Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (November 2005–January 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May–July 2007) Topic: Unencyclopedic (2003) Topic: Trivia (July–October 2007)

"wikipedia is not censored" is currently a false statement..

"wikipedia is not censored" cannot be a true statement while the following policy exists:

"...inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed."

how is the removal of something you find inappropriate not considered to be censorship???

it most definitely is censorship.

the only way it can ever truly be considered to be not censored is if everything that is ever posted to wikipedia is allowed to remain online, this must also include allowing anything deemed "inappropriate" to remain. Snarevox (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Censorship only applies to gov't entities in restricting what can be published. We don't censor most ideas, but there are things like unsupport accusations against BLP that we will remove because it does not fit our content guidelines. That's not censorship because you're free to publish those elsewhere, just not WP. --Masem (t) 19:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Though whatjSnarevox is saying is nonsense, for the record your statement that Censorship only applies to gov't entities in restricting what can be published is also nonsense. A boss might censor a subordinate, an instructor (at a private school, even -- no government involvement) might censor a school newspaper, a church official might censor clergy, etc. It's all censorship. EEng 22:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

To be clear that what we are doing is content moderation which all those above examples are part of , compared to censorship, this is a good article that compares the difference [1] but the simple explanation is that censorship is where you are told that you can't publish information anywhere, which is really only in the realm of the government that can enforce that. It needs to be clear we're doing content moderation and not restricting the publishing everywhere of material. --Masem (t) 22:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of censoring holds that it consists of examining material to see if it needs to be suppressed on the grounds of being objectionable.[2] I think that article you linked is incorrect, certainly as far as common usage goes, there's no requirement for the suppression to be universal for it to be censorship. So in that sense the OP is correct, we do engage in censorship. But all that is explained in the section in question anyway, so it's not like we're lying or hiding anything. The "Wikipedia is not censored" headline is useful as a high-level description of the general thrust of the policy, but of course it has exceptions, so do most of the "what we are not" policies; they don't need to be changed though, this is just common sense stuff.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

However, every time that people complain that we're censoring content - and similar to the current ideas that social media networks are censor viewpoints, I think it's important to stress that we are engaging in content moderation, that there is material we will not allow to be published here, but the user that wants to publish that has many other venues if they want to publish that. Ergo, we are not censoring as it applies to being a private publisher, but we are content moderating appropriately. --Masem (t) 23:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently inappropriate about censorship; publishers censor authors, and news media censor journalists everyday. Even we, as individuals, self-censor ourselves all the time. One man's content moderation is another man's censorship; it's more a matter of what is censored, by whom and how, than whether censorship exists. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

i have no idea what "unsupport accusations against blp" means, but see just substitute "that we will remove" with "that we will censor" and finish the sentence "because it does not fit our content guidelines." and then in the following sentence, it most definitely is censorship. you cant claim it isnt censorship on wikipedias part just because other places will allow you to publish it.. other places allow it because other places arent censoring it like wikipedia is. the way that reads, if wp had control of "elsewhere" as well, you wouldnt be able to publish it anywhere, because it would be censored across the board. either everything is ok, or nothing is ok. when only some things are ok, its censorship and there are no two ways about it. its a very easy idea to understand, and it does not only apply to the govt. any entity that removes content that doesnt line up with their agenda or content they find inappropriate is guilty of censorship and should not be allowed to blatantