea that Theil Endresen and Kjelsvik didn't necessarily share the same affiliations, other than Theil Endresen's supervision of Kjelsvik's research at the University of Oslo. Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Just to be clear, I made these tweaks in my capacity as a Wikipedia editor, not as part of the GA review! Feel free to change any of my edits back if you disagree with them/think they're unnecessary/etc.) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world: I've tweaked the lead to say 65 phonemes instead of 60 and have removed the similarity with the Mambiloid languages part. ANny final suggestions or do you think the lead is good now? – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 17:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I think it is good to go! IAWW (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Layout — Section headers: Currently, §Kinship is within the §Grammar section; would it be better in a separate §Vocabulary section? (Could this be another opportunity for some more examples, per IAWW's feedback above?) Also, would it be worth rearranging the sections so that §Name is before §Geographical distribution and population? This would make it more consistent with articles like Erromintxela language; still, I'm not sure whether it's right for this article, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts @PharyngealImplosive7. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
There are no examples in the Kjelsvik (2008) source of any sentences or phrases using that terminology, so we can't really add any examples there. I don't think it would be right to create a separate "vocabulary" section only talking about kinship, which is why I kept it in the grammar section. I moved the "name" section up as you said. @Pineapple Storage: Any further thoughts? – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 20:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
In terms of examples for a potential § Vocabulary section, I meant it might be good to see if there are any other types of vocabulary—aside from kinship terminology—that have been discussed by sources and might be unusual/unique to Nizaa. I had a quick look through Kjelsvik-2002 but soon got bogged down in the ins and outs of interlinear glossing (and went down a rabbit-hole learning how to use Template:Interlinear!) so unfortunately I can't give you any examples straight away, but I will try and have another look. Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Now that there's more info about the speaker community in §Geographical distribution and population, do you think it might be worth retitling this section § Demography and distribution (as in Nahuatl, for instance)? Also, given that §History currently only describes the history of the study/documentation of the language, as opposed to the history of the language itself, would it be an idea to title this section § Documentation? These are only suggestions, of course; I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure; I have gone ahead and implemented your suggestions. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 05:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Just noting than I am happy for this to pass as long as Pineapple is. You two have worked really well together during this review, and a I just took a quick gloss of the parts of the article I could understand, and it seems like GA status to me. Nice work! IAWW (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Yep, I'm happy to pass the article as well. See below :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Most sources definitely but the source with by far the most citations is Kjelsvik (2002)[3] which has 190 pages, so it's much harder to verify statements than it would be in, for instance, a short journal article. It would be good to include a few different refs to this source specifically, each with page numbers relevant to the sections/statements they're supporting; Template:Sfn might be helpful for this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Added SFNs for all the mentions of Kjelsvik (2002) besides the first one, with page numbers. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 01:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:TSI: for paragraphs which cite a single source, refs can just be at the end of the paragraph, but there are a couple of paragraphs (eg. in §Consonants, §Nouns and pronouns, §Verbs) where multiple citations are at the end of the paragraph, but they don't all contain all the information in the paragraph. (I got a bit stuck with §Vowels and have ended up duplicating ref 2 as I don't have access to it so can't verify whether it supports the first two sentences of the paragraph, just the last sentence, or both.) It might be good to separate out citations where they each support different parts of the paragraph? Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@PharyngealImplosive7 I've now done a pretty comprehensive/in-depth spot-check of all references (with the exception of TheilEndresen-1991, due to the paywall) and aside from one WP:TSI issue (tagged, in §Verbs) it's all looking great, so once that's sorted I think this criterion will be a strong ! Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The §Name section is closely paraphrased from Blench (1993) p.108[4] and there's currently no precise ref to the source text (ref 8 just points to the Glottolog entry for the citation, not to the text itself). This has also meant that there's a duplication of pejorative in that section, so this might need rewording. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I've now added the expanded Blench ref which includes a link to the source text. Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
There are a few bits of close paraphrasing from Kjelsvik (2002)[3] and Kjelsvik (2008)[5] in §Phonology and orthography and §Grammar. This might be one cause of the WP:MTAU difficulties mentioned above in point 1A; for both of these reasons, I think it might be a good idea to find ways to reword parts of these sections. It would also be good to double-check that there isn't too much close paraphrasing from Theil Endresen (1991);[6] I would check but unfortunately I don't have access. Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Both of these have been fixed to the best of my ability. Especially in more niche fields like phonology, it is kind of hard to preserve the meaning of the source without using similar language to it. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 23:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I totally understand! Yep, it's definitely tricky to avoid when there are so few synonyms for the technical terms! Good work on your latest edits tweaking the wording away from the sources; I feel like it runs a bit more smoothly now so this was well done. @It is a wonderful world, do you have any thoughts on close paraphrasing from a Wikipedia policy point of view? Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the check you did is really good here. As long as no full sentences or extended phrases are used, then you should be fine because most the content is just facts (WP:FACTSONLY). IAWW (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
That's great, thank you. In that case, I'm happy with the copyright status at the moment; I'll finalise closer to the end of the review. Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The article is pretty comprehensive! For smaller/lesser-known languages, it will always be difficult to provide huge amounts of detail as they are nowhere near as well-documented as some more widely-spoken languages, but there's lots of detail here with regard to the features of the language. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
No issues re viewpoint bias, but re WP:DUE: at the moment, most of the article is the §Phonology and orthography and §Grammar sections. These sections definitely go into a good amount of detail, but by comparison the rest of the article feels like it could do with expanding, so that the non-linguistic information about the language also gets its due weight. Would there be any way to beef the other sections up, for instance with a chunkier intro and the headers mentioned under point 1B above? Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
There isn't much info on the non-phonetic/non-grammar aspects of the language, though the lead definitely could be improved. The language doesn't have much documented history, any dialectal/regional variation documented in the literature, or interesting info on the vocabulary (there are lists of verbs documented by Kjelsvik, but I don't think that is necessary to add to the article). – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 03:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, totally understand the issue here; smaller communities and their languages are often underrepresented by sources. The work you've done so far on the lead and §Geographical distribution and population looks really great! I have to go now, but I will have a look for sources over the next couple of days and see if there's any that go into more detail re history of the language/community. For now, these are the only ones I've found:
Theil Endresen, Rolf[in Norwegian] (1992-06-30). "La phonologie de la langue nizaa (nizaà)" [The phonology of the Nizaa language]. Nordic Journal of African Studies (in French). 1 (1). Nordic Africa Research Network: 28–52. doi:10.53228/njas.v1i1.57. Retrieved 2025-05-15. I've only skimmed this one; I'm not sure whether you speak any French, but if not, I can have a more thorough read of it and see if there's anything useful.
is pretty helpful in terms of the Nizaa people's culture. I've added some information about them in the 'Geographical distribution and population' section. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 13:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage: I have no knowledge of French, so if you do, I would appreciate it if you could see if the second source has anything useful in it. I'll try to look through the Philip source to find any useful info. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 17:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage: The Philip source doesn't have much information about the language or the culture itself (besides the circumcision initiation rights which are not really relevant here). – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 17:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes fair enough, that would seem a bit off-topic! :D I had a look through the French source and given that it's a phonology, most of the content is already covered (eg. by Kjelsvik); there were a couple of points at the beginning about Nizaa farming and religious traditions, as well as the fact that Theil Endresen was the first to properly document the language, so I've added those in as ref 10 and ref 11, just to back up the existing sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The map is definitely relevant, but given that the article title is Nizaa language, it's not immediately clear which label we're supposed to be looking at. If I'm understanding it correctly, it's the patch just to the left of centre that says 'Suga'; if so, it might be worth adding a note to this effect in the caption. Do we know if this map is backed up by any sources? Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The image was added before I started editing the article, so I didn't really scrutinize it much. However, it is supported by the Ethnologue Report of Cameroon and Fanso (1989), which talks about Cameroonian history. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 01:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
That's fair enough! Would it be worth adding these sources to the article somehow, for verifiability? Maybe an explanatory note (using Template:Efn or ref tags) in the caption, with something along the lines of "For demographic information, see [sources]"? Or if not, maybe in a "Further reading" section? Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Pass or Fail: Pass! Congratulations @PharyngealImplosive7! Really well done for all your hard work on this article! Thank you for your patience given that this was my first review. As noted above, my authorship is now quite high, so apologies for this—I hope I haven't been meddling too much! The article is looking great, and I'm really pleased that this will be the next addition to Wikipedia's Good Articles about languages, of which there really should be more (in my opinion). Many thanks to @IAWW for his essential mentorship and contributions to this review. Congratulations again @PharyngealImplosive7! Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Just a small note on an area for potential expansion: the §Consonants section mentions Most Nizaa are not literate, and the few who are often only can read and write Fula in the Ajami script. The Latin romanization of Nizaa also has not widely been adopted by the Nizaa people yet because of the low literacy of the Nizaa. As a reader, this left me wondering about the history of romanization of the language, who developed the system, etc. There might not be any sources that discuss this, and I don't have access to all the sources cited here, but this might be something to look into (eg. if you want to take this further to WP:FAC in future). Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
It was Endresen who actually first created the alphabet/romanization. Added that to the article. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 23:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Re §Name section: I don't have access to ref 8, but the 2009 edition of Ethnologue states that 'Baghap' is their name for themselves; 'Nizaa' for their language.[7] Maybe Blench (1993)[4] didn't know this at the time/new information has come to light? Might be worth looking into some of the more recent sources to see if any others discuss endonyms of the community/language. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Interesting; I didn't notice that when originally reading that source. It seems contradictory to all the other sources in the article; maybe it was a mistake? Blench (1993) does mention that their was some confusion around another unrelated Adamawa language also called Nyamnyam, so this might be related. It might be worth putting a note in the article about this, but I'm not sure. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 23:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
A quick note re this edit... Apologies if this is a silly question (my IPA is rustier than I'd like it to be!) but what's the relationship between the tone markers you added and the way it's presented in the source? Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I used chao tone letters, which are more accurate then the accents that used by the source (although those are more common in the literature). I also used the IPA long vowel symbol instead of duplicating the vowel, which is preferred in IPA notation. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 01:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Since this doesn't really have strong ties to any variety of English (Cameroon was a German and then a French colony), I'd prefer to leave it without any templates and let MOS:RETAIN prevent anyone from significantly changing it. I'm American, which is why I used American English, as it is what is most natural for me. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 17:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Just for transparency, I've been through the article and added bibliographic parameters to a few references for verifiability per CITEVAR. Hope this is okay! Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2025 (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.
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.
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fury 325/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'm going to be reviewing this article! I'm a new reviewer, so @It is a wonderful world has kindly offered his mentorship. I'll read through the article and start making some notes in the template below, hopefully today, or tomorrow at the latest. :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Looks like a fun one to review! IAWW (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Just noting that at time of writing, the nominator's authorship of this article is 5.4%, but they are ranked 5th in authorship so are eligible to nominate the article per WP:GAN/I. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: Unfortunately it looks like I'll be quite busy IRL for the next few days, so it might take me a bit longer than I'd like to complete the review. However, I'll still be able to make some progress with it every day, so hopefully I'll be able to get it done by the end of the week. Thank you for your patience everyone! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The lead is a good length, and provides an overview of the key information. The only detail in the lead that isn't expanded on in the main body is the fact that the roller coaster was manufactured by Bolliger & Mabillard. This is mentioned again in passing in §Records, but it might be good to mention the manufacturer details in the §History section, along with an independent source that confirms the manufacturer. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Done – Though it's not really detailed beyond a mere statement, the History section does mention the manufacturer now with source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
§Incident is currently a standalone section, but it restates and expands on information in the fourth paragraph of §History; to ensure there's no repetition, and that readers can be sure they're getting all the information they might be looking for, I think it might be sensible to make §Incident a subsection of §History, and merge the information from the fourth paragraph of §History into that new subsection. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Just wanted to mention that WP:APARKS approach is to typically place an Incident section near the end of the article, which can cover incidents/accidents in more detail, and if any are substantially critical or important to the ride's history, include a brief mention in the History section as well. I agree that the contents in History should not simply regurgitate what is covered later in more detail. This version of Iron Gwazi when it achieved FA status demonstrates how minor incidents are not mentioned at all in History. This version of Son of Beast when it achieved GA status shows how a brief mention in History would work when done properly. I think the latter approach could work in this article as well. If agreed, I can make that change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out! I didn't know there was a specific WP:APARKS policy re §Incidents sections. I did have a look at a couple of other roller coaster GAs, and their sections usually described more serious incidents, often involving evacuation of passengers, injuries or even death, and normally more than one; for instance, Kingda Ka#Incidents and Top Thrill 2#Incidents each list several different events, while Banshee (roller coaster)#Incidents and Firehawk (roller coaster)#Incident each only mention one but these both involved deaths. I'm really not an expert in roller coasters at all, or the style customs in WP:APARKS, but it struck me that the incident described in this article doesn't actually feel like much of an "incident" but rather a maintenance event that caused the closure of the ride, so would make more sense as a subsection of §History. Again, I might be completely wrong on this, but this was just my perception as a reader with limited knowledge of roller coasters/amusement parks. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
No, I think it's a excellent point that for one single occurrence, we probably don't need a dedicated section or subsection to cover it. Instead, it should be merged into the History section. I'll work on that now. Also, just for clarification, there isn't a policy per se being followed by WP:APARKS. The WikiProject's guidance only suggests a dedicated Incidents section; it doesn't require one. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Ah okay that makes sense! Sounds like a good plan, thank you! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
This is a minor issue, but the fact that the roller coaster is hornet-themed is only mentioned in §Theme, but the bug net marketing campaign is discussed in §History, and the buzzing hornet sound is mentioned in §Ride experience. As a reader, I found these details a bit confusing, until I got to §Theme and learned about the relevance of hornets to the ride. It might be worth briefly mentioning this earlier in the article, either in the lead, §History or potentially in §Ride experience, to avoid confusion. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I've now added a brief mention of the theme to §History, just after the discussion of the beekeeper marketing campaign. Feel free to move/remove this if the mention would work better elsewhere! Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Done – Went with your first suggestion to combine Reception and Awards. Still room for expansion here, but it does seem logical to group these together while keeping Records separate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Ref 19[1] doesn't actually mention the fact stated by the sentence it's used to back up (On January 30, 2015, the final piece of Fury 325's track was put in place), which is a text-source integrity issue so I've tagged it with Template:text-source inline. However, this source does mention that Fury 325 was designed by Bolliger & Mabillard, so it could be used to back up the manufacturer details, as suggested above. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The source does state, "Fury 325 will eventually provide far more thrilling moments than the one it gave the media Friday. But the installation by a construction crew of the final piece of the roller coaster ... was a milestone" along with its headline to indicate this happened on January 30, 2015. If that's not good enough, we can simply remove it (and use it elsewhere), as Ref 19 adequately supports the claim already. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough, I must have missed the implied connection with the date! (It doesn't help that the dateline only says "January 30, 2015", so it wasn't immediately obvious that "Friday" meant the same day the article was published!) In this case, I don't think it necessarily needs to be removed, maybe just switched with ref 19 so that the more explicitly relevant footnote comes first? I don't think this would be a GA requirement though so it's not a huge issue. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Citation a is one of five footnotes at the end of the paragraph, which makes it difficult to verify (ideally these would be separated out to support individual sentences), but the source doesn't actively contradict the text. Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Done – Section has been revamped to sentence citations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Citation b The cited webpage doesn't make it immediately obvious either that the application was suspended in February 2014, or why it was suspended... I went to the 'Documents' tab and found this letter explaining the reasoning for the suspension, so that might be a better source for this statement (archive link here). Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Ref 33[5] The source does support the paragraph, but again, it's bundled with four others, which makes it difficult to check verifiability for each individual statement. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
fixed – This ref no longer exists. It was a duplicate of another. The section now uses inline citations after each sentence instead of paragraph citations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Ref 26[7] The source supports most of the sentence, except the statement that The ride was closed later that day; the article only says it was shut down after a visitor called the fire department, not when exactly that happened. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
fixed – This is supported by refs cited in the previous sentence. Repeated one of those for this sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Most of the sources inspected do support the text, but there are a few WP:TSI issues here and there. I will likely do spot-checks of further sources later on in the review, just to be sure. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Further sources to be spot-checked (randomly generated):
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Well-cited, and more easily verifiable now that citations have been rearranged to support sentences rather than whole paragraphs. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Earwig's result is "Violation unlikely" at maximum 10.7% similarity, and I can't see any obvious close paraphrasing or unsourced quotes, so I'm happy to pass this criterion. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Article covers the subject quite comprehensively, with sections, coverage and levels of detail comparable with other WP:APARKS GAs. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, no part of the article feels excessively technical; the article stays on-topic, without any unnecessary/irrelevant tangents, and the level of detail reflects the coverage of the subject in the sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Most of the article is descriptive, and where subjective opinions are presented (ie. §Reception), the viewpoints represented do reflect coverage in the sources, so I can't see any issue with editorial/viewpoint bias. Only one small suggestion: §Reception currently only documents Initial reception, so it might be good to include some more up-to-date reception as well. From a brief search, I found these sources from more recently: [12][13]Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
All images are relevant to the article and provide good illustration to support the text. Given that the caption for File:Fury 325 (Carowinds) 1.jpg identifies the damaged support column, might it be worth moving this image from §Ride experience to either §Incident or, if the sections are merged as suggested above, §History? (This is only a minor issue!) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Good suggestion, but it seems the main reason why this image was added was to show a portion of the layout (relevant to "Ride experience"). I used the {{Stack}} template to reposition this, so that it is closer to the History section. If that's not good enough, we can simply rephrase the caption, removing the part that mentions the cracked column. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Good captions are provided for all the images; the video of the ride, File:Fury 325 Carowinds POV.webm, could do with a caption, just to properly frame it for readers. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to get to this! I’ve been very busy and am super grateful to Gone for the help. I’ll try to assist wherever I can. Therguy10 (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Pineapple Storage, just popping in to see how things are going. It looks like another very good review from you. I just noticed one thing you seem to have missed: the video has a watermark that should be removed (WP:WATERMARK). This doesn't seem to violate any GA criteria directly, but it seems like quite an important thing to fix. IAWW (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
The first watermark can be cut easily by cutting out the first section of the video. The icon in the bottom right is trickier. You could crop the side, or open a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop (I think that's the right place), though those requests often take a while to be answered. IAWW (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@IAWW Oh wow, I'm so glad you caught this! The watermark issue wasn't on my radar so thank you for letting me know. I will have a look into the options and see what's available. Thank you again! Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@IAWW I've had a look at the proposed Commons policy on watermarks and Wikimedia's legal guidance on removal of watermarks; from these, it seems like actually removing all traces of the watermark might be in a grey area re US copyright law. Because of this, I've left the in-picture icon in place, but trimmed the beginning and end of the video, and will upload it to Commons as a new version of the file along with a Watermark tag. I'll leave it to someone with more experience in copyright issues and watermarking to decide whether total removal of the icon is appropriate! Thank you again for catching this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for this. It is a more gray area than I thought. The article and review are both looking very good, and I would be happy for this to pass if/when you are. IAWW (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@IAWW I've had major difficulties trying to upload my trimmed version of the video to Commons, given the 100MB upload limit and the fact that Commons doesn't seem to accept MP4 uploads. I've tagged the video as watermarked, but I'm not sure whether this is enough?
Also, what are your thoughts on the source spot-check above? I did find a few WP:TSI issues, and these have been fixed, but do you think the accuracy of sources needs further investigation or does the spot-check indicate general accuracy to GA standard? Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Pineapple Storage, I also had the same issues so I requested help here. I don't think this should hold back the article from reaching GA – what can be done about it will be done. Well done for doing such an extensive spot check, and uncovering several TSI issues. I personally don't think the issues were severe enough require a full source-text integrity check, but it's up to you as the reviewer to make the final call. Note that it is relatively rare to complete a spot check with no issues found. IAWW (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Oops I forgot to hyperlink "here" IAWW (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay this is really helpful thank you! Thanks for asking at the Commons help desk, I will keep an eye out for responses to your query. And re sources, this is really useful; I feel like the spot-check showed that the majority of sources support the article, but I wasn't sure whether the fact that the check identified any TSI issues at all would mean that a full check had to be done. As long as the issues identified in the check are fixed, and you're happy for the article to pass based on this, then so am I! Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Great! Nice work, feel free to pass this when you are ready :) IAWW (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
IAWW, appreciate your assistance with the review. Had a question concerning your your edit here that removed the {{Stack}} template. I had added it recently, so that the corresponding image would stack next to the infobox and appear in the Ride experience section. Since roller coaster infoboxes tend to be long, we have used this workaround in the past. Is there an issue I may not be aware of? --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @GoneIn60, I accidentally published that edit without entering the edit summary. Apologies for that. At least on my device, the stack template was causing the image to move left of the infobox, creating a large whitespace to the right. IAWW (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. I didn't have that issue in a desktop Chrome browser. Do you see the same issue at Son of Beast (first image under Construction)? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes it displays to the left of the infobox for me. Is it meant to do that? I am on Firefox btw IAWW (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, just left of the infobox with text wrapping above and below the image. This is expected behavior and allows the image to appear in the section in which it was intended to appear in. Without Stack, it goes all the way to the right, below the infobox, which may cause it to appear in the wrong section. Hope that makes sense. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I see what you're saying now. You can revert my edit if you would like. I'm not a fan of the whitespace created but I'll let you choose what to do. IAWW (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I also see what you're saying about the whitespace after testing in Microsoft Edge. Depending on the resolution of your screen and font size (some of which can be controlled/changed in your Wikipedia account preferences), there is a slight chance that the stacked image will run into an odd overlap of the infobox, where part of the image sits below the infobox. When this odd overlap occurs, there is a lot of ugly whitespace to the right of the image.Unfortunately, that cannot be avoided in all situations, but stacking the image is still useful for those with larger resolutions and smaller font sizes. This could go either way, but I think I'll revert it back until some deeper discussion determines that we should avoid or deprecate the Stack template. IMO, it shouldn't exist if it's not to be used. GoneIn60 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Not sure if this helps; all looks normal on Safari on iPad. Therguy10 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
@GoneIn60 @Therguy10 Really good work everyone! As discussed above, given the tweaking that has already been done re WP:TSI, I'll be more than happy to pass this article; just for my peace of mind, it would be great if someone could iron out the issue with ref 14 ([9]) and then I'll close the review. Thanks again to @It is a wonderful world for his invaluable input! Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage May it just be better to remove that source? The only other “source” I could find was this but I can’t imagine that’d cover much. Therguy10 (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Yep I think that might be a good plan, as well as rewording the sentence so that it only mentions the actual date of completion as mentioned in the 'BrakeRun2' ref (the other Facebook post, from October 24). Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Just did this myself, so happy to pass the article. Well done again to everyone! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2025 (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.
Note: @DaniloDaysOfOurLives and I are working very hard to review every single GA nomination in the television section. Consider joining us to clear the backlog!
Hi @Pineapple Storage, I noticed you had a nomination open and it seems very interesting! So I'll review it. IAWW (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Comments are below. I thought this was extremely well written for your first GA! Great work :) IAWW (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Amazing, thank you so much for taking on the review! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the lead needs to be expanded a bit to cover the main points of the article. A quick summary of their main campaigns would be appropriate. IAWW (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I've expanded the lead to include some more details about their activities (diff). Is this what you were thinking? Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's great. I don't see any issues holding this back from GA anymore, so I'm gonna go ahead and pass. That was quick! IAWW (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
The purpose listed in the infobox is "Protesting against Elon Musk", but I think it should be a little more general than that, e.g. "Protesting against Elon Musk and billionaire influence" to be accurate. IAWW (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Totally agree, as their scope has definitely widened beyond just protesting Musk. I think "billionaire influence" might not quite cover it, as they seem to be opposed to billionaires in general (especially their tax avoidance etc.) rather than just their influence in politics... Could Protesting against Elon Musk and other billionaires work? Or maybe Anti-billionaire protests (although I don't think this is a commonly-used phrase)? I'm not sure how to strike the right balance between conciseness and a comprehensive summary! Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
The campaign is anticipated to raise £150,000 over the course of one year, and was discussed in a February 2025 episode of The Guilty Feminist podcast: Grammar error (WP:CINS) IAWW (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Without the comma, I feel like this sentence runs on a bit, but I also want to avoid repeating the campaign too many times, so I'm thinking of changing it to this: The fundraising campaign, which is anticipated to raise £150,000 over the course of one year, was discussed in a February 2025 episode of The Guilty Feminist podcast. Is this better? Or should it be two separate sentences? Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes I like this IAWW (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
This article seems controversial at first, but it's almost entirely descriptive. Is there any sourcing on the reception/reactions to the group's activities? IAWW (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes I noticed this too. I've had another look for actual reviews/evaluation of the group's activities/campaigns/strategy, but I'm having trouble finding any. I think it's possible that authors of reliable sources (newspaper articles etc.) try not to pass comment/give opinions on the campaigns, to avoid creating controversy with editors who don't want to risk drawing negative attention from Musk's supporters. Certainly, I haven't been able to find any sources criticising Everyone Hates Elon or their poster campaigns, but I also haven't found any that explicitly express their support for the group. I will keep looking, and add any reception etc. to the article if I find it! Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough! I don't think this is an issue for the GA broadness criteria though, so I'll pass on scope. IAWW (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
No media unfortunately. I couldn't find any either unfortunately. IAWW (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I actually reached out to the group in April (per WP:REQFREE and WP:ERP) to ask them if they'd be willing to release some of their images under a free license to allow inclusion in the article. They said they'd be happy to upload an image/some images to Wikimedia Commons, and that they'd let me know when the uploads were done; I actually haven't heard back from them (I'm sure they've been pretty busy this month!) but I will get back in touch to let them know about this review and see about an update on images. Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
That would be great! IAWW (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2025 (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.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kuna language → – Since the orthographic changes made by the Guna General Congress in 2010 and the official renaming of Guna Yala in 2011, literature about the Guna language has reached a consensus regarding the usage of the updated spelling. The issue has been raised a couple of times before (see the article talk page and this edit from 2019), so I'm requesting that this article be moved in accordance with WP:PCM.
To illustrate the grounds for renaming, I've collated a short bibliography of just a few of the recent English-language sources that refer to the language using the updated spelling. Sources: [14][15][16]
^Smith, Wikaliler Daniel (2021). "The Impact of Joel Sherzer's Work among the Guna". Anthropological Linguistics. 63 (4): 371–378. Retrieved 25 February 2025. (Note: 'Guna' is used to refer to the language throughout.)
Oppose This is not the spelling of the majority of current references, and the K spelling has a very long history of use in a lot of literature. — kwami (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami Thanks so much for your reply to this move request!
I have a couple more points to add, and I've listed them below. I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts!
Literature published before the orthographic reforms in 2010 mainly use the 'K' spelling; however, my interpretation of WP:Article titles#Name changes is that article titles should be based on reliable sources published after a name change. Following the changes in 2010, the vast majority of sources about the language use the updated spelling.
This change of consensus was addressed directly by Anthony K. Webster, the editor of Anthropological Linguistics, in 2021.[1] One prominent example of a post-reform source seemingly using the old spelling can be found in the same special issue of Anthropological Linguistics, in an article by Dina and Joel Sherzer;[2] however, a footnote clarifies that the article was originally written in 2007 (ie. before the change of spelling).[3]
Given that the orthographic change was made by the Guna General Congress, WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification might indicate that the updated spelling would be more appropriate. (It's also worth noting that a true endonym does exist; the language is known as dulegaya in Guna, and the relevant 'autodenomination' is dule,[4] but because these terms genuinely are only used within the Guna-speaking community, they would not make suitable titles for English-language articles.)
The article for Guna people has used the up-to-date spelling since 2020. There is no distinction (either in the Guna language itself, or in the English-language academic literature) between the pronunciation or spelling of the linguonym as opposed to the ethnonym,[5] so I don't think it makes too much sense for the article about the language to continue to use the old spelling.
Finally, in addition to the points above, I had a quick look at Google Books Ngram Viewer to see whether there were any noticeable trends in usage for the various spellings. I understand that it's not a perfect metric, but it is noticeable that the use of 'Guna' (compared to 'Kuna') as a proper noun has increased steadily since the mid-2000s when debates about orthography first began, and 'Guna' overtook 'Kuna' in about 2019-20.[6] Also, use of 'Guna' as a 'common' noun (as determined by Google Books Ngrams) increased massively after the 2010 reforms,[7] so it's clear that the name change did have an effect on usage.
Other sources
Fortis, Paolo (September 2021). Mauzé, Marie; Pitrou, Perig (eds.). "On the multiple temporalities of Guna woodcarving". Cahiers d'anthropologie sociale. 19 (2). Éditions de l'Herne: 107-123 [121 note 2]. doi:10.3917/cas.019.0107. (Note: this article is in English, but was published in a French journal.)
We may be getting to the point where COMMONNAME warrants switching over. But ISO, Ethnologue, Glottolog and ELP still all use 'Kuna', so I think there's still a way to go.
As for 'Guna' overtaking 'Kuna' in 2020, that means we still have all that lit from before then [and a lot after] that uses 'Kuna'.
Personally, I doubt it's beneficial for us to change the names of small language communities every few years. They often have a hard enough time getting recognition as it is, without us making it even more difficult by removing the name that has that small amount of recognition. But maybe that's just me — kwami (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami I totally understand where you're coming from. I agree that it's hard to know for sure, especially when major publications like Ethnologue still use the old orthography. It is difficult for small language communities to get recognition... but does this not give us even more reason to bring the article title in line with the way this community has elected to describe their language?
As discussed by Price,[8] the old orthography was developed by Nils Holmer in the 1940s, and has been so frequently 'taken at face value' (for example, due to the use of word-initial 'K' when in fact plosives are always voiced in word-initial position) that it no longer represented the language adequately, so was changed officially by the people who know the language best (WP:Autonym).
The name of Guna Yala was also updated to reflect the change; according to the World Travel and Tourism Council, tourism is the region's "primary economic driver."[9] If we were going to base our decision about whether or not to move the article on whether a move would be "beneficial" for the Guna language community, it could be argued that bringing the spelling of the language in line with that of the region could raise the profile of both.
Aside from that, the specialised academic literature (published since 2010) that I've seen on this topic clearly shows consensus for the new spelling. You mentioned there is "a lot" of literature still using the old spelling since the orthography change... I've been researching this for quite a while now and I have seen very few sources still using 'Kuna', please could you point me to some examples? Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC) Edited 06:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
More 'Cuna' than 'Kuna', but eg Kuna ways of speaking: an ethnographic perspective; The Kuna language: an areal-typological and discourse perspective; The Kuna language: an areal-typological and discourse perspective; Stories, Myths, Chants, and Songs of the Kuna Indians; The Kuna and the world: five centuries of struggle; The Kuna gathering: Contemporary village politics in Panama; A people who would not kneel: Panama, the United States, and the San Blas Kuna etc — kwami (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami Thank you for those! Yes, I had come across quite a few of them in my research. They are all pre-2010 (most are pre-2000). What is your perspective on whether WP:NAMECHANGES should apply re considering post-name-change sources? Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent. It's nice to be up-to-date, but we don't want to ignore the majority of the lit/sources that people are exposed to. That would make us much more conservative, of course, but if the changes are frequent enough we might be able to skip a few. — kwami (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami This sounds like a sensible approach! In this case, thankfully, I think it's been a pretty clear-cut change of terminology. Prior to 2010, the language did not have one fixed set of orthographic rules, so multiple systems (and multiple spellings) were used; the Guna General Congress reached a decision on orthography in 2010; for the 15 years since 2010, the chosen orthography has dominated.
Obviously we don't have a crystal ball, but from my research for this move request, I think it's unlikely there will be any change from this new standard any time soon. And of course, if this request were to result in a move, then the 'K' spelling would be a redirect, and once the article was fleshed out a bit more then there would be room for detailed explanation of the orthography change, alongside discussion of other elements of the history of the language.
(Whatever the outcome of this request, I'm planning to work on fleshing out the article from its current state using some of the sources I've cited here; still, personally I would prefer to be able to refer to the language using the most up-to-date terminology within the article!) Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
It's not whether the orthography is stable, but whether it comes to dominate in English. That doesn't always happen -- take German for example. From my POV, it's more a matter of when a spelling comes to dominate in the majority of the lit one is likely to be exposed to, much of which may be rather old for some languages. I think most of WP prefers to be more progressive than that though. — kwami (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
It's true that it doesn't always happen, but that is irrelevant as it appears that in this case it has happened. Andrewa (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Support. It is clear that recent sources overwhelmingly use the proposed spelling, so according to wp:NAMECHANGES we should follow this usage. Andrewa (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2025 (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.
I'm not too sure on this one. From a brief search, there seem to be a few English-language sources that use 'Yeon Gaesomun', some that use 'Yŏn Kaesomun', and quite a lot that use 'Yon Kaesomun' (probably because the diacritic is not easily available on most English-language keyboards). Searching for sources (and identifying the WP:COMMONNAME) is complicated by the eponymous 2006 TV series about him, which as far as I can tell is universally romanized using RR, ie. 'Yeon Gaesomun'. Also, titles for articles about subjects from the same era mostly use RR; these include articles on Goguryeo, Cheolli Jangseong, and Yeon Gaesomun's sons (including Yeon Namsaeng), as well as other history-focused articles such as List of monarchs of Korea, for example. Not sure which WP:MOS policy should apply to this particular article, so I won't give a definitive 'Support' or 'Oppose', but hopefully this info might help other users (more familiar with MOS issues) to draw a conclusion one way or the other. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Support. Academic sources about him would basically entirely use McCune–Reischauer with diacritics. seefooddiet (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Support - per nom. A majority of English language academic sources use MR variant of his name. RR in general isn't widely used for Korean history outside of South Korea. While Pineapple Storage fairly points out that a lot of Goguryeo articles still use RR instead of using MR as dictated by the MOS, this is more due to a fact that a lot of article titles haven't been updated to match the standards. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Pineapple Storage. Give that a clear majority of sources don't use diacritics, and the consistency with other entries in this category, I don't see a strong reason to change to a title that's harder for English speakers to parse and recognise. — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should the text of Wikipedia:Citing sources be changed to prefer templates over hand-formatted citations, while welcoming contributions from editors who continue to format manually? 23:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Specific changes proposed:
Change "(Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style.)" to "(Templates are preferred, but contributions with manually-formatted citations are welcome.)"
Add "change citations from manually formatted to templates, without admonishing of contributors" to "Generally considered helpful"
Change the line starting "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates" in "To be avoided" to "removing citation templates that are used correctly"
Change the first paragraph of WP:CITECONSENSUS to: "Citation templates are preferred in situations where they exist and can be used as designed. They keep citations formatted in a consistent way and are more machine-readable for a variety of purposes. Contributions of manually-formatted citations from editors unfamiliar with or who simply do not care to use templates are welcome, and may be reformatted into templates by other editors without notification beyond a polite edit summary."
Add to "Generally considered helpful" the line: "Adding or enhancing templates and modules for recurring situations where citations would be otherwise left manually-formatted due to lack of support"
Discussion: RFC on preferring templates in citations
Proposer rationale: This proposal would still allow any citation format to be used consistently throughout an article, but would allow interested editors to move from hand-formatted to template-formatted citations for the following reasons:
Much more consistently formatted output, tolerating variation in human-written input, resulting in a more professional and trustworthy appearance for articles.
Automatic output of COinS metadata for browser plugins and web spiders that power data aggregators.
Automatic detection of errors, such as dangling references, incomplete or vague citations, putting the wrong information in the wrong place, or using disfavored formats (such as for dates).
Automatic improvement by bots (e.g. adding archive URLs, adding missing data and links to full text).
Much easier to make future changes site-wide to formatting if consensus changes.
Much easier to change an article's citation format (if consensus finds the wrong one was chosen) simply by substituting templates or (with module support) simply adding a "mode" declaration to the page. This also makes it easier to move citations between articles that have different citation formats. (We can already set "mode=cs1" or "mode=cs2".)
Inexperienced editors (or those who simply prefer them) can use graphical tools like VisualEditor to add and edit citations without having to know wiki syntax or the formatting details of the specific citation style used by an article. Editors who use the source editor will still be under no obligation to use templates in new citations if they dislike them.
Manual formatting of citations should not be used as a workaround to avoid mangling by a bot. An explicit bot exclusion is a better way to handle this because it alerts future editors to the bug and prevents them from stumbling into it again. This also facilitates research into bot improvements.
According to the previous discussion, about 80% of articles already use citation templates, so the result of this guideline change is not much different than simply implementing our existing rule that articles should use a consistent format. Upgrading citations also provides an opportunity to eyeball neglected articles and passages and remove any obvious garbage. -- Beland (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose major change to WP:CITEVAR allowing the imposition of a new citation style at the whim of gnomes and encouraging gnomes to perform this imposition, regardless of whether the citations are already in a consistent format. Inconsistently formatted manual citations do not need this change; a consistent style can be chosen for them regardless. The only actual point of these changes is to impose machine-friendly human-unfriendly rigid templated metadata on citations.
Oppose addressing rationale: #1, #5 and #6 are disingenuous, don't care about #2, #3 and #4 are hopelessly naive, #7 is no different from present, and #8 is nonsensical. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. In addition to the points made by David Eppstein and Airship, allowing manually formatted citations makes it much easier to copy them from external sources, and much easier to incorporate subject-matter experts into the community. Templates don't magically make citations look professional nor address vague or misplaced citations. And forbidding manual formatting of citations as a workaround to known problems is a non-starter. See also the thousands of words here explaining some of the issues with the concept of this proposal. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Editors would still be allowed to copy already-formatted citations from other web sites. What problems are you seeing that require manual formatting as a workaround? -- Beland (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Saying that others can clean up after them is not a good solution to something that's not a problem to begin with. As to workarounds, there seem to be several examples of issues provided in the discussion above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I looked into the situations mentioned in the previous discussion, and it seems they can all be dealt with by putting an HTML comment in the citation template that instructs the problematic bot not to edit it. That seems better than laying a trap for someone who later comes along and changes the citation to use a template for whatever reason, and it gets tread on by the bot again. -- Beland (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Strongly oppose – allowing style variations at authors' discretion and leaving decision to local consensus is one of the best ways Wikipedia avoids pointless conflict and churn. There's not much benefit for every page to be perfectly consistent in every aspect of style, and the potential harms of changing this are dramatic. Aside: every editor should at least read and consider User:Jorge Stolfi § Please do not use {{cite}} templates.–jacobolus(t) 01:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
If you want to render citations e.g. "issue 10" instead of "(10)", I agree that would be an improvement. It could be done across millions of citations in a single edit because they use templates and not manual formatting. We could also allow articles to easily choose to do this or not by adding a mode selector. -- Beland (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Implementing a mode selector to "easily choose to do this or not" would require people to (a) notice a change in the template's behaviour, (b) figure out how to create the option to override it in the template, (c) get that template change implemented, and then (d) change the article. That's not a particularly easy process compared to just formatting refs manually. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
It's much easier than going through every single manually formatted citation and manually re-formatting them. -- Beland (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
No, it's really not. First off, if someone has already manually formatted a citation in a way that they feel is appropriate, no reformatting is required regardless of what changes in the template. If there is a desire to change the format, either way you'd have to go through every single citation - but the template approach adds a bunch of extra work to do that, because first you'd have to change the template and then change the citations in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I guess there are some scenarios where there is more upfront cost. If an article is already consistently formatted manually and wants to change to a different format, it will need to have all the citations re-formatted either way, and if it's done the template way and that style is not already supported, template upgrades will also have to happen. But compared to the number of articles (millions) the number of citation styles is quite small (less than ten?) so templates will seldom need to be upgraded to support new styles. The benefit of that investment in this scenario is only realized if there is a second style change where the entire page can be flipped with a mode setting.
Maybe that happens with mature articles scoring high assessment grades, but I work on a lot of articles with detected typos, and I often see a mix of clashing citation styles on the same page. For those, most of the citations are going to have to be reformatted regardless of the chosen destination style. My thought is, why not make that destination style a template, so that we never have to do another mass-reformat no matter what changes about the preferred citation style? Also, a common way to fix poorly formatted citations is to use a script like reFill, which outputs templates. If we chose a non-template style, we'd have to do a lot of work to make up for the lack of automation, and then even more work after that to make up for the lack of automation finding archival URLs. -- Beland (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
There are literally thousands of citation styles that exist. I grant you that most are part of a long tail, but that's still a heck of a lot of template changes. Archival URLs are already automatically added on articles without templates, so that's not a benefit of mandating templates.
If you're encountering an article with clashing citation styles, you're already allowed to make that consistent, using templates if that's what you prefer to do. Your proposal doesn't change anything about that use-case; it instead targets articles that already have a consistent style that just happens to not be template-based.Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
It does prevent people from changing inconsistent articles to manually formatted citations, which is work that would have to be undone later if in the long term we are moving in the direction of using templates universally. And if that's the direction we're going, we might as well start on the manually formatted articles, too.
I can't imagine people creating thousands of style templates for tiny variations; it would be a lot less work just to use templates for a popular style very close to one's preferred style. That also seems like a crummy experience for readers, looking at a thousand different styles and either having to learn to interpret a bunch of different conventions (extra difficult for those who are not native English speakers) or just being annoyed at what looks like sloppiness.
I don't know of any bots that can operate on manual citations to validate date formats, find dangling references, create markup for COinS, fill in missing authors, or connect citations to databases like DOI. -- Beland (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
But we shouldn't be preventing people from improving citations, even if we might sometime eventually want to change how they've done that.
I agree with you re: I can't imagine people creating thousands of style templates for tiny variations - that's why I don't think your proposal about template upgrades and mode settings is at all workable. What is more likely to happen is (a) users try to shoehorn their preferred formatting into citation templates and get into edit-wars with well-intentioned bots or gnomes (as already happens!), or (b) users manually format citations to get their preferred formatting, and then get into edit-wars as a result of your proposal. As to crummy experience for readers, I don't see any evidence that CS1 is a better experience for readers than APA, MLA, or any other format you could name - the page jacobulus linked has already suggested some ways in which a non-CS1 format might easier to interpret.
Bots aren't the panacea you suggest - see Jc's comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
If an article has two citations, and one of them is manually formatted and the other uses a citation template (assuming reasonably equivalent contents: they both have the source's title, a URL, etc.), is removing the citation template actually a case of "improving citations"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
All else being equal, as much as adding one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Maybe not?
Because I think that eventually – maybe after I die, but some day in the future – citation templates will grow from "merely" 80% of articles having some to basically all articles using them for everything, and that means that the process will be:
Start with a 50–50 mix.
Switch to templates.
Done.
vs
Start with a 50–50 mix.
Switch to manual formatting.
Eventually switch back to templates.
Finally done.
And therefore I think that putting a finger very lightly on the scale in favor of citation templates will save time, net, in the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
All else is not equal; templated citations are more useful for browser plugins, data aggregation, and more easily changed en masse. Which is why this proposal would define one direction as an improvement.
I think it would be reasonable to call a truce among say, the top 5 or so most popular citation styles and support those with templates, for compatibility with various academic fields and major published style guides and what people learned to use at school. It's reasonable to ask people to pick one of those and not to force our readers to learn citation style #534 which they came up with one day while filling a complaint with the local dog catcher. There are hundreds of style rules; generally the way they reduce edit wars is by providing unambiguous answers to arbitrary questions. -- Beland (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
That sounds very complicated and controversial, likely to waste vast amounts of effort and attention on style nitpicks. This discussion itself is already doing significant harm, insofar as the participants might otherwise be making productive content contributions. –jacobolus(t) 05:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I accept your opinion that content is more important than style. As a community of editors, though, it seems we have decided that style is important enough to worry about that we do have a Manual of Style instead of willy-nilly formatting, and we have decided that it should be consensus-driven rather than saving a lot of time by handing it over to a benevolent dictator or style committee. I can't think of a way to reconcile those choices with the idea that we can't have this type of discussion because it burns time we should be spending on content. It's a valid concern, though I'm not sure we're spending "significant" resources on it given how many thousands of edits are being committed while we're having this discussion. Also keep in mind that not everyone who enjoys wikignoming also enjoys working on content. Part of the reason I do a lot of wikignoming fixing spelling and style errors is so that other editors can focus more on their area of expertise and interest and don't need to be distracted fixing small things that I could fix more quickly en masse. And some days I'm too tired or stressed to wrangle a lot of prose and I just need to relax by fixing a bunch of malformed punctuation or unconverted units of measure. -- Beland (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per David Eppstein and AirshipJungleman29. We want people to leave citations that support the information they add. That is far more important than putting people off by insisting on using a cumbersome or alien format that they do not understand. And what to do with people who can’t work in templates? Are we going to punish them for adding what may be good content with a good source if they do it the old fashioned way? It’s unworkable and unnecessary. - SchroCat (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree with your concerns. The language is meant to explicitly to welcome non-template contributions and advise against "punishing" contributors who do that. Specifically: "Contributions of manually-formatted citations from editors unfamiliar with or who simply do not care to use templates are welcome, and may be reformatted into templates by other editors without notification beyond a polite edit summary." and "contributions with manually-formatted citations are welcome". Is there some other language that would make that more clear? -- Beland (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I get that you want this to happen, but there’s no need to bludgeon every comment that is made. - SchroCat (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm trying not to bludgeon (and was actually hoping to just ignore this RFC for a few days); I'm answering the questions you asked. It was honestly unclear to me if you had read the proposed text which is supposed to solve exactly the problem you raised and upon thinking it through still came to the same conclusion, or if you were mostly just reacting to the title of the RFC? Maybe I'm missing something; do you think editors will feel that manually formatted contributions will be unwelcome when they read that templates are preferred, even though it also explicitly says those contributions are welcome? Do you think editors won't follow the guideline telling them not to complain about those contributions? Do you think just arriving at a page and seeing all the citations already using templates will put off potential contributors?
I'm fine with this not happening - though I think it would be tidier and easier to maintain, I realize a lot of people have a lot of strong opinions about formatting. Hanyangprofessor2's questioning of the current guideline generated several comments favoring either encouraging templates or going even further and having a single citation style for all of Wikipedia. Seemed to me like it was time to check in and see if consensus on this has changed, but if it hasn't, there's plenty of work to be done cleaning up citations under the existing style rules. -- Beland (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
You really are bludgeoning this, despite saying you're not. Your name is already appearing far too frequently contradicting those !voting against this So far, I think nine people have commented in this thread and you've made nine comments throughout the thread, all to those who oppose it. Please just let please comment without interference. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
This is supposed to be not merely a tallying up of opinions, but a discussion with the possibility of improvement and compromise. But if you are uninterested in exploring mitigation of whatever problem you are foreseeing and just want let your opinion stand, that's fine; I will sit in confusion given that we seem to be in agreement and disagreement simultaneously. -- Beland (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I am NOT tallying up opinions - that's a complete mischaracterisation of what I have written, which is clear to anyone reading it. I was pointing out that nine people have made comments in this thread (that's tallying contributors, not opinions) and you have now made ten comments. To quote from the guideline: "If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process". - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, @David Eppstein, @Jacobolus, @Nikkimaria, @SchroCat: I wonder what you would think about a short, simple factual statement, like "While citation templates are the most popular choice, using them is not actually required". (If anyone's curious, we ran the numbers: about 80% of articles contain at least one CS1|2 citation template.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the proposal is not just a solution in search of a problem, but a positive backwards stop that will inhibit editors, particularly the less experienced from adding citations. I am a huge fan and use them in 95 per cent of the material I add, but we should not be creating artificial hurdles that stop people from adding sources. That's only going to damage us. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Based on the discussion above, I don't think that the OP has any interest in "creating artificial hurdles that stop people from adding sources". I think the goal is more like "if you put [https://www.example.com/source.html|Title of source] in ref tags, then let's have an official rule saying I can quietly turn that into {{cite web}} for you".
Because, in practice, that's what happens. The manually formatted citations are almost never beautifully formatted examples of any style guide, they almost never form a "consistent" citation style, and they regularly do get converted to citation templates. We just sort of pretend in WP:CITEVAR that everything's equal, when it's really not equal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately (as I think you've found elsewhere!) once the language is added it really doesn't matter what the OP's intentions were. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
True, and I'm not wild about the proposed language. (For one thing, there's a lot of it.) But given the apparent intention, I think it might be possible to find language that meets the goal without making people think that it's a bot free-for-all. (Yes, that's an odd conclusion for text that doesn't mention bots at all, but I've had discussions in which I've told editors that if we moved one section of text out of a {{policy}} to another page, with no changes to the text and with its own copy of the {{policy}} tag on the new policy page, it would still be a policy, and they still thought it would result in the new policy page not being a policy. That's a plural they, by the way: two editors had difficulty with the concept. Wikipedia is one of the few sites on the internet that really does (and values) close reading, but we don't always pay attention.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose after reading through above. I'm a big fan of the templates, they help me input without much thought, and they help me understand what each piece of information is in others' sources. However, at its core, "This page in a nutshell: Cite reliable sources." It's gratifying when an IP editor adds a bare url, and if they want to manually add more information in plain text, this page should takes pains not to discourage this. Past a certain point of relevant information being included, the marginal benefit of encouraging gnoming to change manual sources into template sources seems limited. CMD (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Tentatively Support. As far as I can tell, this is how we operate by default in WP:MED, and I feel that the consistency of citation formatting is a big part of why medical articles tend to be easy to verify and to conduct further reading on. It also is pretty much immediately apparent when there's an "ugly duck" citation that is almost certainly subpar. I understand that not all of Wikipedia can or should be held to the standards of medicine, but at the same time, I think our pages are broadly a good demonstration of why this proposal has merit. That being said, I would like to hear what @Boghog has to say about this, and may well change my mind depending on what the medical citation master says. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. We need to be rigid about verifiability but not about how to write references. See the top of my user page which starts with a large quote symbol and Don't worry about formatting references; just get all the information in there. Effective editors work in different ways and it is a mistake to try to dictate what they should do when it does not affect the reading of articles. I happen to love reference templates, but the hard task is to teach new editors why references are important and how to find the right kind of sources. Lets focus on that. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Nikkimaria, CMD, and StarryGrandma. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose implementation by bots, weak oppose in general. Previous discussion is full of complaints about what a bad job bots do of creating templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose, per most of the comments above, particularly StarryGrandma. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Mixed
Support Encouraging use of templates and adding missing facilities. Use of templates makes changes in style easier.
I don't see any wording encouraging people to use bots. Are you referring to "They keep citations formatted in a consistent way and are more machine-readable for a variety of purposes."? Would you like to have that sentence dropped? -- Beland (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
It isn't sufficient to not mention bots. The proposal should include language that strongly discourages bots. I'll add more on machine readability below. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Isn't the bot approval process the right place to make that sort of decision? Normally that's done on a per-bot basis rather than a blanket rule, to take into account different pros and cons. -- Beland (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
The bot approval group is very pro-bot, and will be thrilled to approve citation-related bots with an error rate that many of us think is far too high. When is the last time a bot author was told "fix every mistake your bot made and do nothing else on Wikipedia until you're finished, on pain of a community band"? The prohibition must be in the guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Are you talking about unsupervised bots or those with many human operators who are supposed to verify the output? I used to operate an unsupervised bot and administrators did not hesitate to block the bot if it made mistakes which I then had to clean up or explain as not mistakes. -- Beland (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
From what I've seen, users who invoke supposedly supervised bots don't do an effective job of making sure the output is correct. A bot that tries to automatically change an article from free-form citations to citation templates would produce a mass of changes all mixed together, and the human thinking process just isn't good at checking that kind of change. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Nothing in this proposal suggests writing a bot to change citations from manually-formatted to template. The whole idea is that bots have an easier time after the conversion, because the humans have done the hard part of segmenting strings into appropriate semantic fields. -- Beland (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
The current rule of not allowing changes from consistent non-templated to templates serves as a restriction against doing this with bots. So it does encourage the use of bots, even though it doesn't mention bots. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I suppose that's true, but only on the ~20% of pages (plus or minus those that use only one or two templates that violate an otherwise consistent style) that don't already use at least some templates. On most pages, bots could theoretically change citations from hand-formatted to template-formatted in order to achieve consistency or get rid of a style that violates the other rules of the MOS (like using all caps). Assuming that bot could get bot approval and be smart enough to actually do that. So it seems like that should already be a huge problem if it was something actually likely to happen. -- Beland (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Support, the technical benefits are overwhelming. But oppose bots; understanding is still needed to avoid errors. Ifly6 (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - a one-size-fits-all diktat is not helpful. As long as citations are clearly and accurately presented to our readers it does not matter a rap whether templates are or are not used. Tim riley talk 17:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - what matters is that sufficient information is given to allow readers and editors to know what the source is and to find the information. Enforcing citation templates (which this proposal will effectively mean even if it isn't wording that strongly or meant by the proposers) won't help this and will inevitably break some references as data is unthinkingly rammed into fields just to get it into the template - whether correct or not. In addition forcing some "One True Wikipedia Reference Style" will drive some editors away, because it isn't the style that the editors are used to / is standard in that field, and this is just the sort of annoying little thing that gets some people angry enough to quit.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
support - "use whatever is easiest for you, and let someone else worry about reformatting it to get the many benefits of structured syntax" doesshould not be controversial (which isn't to say I'm surprised it is - I've opposed a lot of style standardization proposals in the past myself). I'm just having trouble finding a persuasive objection in the opposes as to why we should not have better archive links, why we should get in the way of the many tools that improve accessibility and verifiability, why we should make it harder for users of visual editor to work on citations, etc. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
"They keep citations formatted in a consistent way and are more machine-readable for a variety of purposes." I've seen too much sentiment that being machine-readable and bot-friendly comes first, and the ability of the editor to write a cite for any source the editor has access to comes second. The book in the editor's hand doesn't have an ISBN? Let bots add an ISBN for a similar book. Source has a publication date that's not supported by templates, such as Michaelmas term, 2001? Issue an error message. The guideline should very strongly discourage changing a manual citation into a template if there isn't a citation template that fully supports the source, and if the editor who wants to make the change can't prove the correctness of the revised citation because the templatephile doesn't have the source in hand. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC) (fixed in light of comments)
One boldtext vote per person please. FWIW I agree any act of implementing a template must retain all of the information in the citation. I cannot imagine that would be controversial, though. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 00:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Regardless of templates we cannot violate the MOS. Any instance in violation of MOS:DATE needs to be changed whether we use a template for it or not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Rhododendrites, Chatul, Ifly6. The proposal doesn't call for the abolition of handcrafted citations or the use of bots to convert those. Some free-form citations are not well-"crafted" and need improving. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support. I am surprised people have so many issues with the bots, I have never seen them change anything besides doi/hdl and curly quotes and archive urls. But even then, if the bots are the problem that isn't the fault of the template that's the fault of the bots. Reverting people for having a wrong format in their content additions is already prohibited in the policy, so that wouldn't change. The templates have a lot of benefit and inconsistency is a negative. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
They do sometimes make a mistake. One example of such a mistake is this edit. The bot added a URL pointing at a book review (whose title is exactly the same as the book) instead of the book itself. That bot can be triggered by any editor, who is supposed to then check the output (the instructions for that bot say "Editors who activate this bot should carefully check the results to make sure that they are as expected"), but not everyone does, and even if they do, we can't guarantee that they'd notice a problem like this every single time. (The editor who failed to catch it has been blocked.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Has a similar kind of thing happened with the CS1 templates, not {{Citation}}? I see why the universal one would have that problem because it thinks all documents are the same thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Humans make careless mistakes no matter whether they are editing on full manual or semi automated. Given how many IP edits are vandalism, uncited rumors, heavily biased, ungrammatical, and so on, I would expect editors using semi-automated tools are reverted at a much lower rate than rando humans. -- Beland (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Parakanyaa, you can test it in a sandbox. Just copy that {{citation}} to a template, switch it to {{cite book}}, and trigger the bot for the sandbox page. If the bot makes the same mistake, you'll know that the problem isn't unique to the CS2 template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Citation bot mixes up the cs1 templates all the time, converting one to the other, often getting it wrong, and even when it gets it right doing a partial conversion that makes the converted template erroneous. And in many cases, the human editors before the bot also choose the wrong cs1 template Having multiple citation types is just one more thing for humans and the bot to get wrong; I don't think it provides much useful bot guidance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Humans also mess up citations all the time when they type things in, leaving off critical information, misspelling names, mangling the formatting, and leaving a lot of dangling references as pages get edited.
Whether semi-automation makes humans more or less accurate and whether any mistakes are worth the massive productivity gains seem like questions for the bot approval process. The answer depends a lot on the bot. If you think Citation bot, for example, is doing more harm than good, then request to have its bot approval partially or completely revoked. Someone could easily write a more conservative bot that makes fewer mistakes for humans to stumble over, but which leaves more work undone. I don't hear anyone complaining that InternetArchiveBot, for example, makes mistakes. I wouldn't want to throw the IABot baby out with the Citation bot bathwater with an indiscriminate rejection of automation.
I also can't imagine bots operating on manually formatted text are going to make fewer mistakes than bots operating on machine-readable templates. If we mandate supporting non-template citations forever, sooner or later every bot task that currently only looks at template citations is going to be attempted for non-template citations. -- Beland (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Beland's proposer rationale, Just-a-can-of-beans, Ifly6, PARAKANYAA and others. Changing manually written citations to some template format is an improvement and should not be discouraged. Gawaon (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as written. Don't mess with people's citation styles. There are not many articles where this proposal would have a large effect (only those with consistent non-templated citations) but on those articles we should respect the WP:CITEVAR choices of the authors. —Kusma (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Citations should be clear and complete. The template formats are often rigid and unhelpful. MOS:CITEVAR gets it right: If an article uses a clear and consistent format, it is a gigantic waste of time for people to come by and change it to their preferred template and start an argument about whether they even did that correctly. And, as others have noted, templates may discourage some users from contributing at all if they feel that they will have trouble using them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The citation templates are too fiddly and fussy and focussed on formatting. What matters most for the reader is not the format but the legitimacy of the citation. A relevant quotation from the source and a URL to link to it are the best value for verification but the citation templates tend to obscure this with bibliographic clutter. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I suggest the opposite is true. The formatting of a properly constructed manual citation requires special knowledge; filling in parameters of a template doesn't and results in proper and consistent formatting. Many sources don't have URLs and require other identification means – that's not "bibliographic clutter". Even for online sources, a mere URL is clearly not enough, and quotations are rarely required. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
The purpose of a citation is purely functional – to verify a stated fact. My impression is that editors such as Michael regard formatting of citations as an end in itself – an elegant craft like calligraphy or concrete poetry. But form should follow function and the current templates don't assist the function. A functional template would contain semantic features such as AI verification and a specification of the claim being made. Anyway, it seems apparent that we disagree and so consensus is lacking. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Current templates do perform some validation which manual formatting does not, for example with date formats or if some parts of the author seem to be missing or incorrect, or if a web page is being cited but no URL is given. They highlight these errors in categories other editors can find, to help minimize the number of readers who try to use a broken citation. If we had AI capable of reading a web page and determining whether or not the content there supports the cited sentence, we probably wouldn't need templates because we could just have AI fix all the formatting errors and inconsistencies that humans leave. -- Beland (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
My impression is that current AI technology is just about capable of confirming that a citation supports what an article says. And it might go further to assess whether other, uncited sources are in general agreement with the cited source. Automating the fact-checking of our articles would be better than providing selected citations and expecting each reader to repeat the fact-checking themself. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm an AI engineer; that's nowhere near true. -- Beland (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
My impression is based on use of Gemini Deep Research which does a web search and then analyses the results. That seems somewhat different from a LLM and more relevant to validation of citations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
From what I can tell, Gemini Deep Research is simply a framework that organizes repeated LLM runs against a larger set of web pages than vanilla Gemini. -- Beland (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
You could try testing 100 or so statements for yourself, but I expect high false positive and false negative results would make such a system not useful for a variety of reasons. 1.) LLMs aren't reliable even for comparing literal statements. That's compounded when the article is summarizing at a higher level than the sources, using very different words. 2.) If multiple sources are cited for the same sentence, it's difficult to know which parts of the sentence are supported by each source, and if all parts of the sentence are supported by at least one. 3.) Segmentation in general is difficult. Is a citation at the end of a paragraph for the whole paragraph or just for one sentence? If there is a citation in the middle of the sentence and one at the end, which words are covered by the first cite? We don't need AI to point out unreferenced paragraphs or sentences, and we already have a backlog of hundreds of thousands of manual tags for that. 4.) I don't know of any way to ensure that the AI hasn't been trained on Wikipedia content or web pages that reuse Wikipedia content; it could easily report all facts in Wikipedia are true simply because they appear in Wikipedia.
There's also the practical considerations of cost and execution time. It currently takes over a day just to run a spell check of Wikipedia with a donated server. I haven't yet solved the engineering problem of running a full grammar check in less than a year of calculation time. It might be feasible to run an AI fact checker on a single page, but even that would require a large number of queries and someone would need to pay for a subscription beefy enough to handle that. We would need infrastructure to track which articles and statements had been checked, and I haven't even gotten that built for spell check yet. -- Beland (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I just asked Gemini Deep Research "Please fact-check the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wendt" as this is an article that I worked on today. Its action plan was quite sensible
Identify the main factual assertions within the article, including but not limited to: (a) Biographical information (e.g., birth date, place of birth, education). (b) Key career achievements and timelines (e.g., notable roles, particularly in "Cheers", filmography, theatre work). (c) Awards, nominations, and recognitions. (d) Significant personal life details mentioned (e.g., family, marriage).
For each significant factual assertion identified, conduct targeted web searches using multiple reputable and independent sources (e.g., established news organizations, biographical databases, academic publications, official entertainment industry resources) to find corroborating or contradictory information.
Compare the information found from external sources with the claims made in the Wikipedia article, noting any discrepancies, inconsistencies, or unsupported statements.
Investigate any conflicting information by consulting additional reliable sources to ascertain the most accurate and widely accepted facts.
Evaluate the neutrality of the Wikipedia article's content, looking for any potential bias, unsourced opinions presented as facts, or overly promotional/critical language.
Examine the references and citations provided in the Wikipedia article. Assess their quality, reliability, and whether they directly support the specific claims they are attributed to.
Synthesize the findings to provide an overall assessment of the Wikipedia article's factual accuracy, highlighting specific claims that are well-supported, those that are inaccurate or misleading, and areas that lack sufficient credible sourcing.
Analyze Results
Create Report
Ready in a few mins
The results took about 5 mins and were quite voluminous -- pages of output. The details and analysis seemed consistently rational and to the point. I was especially interested in its comments on a passage that I had added myself. "Wendt, playing the character Norm, made a prominent entrance to the Cheers bar in every episode. He would be greeted by a cheer of "Norm!" and make a wisecrack as he walked to his barstool. This regular bit of business was a highlight of the show. Disparaging references to the character's wife, Vera, and the wretched state of his life were other running gags." I'd written this as a paragraph with a citation at the end. Another editor had subsequently merged this paragraph with others to make a wall of text. And another editor had cited a YouTube video in the middle of my paragraph which caused confusion.
The issue in this case is that Wikipedia citations don't clearly specify what they are citing. The reader has to make assumptions from the proximity of the citation and the surrounding text and it's easy for this to become unhinged as the text and citations are moved around. A citation should capture the text that is being cited when it is added so that any subsequent drift can be understood.
The overall level and quality of the AI analysis was debatable but seemed comparable with what one would get from an average Wikipedia editor. The advantage of the AI is that it can do it all mechanically and doesn't tire. There is clearly big potential here for such a tool to make systematic checks and highlight issues for investigation. This would be comparable with WP:EARWIG which is routinely used to check for copyvio.
Without access to the results of this automated evaluation, I can't say whether it was accurate or inaccurate. For example, you didn't quote what it said about the paragraph on Norm's entrances.
It seems like many pages of textual output is not helpful in automating fact-checking, especially if it contains mistakes that can only be detected by human fact-checking. What would be helpful is having the system flag which sentences are and are not verified by the given sources. Having it go off and consult web pages which are not cited and thus have no bearing on the question being asked seems like a lot of wasted work, which may cause the human interpreting the results to have to do more work to sift through that. -- Beland (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
The details are not important as it was a proof of concept. Running this tool is not as difficult or expensive as you seem to suppose so I encourage you to try it yourself.
The point is that the current system of citations is quite weak as a form of verification. Whether they use templates or not, the burden is currently on each reader to read and make sense of the cited works. A system of verification and fact-checking which was performed for the reader -- either on-demand or as an offline process would be better.
I would argue the details are what make such a system feasible vs. infeasible. You only ran the AI on one article, but there are almost seven million articles, and it would by no means be feasible to do that if the goal is for editors to know what changes articles need to become 100% accurate.
If the goal is for readers to fact-check a single Wikipedia article they are interested in, that's a different problem of a different scale. Readers cannot trust the output of an AI like the one you ran to be accurate or to detect errors in Wikipedia articles, especially since the AI may have been trained on bogus websites or erroneous Wikipedia articles. They would have to fact-check that output by checking its sources. For establishing truth there is no way around applying the traditional techniques of critical thinking, tracing citations, and evaluating the reliability of sources.
Readers who want to do this anyway can already do it just like you did, and I don't see how their ability to do that has anything to do with whether or not our citations use templates. -- Beland (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Support. Metadata is useful; that's pretty much all there is to it. One day we should just use AIs to convert all citations we have into one uniform style, and do it dynamically. --Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 05:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
If we have metadata, we should not use it to convert all citations into a uniform style, we should use it like a BibTeX database and allow displaying of the citations in any suitable style. There are massive differences in citation styles and practices between different academic disciplines and one size does not fit all there. —Kusma (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Wikipedia needs to remain accessible. The majority of contributors don't use citations at all. The most important thing for increasing Wikipedia's reliability is to go from no-citations to relevant citations-of-any-format, not to format citations we already have perfectly. Doing this requires the barrier of adding a citation to be as low as possible - someone dropping off plaintext, simple citations needs to be encouraged. I use the citation templates myself usually, but the plain text ones are still fine and not a problem - the value add of microformats is way too small to outweigh scaring off contributors who want to use plain text and would find having their citations forcibly turned into the templates off-putting. (For the scenario where an editor would explicitly like some passing help in formatting their citations with the templates but isn't sure how, no problem with having some noticeboard to drop such requests off, as long as there is some "I am a major contributor" checkbox to avoid passing editors from dropping every single article with plaintext refs in there.) SnowFire (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Why not provide tools that make it easier to add citations in a standard format than to manually type in wikitext? There would be no need to say that they have to use the tools, just say that they might save the editor some time. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
These tools already exist. Have you ever been to an edit-a-thon aimed at new editors? One of the words of wisdom is to run away from these citation tools as fast as you can and say "yeah if you become an expert you can come back and worry about this later." About the best case scenarios are tools which are "drop a raw URL in, get a formatted citation" but anything more complex than that is asking for trouble. If we make it a "mistake" to stop at a plaintext citation, some people will react by not adding citations, which is far worse a loss than the exceptionally minor gain of the auto-formatting. SnowFire (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as per various points mention above. In addition (citation) templates imho are often a pain for editors working across several language wikipedias, as each wikipedia tends to have its own non-standardized template zoo.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Support. I've been using computers to edit and format text longer than most folks here. The idea that people want to hand-format references just blows my mind. Bibliographic citations are structured data and should be managed in ways which preserve that structure for all the reasons described above. On wiki, that means {{cite}} templates. And yes, I'm one of those "inexperienced" users who prefers the Visual Editor. The citation tools built into VE are infuriatingly clumsy, but still better than hand-formatting citations. RoySmith(talk) 13:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
The idea that people want to hand-format references just blows my mind. The idea that people want to hand-format anything just blows my mind. I refer to the usual GUI software as What You See Is All You Get[a] (WYSIAYG) and strongly prefer markup languages such as SCRIPT and LaTeX that allow automating complicated layouts. Will a GUI makes simple tasks easier, unless it provides a mechanism to expose and edit markup, it makes more complicated tasks inordinately more complicated. I believe that the best short term strategy is for VE to create the initial template but make it easy to edit the underlying wikitext. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
There's two distinct things being conflated here: GUI (i.e. Visual Editor) vs source editing, and using citation templates vs hand-formatting citations. Those are orthogonal issues. Anyway, I'll see your LaTeX and raise you "bib | tbl | eqn | troff" :-) RoySmith(talk) 19:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Some editors prefer source editing and others prefer VisualEditor. Either type of editor might be the first to make a citation, so the other system always needs to be able to cope with the result, whether or not templates are used. -- Beland (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as one of the most zealous CS lovers on Earth. Of all the times I've migrated a mixed-CITEVAR article or mostly debilitated manual CITEVAR article to templates, I've never had real pushback, because no one actually cares in articles they didn't personally contribute to and moreover polish considerably. That makes it obvious to me there's no reason to enshrine a thumb on the scale within site policy. If I ever for whatever reason preferred manual citations for an article, this is a potential headache it is simply needless to conjure. Remsense ‥ 论 16:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the desire for a rule is because some editors agree with you that badly formatted refs should usually be migrated to citation templates, but feel less bold than you. They're looking for written permission, in a model that Everything that is not permitted is forbidden. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per @WhatamIdoing, @Just-a-can-of-beans, @Chatul, @Ifly6 and @Michael Bednarek. I feel like a lot of opposers are conflating "use of citation templates" with "imposing one particular citation style", when this doesn't have to be the case. Just because there aren't currently (to my limited knowledge, at least) widely-used non-CS1 citation templates, doesn't mean that non-CS1 templates could never exist.[b]Aside from the issue of citation styles, I would be hesitant to risk patronising new editors by suggesting citation templates are too difficult for them to grasp. The most commonly-used citation templates (cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal) are already available by default in the editing toolbar via a form interface with prompts for clearly-labelled parameters that, in my opinion, can be easily understood, even by brand new editors.It's also worth noting that, per WP:CIRNOT, it's okay for new editors to make good-faith, constructive edits that don't 100% conform to the MOS; Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter. So, if the MOS was updated to prefer templates (which is what this RfC is suggesting, not that we mandate templates and "punish" users for citing manually), that would just give future editors the ability to standardise these citations using templates while retaining the information added manually by the original editor. If anything, such a guideline might reduce edit warring, because it would reduce ambiguity, especially for articles where no citation style has previously been established.Apologies, this turned into a bit of an essay. If I've got anything blatantly wrong, I'm very open to corrections! Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage: Well, since you offered... you phrased the matter as "patronising new editors by suggesting citation templates are too difficult." Now, there will always be dedicated people who love to grapple with this, but I'm sorry, this is just a factual issue. Please read https://xkcd.com/2501/ . I write this as someone who's been to edit-a-thons attended by smart, dedicated, interested people with college degrees and the like, and I can assure you that yes, messing with writing out citations is just factually difficult for many people. A problem with UI design is that it doesn't matter how much your 20% of power users reassure you that everything is fine, the 80% of quiet occasional users are hard to poll and much worse at handling your app / website / etc. than you think. Citation templates are not trivial. It would be an acceptable price to pay if the matter was very very important, but is it here? I really don't think so. SnowFire (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Auto-citing a source using VisualEditor, small
Yes, but it's not hard to use a citation filler, and that's what most new editors do. Most edit-a-thons start by telling people to use the visual editor (older version of which is what's blinking at you here), but there's a citation filler in the 2010 wikitext editor, too. Even a newbie can paste a URL into a dialog box.
And the question here isn't "Shall we tell people on their first edit that they should do this thing?" but much closer to "Do I really need to have a full-blown CITEVAR discussion on the talk page before I quietly re-format the citations?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: Did you read https://xkcd.com/2501/ ? Please do so. Wishes are not reality. Yes, it is hard, no matter how much we can tell ourselves it's easy. We are geochemists talking among each other about how it's actually easy to understand the nature of ionic bonds involving Calcium all day, and among the people already in the group, yes, it very well may be easy. But that doesn't mean it's true of the least-skilled-with-templates/wikitext 20% of Wikipedia editors (who are still a very useful and positive resource to have!), and certainly not true of the misty potential Wikipedia contributor who isn't great at the tech side but might be convinced to join up, if it doesn't seem like there's an insurmountable barrier of policies telling them that they're in error for everything they add. SnowFire (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Imagine a world in which nobody says anything as incomprehensible as "Please use this thing we've called a citation template". Imagine instead that there's a "Cite" button in the toolbar, and when you click it, it has a little box for you to paste your URL in. And then it magically turns your URL into something that looks very nice, and all you have to to is click the blue button to insert it. You never see the "template" and don't have to even know what it is.
@SnowFire I totally understand where you're coming from, and I think the xkcd comic is good and probably does apply to some more obscure/backend WP mechanisms, but I really don't think it applies here. I write this as someone who was a brand new editor less than three years ago, and my eleventh ever contribution was creating a page with 8 template-formatted citations. What spurred me to start editing was (if I remember rightly) seeing a typo on a page and thinking "Hmm, I wonder whether I could correct that...", so I clicked Learn to edit in the left-hand menu and went through the introduction. Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/2 says To add a new reference, just copy and modify an existing one. and that was exactly how I started adding references to my sandbox draft. If anything, the fact that citation templates are so readily available made it far easier for me to start referencing, because I could just copy and paste {{Cite web |date=1 January 2001 |last=Smith |first=Jane |url=https://www.example.com/example_page |title=Example page |website=Example}} and replace the values with my own, without having to figure out how to format the citation myself: Smith, Jane (2001)."[https://www.example.com/example_page Example page]". ''Wikipedia''. 1 January. (Just typing that out was exhausting, let alone having to look up an entry in Harvard MOS etc.) I understand that there will always be new editors who don't want to spend any time reading through tutorials etc, and that's fine; this RfC is just proposing that, if they choose a manual citation format (for instance, one that doesn't comply with any formal citation style, which, in my experience, manual citations often don't) then other editors can come along and standardise them using templates later, without anyone jumping done their throat about WP:CITEVAR. Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Re "there aren't currently (to my limited knowledge, at least) widely-used non-CS1 citation templates", I much prefer the CS2 template {{citation}}. The CS1 templates of {{cite conference}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite podcast}}, etc. seem absurdly baroque and confusing. I use the {{citation}} template as a simpler and more universal option. I'm surprised that there hasn't been more pressure to standardise on this. There's a similar issue with infoboxes and there's a lot of pressure to merge and consolidate those. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
(de-indent, re WhatamIdoing) Correct, I don't like VE that much, other than messing with large tables. But yes, I have used it anyway when interacting with new editors. And yes, I've even shown off the "transform a URL into a citation" option before! But the very fact we're talking about the toolbar at all says a lot. Again, I'm not making this up, many new editors have trouble with the absolute basics of editing. Telling them "if you switch to VE and find the right button there's a tool that automatically generates well-formatted citations, which are useful because, er, microformats and machine readability" is a lot when someone is learning the basics. And again, there's a lot that newbies need to learn, but why insist on this one in particular? I don't know what to say other than that I'm talking about the 20% least skilled in wikitext contributors + the current non-editors but potential future contributors who are scared off by assuming that editing Wikipedia is very complex. I have multiple talented, smart, educated friends who just ask me to make simple text edits on their behalf, the kind that don't require knowledge of citations at all. Sure, maybe some would never edit WP and thus are irrelevant, but it is hard to overstate how imposing the very basics of editing are on Wikipedia. The people who have trouble with this are not going to find this discussion, but we should keep them in mind regardless and advocate on their behalf. SnowFire (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Why insist on this one? Because:
Nobody says the newbie has to do any of this. I know this has been repeated multiple times, but let's be clear: The goal is not to make the newbie figure out how to format any citations through any method at all. If the newbie can get a URL somewhere in the vicinity of the edit, even if it's just in an edit summary or a note on a talk page, the wikignomes will do their best to fix it. It happens that clicking a button in the toolbar (something most ordinary people don't find difficult?) will produce a satisfactory result in both the wikitext and visual editors, but in the visual editor, the newbie will have no idea that there's a template being used, and therefore cannot experience any of the disadvantages of citation templates. (For example, there's no "visual clutter" in the wikitext when you don't see the wikitext at all.)
The goal is for an experienced Wikipedia:WikiGnome to know whether, when faced with a mishmashed mess in an article, whether the community (a) would prefer the mess cleared up using citation templates or (b) would prefer the mess cleared up without using citation templates or (c) still feels that it's necessary to keep pretending that we're all 'neutral' about citation templates and that this stated neutrality will have any practical effect other than the wikignomes "randomly" choosing to use citation templates "on a case-by-case basis". Anyone who's been watching for the last dozen years knows that 'neutral' means citation templates in practice, but sometimes we have social/political reasons to say one thing while doing another.
Oppose I'm a zealous supporter of templated cites as they are much, much less susceptible to data rot than the text based alternative. I would support a preferred status for templates, a light finger on the scale for their use, but I don't support the current wording - it goes to far. Currently if you find an article you believe would be improved by citation templates you only have to get consensus on the talk page for doing so. These nothing in CITEVAR that says it can't be changed, only that there has to be consensus for it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 23:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I would be worried that certain WP:OWNers will fight to the ends of the earth on that. Ifly6 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
If one editor tries to own an article, it just takes two others to form a consensus for change. Styles are not set in stone, they are as open to changing consensus as much as any other article content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 13:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
A majority of 2 users against 1 is not "consensus". Requiring local consensus is a way to make global consensus impossible to implement. Nemo 12:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
My comment was about a single article, not a global consensus. Local consensus about article content is quite normal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 18:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe a consensus formed on a talk page, affecting a single article, as "local consensus". That's "ordinary consensus". WP:LOCALCON is about Alice and Bob deciding that all of "their" articles are exempt from relevant policies and guidelines. It's not about three editors making an ordinary decision on a talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per jacobolus among others. Not everything needs to be filed away into templates. Plain text can be easier to format. Cremastra (u — c) 18:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose, and I say this as a huge fan of citation templates who uses them almost exclusively. This seems like WP:CREEP to me and does not have any measurable benefit other than allowing scripts and bots to read metadata. It should be sufficient that citations are consistent within an article. Mandating that people use citation templates brings up various problems, not the least of which is that changing citation formats is a waste of editor time when citations are already consistent in that article. The main purpose of a citation is to verify text, not to be visually appealing. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Allowing scripts and bots to read metadata sounds like a good enough reason to me. RoySmith(talk) 14:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith, I agree, and if this were a smaller wiki that already used citation templates predominantly, I would support this without reservation. The problem is that mandating this on millions upon millions of articles seems to be very cumbersome, especially if existing hand-crafted citations seem to work fine. To be fair, I could still support this if the wording were toned down. However, as currently written, it effectively gives editors free rein to indiscriminately convert manual citations to cite templates—which could result either in a waste of editor time (due to the amount of time that is required to do this carefully) or sloppy automated conversion of citations (if they use a tool like VisualEditor or reFill). Epicgenius (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Support There’s a lot to read here (can’t claim to have read all of it), but I don’t see anything about the encyclopaedia reader. It is a lot easier to find where article content comes from with short references if templates are used (mouse over etc). Shouldn’t we be focusing on the reader experience? ThoughtIdRetiredTIR 19:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Notes
^In the sense that you can't tell what references and white space are fortuitous and what will persist across edits.
^I'm certain there would be template editors/coders out there who would be willing to put together Template:Cite APA, Template:Cite CMOS, or similar. (These could have, for instance, some kind of |medium= parameter to allow different citation formats for book, web, etc. Additionally, there could be mode parameters for expanding abbreviated formats like volume/issue/page, as discussed in User:Jorge Stolfi § Please do not use {{cite}} templates mentioned by @jacobolus above). This would allow different disciplines to retain their preferred citation style, while also allowing for easier standardisation, data tracking, and other benefits of templates. This could be accompanied by another set of templates, similar to Template:Use DMY dates/Template:Use MDY dates, which would indicate to editors the citation style to use in the given article (these could be Template:Use CS1, Template:Use APA style, etc). Eventually, like with the date format templates, citations could be inputted using any citation template, and then the parameters could be formatted automatically based on the "Use X style" template at the top of the page. But I think I'm getting ahead of myself.
As has been mentioned, DMY and MDY are currently on equal footing in Wikipedia, and under a technical reading of policy, it is true that the only primarily-English-speaking country the Pope has ties to is the US, even though he obviously has much stronger ties to the Vatican and arguably also Peru. I'm a supporter of using DMY for consistency with previous pope articles and general common sense, but it is true that there is a technical policy-based argument for MDY based on the current wording of policy.
If the wording of the policy is at odds with common sense, is it time to revisit the policy, and consider making DMY the primary system with MDY only used for articles where the subject is primarily linked to the US, to result in a similar policy to MOS:UNIT? It would avoid any issues like this happening in the future. Chessrat(talk, contributions) 16:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
No. WP:DATETIES is more comparable to WP:ENGVAR than to MOS:UNIT because just as it's easy for an American to read a work written in British English, and vice versa, it's easy for an American to read a date in DMY format, and vice versa. This differs from units, where encountering a statement that two towns are 25 miles apart causes a noticeable mental clash for those who don't speak English as their first language. Trying to solve a physics problem, expressed in US customary units, on a professional licensing exam sends engineers with a four-year degree running for cover. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I've seen it said a couple of times now on this RfC that DMY and MDY are "on an equal footing" on Wikipedia... This might be a silly question, but what do you actually mean by this? My understanding is that they would definitely be "on equal footing" for articles with ties to an English-speaking country or territory that uses both (ie. Kenya, Canada, Ghana, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cayman Islands and maybe Greenland, where English is a recognised language). Aside from these, is it true that for articles related to any non-English-speaking country, DMY and MDY are "on equal footing"?
I think it's definitely worth asking the question as to whether MOS:DATETIES should be reworked to address location-specific date formats for articles associated with non-English-speaking countries. The one possible difficulty that I can see with this is that several countries and territories use YMD in prose text (2025 May 11), not just in computing/shortened form (2025/05/11). (According to List of date formats by country#Usage map, these are China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, Hungary, Mongolia, Lithuania and Bhutan.) To my knowledge, there are no English-speaking countries that routinely use YMD in prose, so English-speaking readers on English Wikipedia might struggle with readability if YMD were introduced to the prose of articles related to countries where this was the norm. How would we deal with this? Supporters of MDY would probably object if DMY were imposed on articles associated with exclusively-YMD countries. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
'Is it true that for articles related to any non-English-speaking country, DMY and MDY are "on equal footing"?' Yes, that's precisely what DATETIES says, referring to MOS:DATERET for such cases. Gawaon (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, apologies, the wording of the question was a bit vague. I meant, are DMY and MDY on equal footing in that authors creating articles about a non-English speaking country can pick whichever they prefer, regardless of which format that country uses? I understand there are sometimes considerations about geographical proximity, but these seem to be inconsistently applied. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
In "Formats" section of WP:MOSNUM, all the formats listed in the table "Acceptable date formats" are equally acceptable in appropriate spots within the article, provided a consistent "family" is used, and unless there is an exception. A "family" that could be in one article might be "2 September 2001", "8 Oct", and "2020-11-30". Another acceptable family suitable for a different article would be "May 9, 1775", "Jul 20", and "1789-07-14". There is no exception for the article being closely related to a non-English speaking country. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree that There is no exception for the article being closely related to a non-English speaking country in the current MOS guideline regarding date ties. I think what @Chessrat was asking (and what I was addressing in my previous comment) was whether it's time to consider changing the MOS to include this type of "exception" for non-English-speaking regional ties. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Indeed- I think it's worth considering changing the MOS to make DMY the default format, with MDY relegated in status to being an acceptable alternative format to be used in articles primarily tied to the US. It would make more sense given DMY is by far the most common format globally. Chessrat(talk, contributions) 18:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
What is your justification for stopping at WP:DATETIES and not extending the idea to WP:ENGVAR – make British English the default absent a tie to a country that predominantly uses a different variety of English? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't know about @Chessrat, but my immediate answer to this would be because the majority of English speakers don't use British English. The same can't be said about DMY. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
The majority of English speakers also don't use American English. The English language is a lot more diverse than date formats! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Date format and ENGVAR are separate by design. You can have an article written in American English that uses the DMY date format. Horse.staple (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
If we're discussing changing/implementing a default date format, can I throw [ISO 8601] into the ring?/sHorse.staple (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
That would reduce the maintenance of the pope articles a great deal. We wouldn't be able to write any dates before October 15, 1582, so we would delete all the pope articles before Pope Gregory XIII. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
The post by Pineapple Storage fails to address topics that have nothing to do with any country. For example, if Pineapple Storage had been the editor to create "Pole of inaccessibility", I wonder what date format they would have chosen. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Personally, for articles without a specific regional tie, or that are globally applicable, I would be inclined to choose the most widely-used format (ie DMY). Regardless, it's my understanding that MOS:DATETIES definitely doesn't apply to articles that have no connection to any particular country or territory, so altering the wording/content of the MOS section on date ties wouldn't have any affect on topics that have nothing to do with any country. This is why I didn't address it in my comment above, which was specifically about the question of reworking Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Strong national ties to a topic. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me that DMY is the most widely used English format. Do you count countries? Or maybe add the total populations of countries that are predominantly English speaking? What about adding the total number of people who speak English as their first language? Maybe the total amount of daily text in the English language, grouped by which date format the work uses. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Again, a bit of imprecise wording from me—apologies! By "widely-used" I meant globally widely-used, not just in English-speaking countries (although I know MOS:DATETIES currently only considers English-speaking countries and territories); you had asked about which format I personally would choose for a global/broad article. I agree that determining "most used" format amongst all English speakers globally would be very difficult. It's a lot easier to identify which format is used by the most English-speaking countries and territories; cross-referencing the table at List of date formats by country#Usage map with the list of countries and territories where English is an official language, it's clear that a majority of English-speaking countries and territories use DMY. However, as we've said, introducing a weighted consideration for number of English speakers would be a lot more complicated. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
If you wish to change the MOS, the place to do it is WT:MOSNUM, FWIW. Kahastoktalk 19:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
For sure. This RfC has shown that enough people have strong feelings about MOS:DATETIES that it likely warrants an RfC of its own. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
MOS is not a policy, it is a guideline. As stated by WP:NUMBERS, ‘This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply.’ Edl-irishboy (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
So, the question comes back again. What is it about this article specifically - that does not apply in the general case - that would lead us to make an exception for it? That's the core question that DMY-preferrers need to answer and far too many have not even tried. We've got loads of people above making irrelevant arguments like easier to work with in citations and increasingly standard in Wikipedia, even in American English articles or The vast majority of the world uses DMY, and so does Italy and the Vatican. Even if both those arguments have some merit, they are rejected by the MOS in the general case, and the comments make no attempt to argue why this article should be different from the general case. Kahastoktalk 19:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
One other point that has been raised is consistency among papacy-related articles. What are your thoughts on this argument? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Given that the lead of Pope Benedict XVI has the word criticised but the lead of Pope Francis spells it criticized, I don't think it's a very good argument. These articles are already inconsistent, and insofar as this creates an inconsistency I think it's so minor as to not be worth worrying about. But it is at least an argument. Kahastoktalk 20:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Pope Benedict XVI's page uses Oxford spelling and Pope Francis' page uses American English, so it is correct regarding criticised and criticized, just like the current Pope Leo's page. The discussion is not about the type of English used. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Oxford spelling actually uses -ize. I've corrected the lead of Pope Benedict XVI accordingly. Graham (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Not for nothing, but date format is independent of WP:ENGVAR. It is possible to have an article written in American English that uses DMY. Horse.staple (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
If they can be inconsistent in terms of WP:ENGVAR, why can they not be inconsistent in terms of date format? Kahastoktalk 20:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Because date format is independent from ENGVAR by design. You ask why this American is so notable to merit an exception to DATETIES. I counter why is this Pope notable enough to break the consistency of every other papal article?
The writing style of the article was probably made for a mix of subject focus and editor consideration, but it is ultimately irrelevant because this is a discussion on date format, where it is notable that there is a consistency that readers may expect. Horse.staple (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Why think about this as an exception to a policy in the first place? Most of Wikipedia’s policies, WP:DATETIES included, are not meant to be carved in stone and taken as word of law. The question of whether Leo’s status as the Pope is a significant enough change to the date format.
DATETIES says: " Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country." If we Ignore the English-speaking part we can see that the Pope now has strong ties to both the Vatican and the United States, leaving the question of which tie is strongest. Horse.staple (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Why think of it as an exception? Because it is an exception. The rule explicitly does not allow the logic you are trying to argue. Yes, if the MOS didn't say "English-speaking country", it would be different - but that would also mean that articles with strong national ties to China would give today's date as 2025年5月11日. But that's a debate for WT:MOSNUM. Kahastoktalk 20:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
It's only an exception if we think of DATETIES as an absolutely binding rule. I maintain that we should ignore all rules to get beyond what the policy says and to the core of this dispute.
I reject your reasoning that ignoring the rule in this exceptional case (exceptional in the sense that there has never been a case like this before) will lead to some slippery slope that creates date chaos anywhere a national tie does not match the ENGVAR otherwise used on the article. Your conclusion just doesn’t follow. Horse.staple (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
One option would be 2025 May 11, but this isn't ideal in terms of readability for English-speaking readers unfamiliar with YMD in prose. See my comment re YMD-exclusive regional ties above. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
The question has already been answered: this article is different because the Pope’s role as a global religious leader makes it distinct from a typical American biography. While he was born in the US, his influence is international and the article focuses on his position as Pope, not his American birthplace. He has spent much of his life in DMY-using countries like Italy and Peru and the Vatican itself uses DMY. Given that the majority of the world uses DMY and this article is for a global audience, adopting DMY is the logical choice for clarity and clear consistency. Consistency with other papal biographies further supports this. All other articles about Popes use DMY and following this convention ensures uniformity and again clear consistency across Wikipedia. The Pope's role is global, not tied to the US, justifying the use of DMY. We also need to apply WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:BEBOLD in this situation. Wikipedia’s guidelines are not rigid but are meant to evolve based on context. The Five Pillars of Wikipedia emphasise that it is a living project and that exceptions can be made for clarity and improvement. In this case, the Pope’s global significance justifies an exception to the usual formatting. Insisting on MDY, despite the clear arguments for DMY, disregards the broader international context in which the Pope operates. WP:BEBOLD encourages us to make changes that improve the article’s clarity and accessibility. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
And the point that that misses is that May 11, 2025 is not so US-centric as to make it completely incompatible with articles not about the United States. That's why we allow it, equally with 11 May 2025. You've just made an argument that could apply to any article on Wikipedia without strong national ties to the United States, but the project-wide consensus as it stands is that that isn't good enough. Project-wide consensus is that DMY is not to be favoured (or disfavoured) for global or worldwide topics, or topics with strong national ties to non-English speaking countries. Rather, DMY and MDY are equal per WP:DATERET. If you want to change that, change the project-wide consensus at WT:MOSNUM.
It's argued that there has never been a case like this before. But the circumstances you're arguing apply to thousands if not millions of articles across Wikipedia, on this point of style and others. That's why we have a project-wide consensus expressed by the MOS. Now, if you want to ignore the MOS that's fine - if there is good reason in the specific circumstances we're dealing with here. But, if the only reason is Italy and the Vatican uses DMY, a claim that the MOS specifically and deliberately makes irrelevant, then that's not a good reason. Kahastoktalk 20:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
No one is arguing that MDY is prohibited on international topics. The argument is that DMY is more contextually appropriate in this specific case. The idea that “DMY and MDY are equal per WP:DATERET” is correct in the abstract but only applies when there is no compelling contextual reason to prefer one. In this case, there clearly is. WP:DATERET doesn't demand absolute parity regardless of context. It calls for stability unless there's good reason to change. Here, there is: the Vatican, again, the institutional and geographic context of the papacy, is a non-English-speaking European sovereign state. The Pope, regardless of nationality, assumes a role embedded in the liturgical, administrative and cultural framework of that institution. Vatican sources, documents and media use DMY in English translations. The entire apparatus of the papacy uses DMY, making it both natural and stylistically consistent to reflect that in the article. The claim that this reasoning could apply to “millions of articles” is a red herring. We’re not arguing a broad rule, we’re arguing a specific case. This is an edge case where an individual (American) holds a role (Pope) that is rooted in a very different cultural and institutional context (the Vatican, Italy, Catholicism). The final claim, that Vatican/Italy ties are irrelevant because the MOS "deliberately makes them irrelevant", is not accurate. MOSNUM simply says we don’t favour DMY just because a topic is global. That’s not what’s happening here. We’re favouring DMY because the entirety of the subject’s public life in this role is shaped by, expressed through, and documented using European formatting. That’s not favouritism, that’s editorial coherence. Edl-irishboy (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid you kinda are arguing that MDY is - or should be - prohibited on non-US topics. Certainly on non-English-speaking European topics. Because you keep on saying that DMY is more "contextually appropriate", but your reasoning could be equally valid on just about any other non-US topic.
You seem to be arguing that DMY is somehow deeply rooted in Catholicism, and this may be the problem, because I don't believe for one moment that it is. Perhaps it would help if could cite some Catholic religious doctrine or papal bull of some kind that demonstrated that DMY is the only valid way of describing dates according to Catholic theology? Kahastoktalk 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I’m not arguing that MDY is or should be prohibited on non-US or non-English-speaking European topics. I’ve consistently said that in this specific case, DMY is more contextually appropriate. That’s not a universal rule, and I’m not applying it universally. I’m applying editorial judgment to a unique situation. This isn’t just any other non-US topic. This is the papacy a long-standing, well-documented tradition of using DMY in all its official English-language output. I don’t need to cite a papal bull to prove that. I can point to literally any Vatican press release, liturgical calendar or document published by the Holy See. [20][21][22][23][24] The idea that I need theological justification to support a basic formatting decision is absurd and frankly unserious. I’m not arguing for a blanket rule. I’m arguing that in this edge case where an American now serves as Pope, the article should reflect the formatting style of the role he now holds, not the country he happened to be born in. That’s what I mean by “contextually appropriate.” It’s about accuracy, consistency across papal articles and reflecting the institutional norms of the subject’s office. That’s not nationalism and it’s not favouritism. It’s basic editorial coherence. Edl-irishboy (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
So that this section doesn't end with the above assertion of a flatly false statement (a long-standing, well-documented tradition of using DMY in all its official English-language output), here's the Vatican News Office:
Pope Francis died on Easter Monday, April 21, 2025[25]
The funeral Mass for Pope Francis will begin at 10:00 AM on Saturday, April 26[26]
Inauguration Mass of Pope Leo XIV to be held on May 18[27]
I have to dismiss your reply to my comment as "flatly false". If you read the whole RFC, I have touched on this multiple times. "The Vatican News uses both DMY and MDY. The official Holy See website uses DMY. Here’s my earlier comment regarding this: Just to correct that it is not just his biography that includes mdy dates. The Vatican News uses both dmy and mdy as shown here: [31], [32] uses mdy, while [33], [34] uses dmy."
It is important to note that all articles published in the Vatican News includes DMY dates at the end of the page, as shown here: 25 April 2025, 14:00
As you say, shall I go on? It is to my understanding that the Vatican News uses both DMY and MDY dates. However, as I have said already, the official Vatican Holy See website https://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html uses DMY dates. So to bring back my original comment, the Vatican does have a long-standing, well-documented tradition of using DMY in its official English-language output. Edl-irishboy (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
the Vatican does have a long-standing, well-documented tradition of using DMY in its official English-language output – So what? It also has a long-standing, well-documented tradition of using MDY in its official English-language output. It's all so strained. EEng 00:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
It’s not strained to apply editorial judgment based on current, institutional norms, it's responsible. Yes, there’s historical variation in the Vatican’s formatting and as said many times the Vatican News uses both MDY and DMY. But when faced with inconsistency, we should weigh sources. The official Holy See website representing the pope in its most formal, centralised capacity consistently uses DMY today. That’s a relevant and reasonable basis. What is strained frankly is brushing off clear patterns in favour of an argument that treats all inconsistency as license to default to birthplace formatting especially when that downplays the global role he now holds Edl-irishboy (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
The only problem with that fine piece of reasoning is that brushing off those arguments is exactly what MOS tells us to do, exactly in order short-circuit vanity-fueled wastes of time like this one.Your posts throughout this discussion have been like a catechism of arguments rejected over and over during the 25 years of MOS's development. The most recent is we should weigh sources. Absolutely not. It's a bedrock principle of MOS that sources are sources of facts, not style, except in narrowly carved-out areas (usually for technical reasons e.g. search MOSNUM for the string /kwh/). Why? So we don't have to engage in angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin debates over whether the Vatican News Office carries more or less weight than the Calendar of the Saints or something. EEng 14:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
The MOS doesn't exist to dismiss thoughtful editorial reasoning, it exists to guide it. Labeling this discussion as “vanity-fueled” doesn’t contribute meaningfully to a resolution and unnecessarily casts bad faith on editors engaging in good-faith debate. While similar themes have arisen before, each case brings its own context. The idea that any concern related to style must be invalid because it echoes past disputes contradicts the very need for editorial discretion. The argument is that the environment described by the sources, here the Vatican and its communication norms, can provide helpful context in making a stylistic decision between otherwise permissible options. That’s not “weighing sources” in the traditional sense of verifying facts. The sources are not being used to override the MOS, but to inform the context. That context can help editors exercise judgment when MOS allows flexibility. This isn’t about theological parsing or pitting sources against each other. It’s about recognising editorial patterns in related articles and aligning style choices accordingly. Edl-irishboy (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
The idea that any concern related to style must be invalid because it echoes past disputes contradicts the very need for editorial discretion – In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, do you still not get it at long last? See WP:MOSBLOAT#If_MOS_doesn't_need_to_have_a_rule_on_something,_then_it_needs_to_not_have_a_rule_on_that_thing, item 2b. It's all the past, pointless disputes that brought DATETIES and DATERET into being. It is the intent of those guidelines to remove flexibility, not allow it. (I notice you're not citing any guidelines or policies here, but I'll just note that elsewhere you've cited WP:CONSISTENT, ignoring the fact that it applies to article titles only.)At this point I'm really, really going to stop responding, because refuting the same vague appeals to, well, appeals to everything other than guidelines and policy, has lost its entertainment value. EEng 19:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I’m frankly astonished at the dismissive tone here, especially after repeatedly clarifying my points with reasoned explanations and references to established editorial practice. You cite WP:MOSBLOAT and the intent behind DATETIES and DATERET as if that magically ends all discussion on editorial discretion. But the existence of guidelines aimed at reducing disputes doesn’t mean editors are forbidden from applying judgment within the permitted scope. Furthermore, your repeated mischaracterisation of my citing WP:CONSISTENT when I never claimed it applies broadly is disingenuous and detracts from any serious engagement. Your decision to “stop responding” because this discussion “has lost its entertainment value” reeks of bad faith and undermines the collaborative spirit Wikipedia depends on. I have no intention of endlessly rehashing the same points either, but I will not stand by silently while my valid editorial reasoning is dismissed as baseless or frivolous. If this is the end of your participation, so be it but I encourage anyone reading this to consider the substance, not the dismissive tone. Edl-irishboy (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
You say, the existence of guidelines aimed at reducing disputes doesn’t mean editors are forbidden from applying judgment within the permitted scope.
The "permitted scope" where we can apply judgement in this case is as to whether Pope Leo XIV has strong ties to the United States (in which case we use MDY based on those ties) or not (in which case we use MDY based on WP:DATERET). And, since the result is the same either way, the choice of argument used to justify it is academic. Kahastoktalk 22:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Ever since downloading the Wikipedia mobile app, I've been wondering whether/how the data (including 'Edit quality' and total edit views) shown in the 'Edits' section of the app (above ‘Suggested edits’) can be accessed through a browser, and also how the 'Edit quality' rating, as given in this section of the app, is calculated.
I would have liked to include a screen grab of the 'Edits' section of the app to clarify what I'm talking about, but I can't upload an image to this post so the following text is a transcription of my statistics as given in the app:
Edits
Contributions 240
Views 212658
Last edited 18/02/2025
Edit quality Perfect
I can access my raw statistics (eg. individual page views, number of live vs. deleted edits, etc.) using Xtools, but I'm still wondering whether (and, if so, why) the summarised data given in the app is not also provided in the browser.
I'm not sure that the help desk is the right place to be asking this, but if you can point me in the right direction or give me an idea of a possible reason why there's this difference between the app and the browser version, that would be appreciated! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
For a list of features in the apps that are not in the browser version, see mw:Wikimedia Apps/Android FAQ. and mw:Wikimedia Apps/iOS FAQ. The Android page has a section mw:Wikimedia Apps/Android FAQ#Contribution history, which I think includes what you are talking about. (As far as I can see, the iOS app does not have this). It doesn't explicitly say that this information is not available in the web interface, but I've never seen it. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I've been puzzled by those statistics for a while. The page views seem to jump around wildly (I've had a 6-figure number followed half a hour later by 4-figure one, for example). I can say, though, that reverting one of my own edits can make the "quality" go down, as can being caught in a rollback that removes earlier vandalism. I feel the app statistics are pretty meaningless without any indication of how they're calculated. Musiconeologist (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
@Musiconeologist Glad to hear I'm not the only one who's been confused by this! Those details are useful to know, thank you. I agree, it would be helpful to have access to a bit more information about how these figures are calculated! Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
This feels like a bit of a silly question to have to ask, but I had a look in Preferences and couldn't find any relevant settings so I thought I'd ask here just to make sure. Is there a way to stop edits from automatically being published if you press the return key while typing in the edit summary box? I keep accidentally publishing edits when I was just trying to press the right square bracket key, so end up publishing incomplete edit summaries and having to make dummy edits to clarify. Is there any way to prevent this? (Other than just improving my fine motor skills, of course.) Thank you! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Pineapple Storage, as far as I know there's no built-in way to do so. I had had the same problem and didn't search for solutions and so write the bit of JS that's at the top of User:Skynxnex/common.js. You're welcome to copy that to your own common.js and I saw there is a script listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List which does it as well: m:User:Dragoniez/SuppressEnterInForm. (With mine at least, you can still publish using only the keyboard by hitting tab from the edit summary box and then pressing "space" to activate the publish button.) Skynxnex (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@Skynxnex This is perfect, exactly what I was looking for! Thank you so much! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
I've had my first experience with Speedy deletions today, but I couldn't find a concrete reason for why a subject page I was working on was suddenly deleted! Could someone run me through whether it's the use of incorrect/insufficient references, or something else, please?
Regarding - Alexander Valerievich Yakovlev Plantlover3000 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Your references are not notable enough. Half of them don't even mention the person the article is about. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Plantlover3000 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It seems that you are attempting to write about yourself, while this is not absolutely forbidden, it is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. You should have left the draft as a Draft and submitted it for a review via Articles for Creation. As noted, your references are not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
You have contested the SD nomination of Alexander Valerievich Yakovlev on the article's talk page, but it may go forward anyway. I concur that the refs never mention Yakovlev. I recommend you copy all of the content to your computer before it vanishes, as SD'd content also vanishes from your editing history. David notMD (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
As others have already said, many of the references provided in the article Draft:Alexander Valerievich Yakovlev are not directly relevant to the article's subject as they do not specifically mention the person in question. Also, the references provided do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources: sources must be independent, ie. not affiliated with the subject of the article, and verifiable, ie. not original research. Perhaps check out Help:Find sources#Types of sources for more guidance on what can be accepted as a source.
In order to merit a Wikipedia article, a subject should be notable enough to have received coverage from a variety of reputable, reliable sources; I would recommend you take a look at Wikipedia:Notability for more details on what is required for a subject to merit a new article.
I posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography last month but didn't get a reply, so I'm posting here to see if anyone else has an opinion on the issue.
Not sure whether there's a more relevant noticeboard I could post this on, so please feel free to direct me somewhere else if necessary. My query is about WP:BLP policy, specifically WP:BLPPRIVACY; has a consensus been reached about use of self-reported government sources for listing full names and DOBs on Wikipedia? In my experience, this tends to relate to BLP articles about UK-based public figures, as information about self-employed individuals/small business owners is available from Companies House via the company register search; I'm not sure whether equivalent systems/sources are available in other countries, but if so then this would also apply. My concern is that Companies House register entries often include not only annual business accounts (ie. disclosure of income/revenue) but also correspondence addresses (either accountants' offices or, sometimes, home addresses). Obviously, given that any information listed at Companies House is already freely available to the public, there's nothing stopping Wikipedia readers from going to the website and searching for it themselves. Still, I think listing it on a subject's article (often in the opening sentence, as a source for their full name and date of birth) draws attention to it and makes it much more likely that casual readers will visit the website and, potentially, gain access to sensitive information. Does Wikipedia policy/consensus already have a view on this kind of issue with regard to WP:BLPPRIVACY? Or if not, does anyone else have an opinion about this? (Is it just me overthinking?) Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: the above is a substitutedTemplate:Excerpt from the original discussion.
I'd be really interested to hear anyone else's thoughts on this! Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Government sources like Companies House shouldn't be used for full names and dates of birth. I think most editors with experience applying BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY would agree. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers Thank you, yes this is what I thought so I'm glad I'm not the only one! Would you say there is consensus to actually remove full name/DOB information from BLP articles if the only available source is Companies House? Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
My practice is to put in a good-faith effort at finding reliable secondary sources that include that info. If I don't find them, I remove the content every time. Yes, consensus supports such a removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers That's been my policy so far too, so this is good to know. Thanks so much for your help! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Deleted !voted to 
Merge
Pending nominated
Passed
Request withdrawn (No longer needed.)
Done 
→ 
Archived
Deleted !voted to 
Merge
Done
Passed
Request withdrawn (No longer needed.)
→ 
(diff)
Resolved
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC) 
Archived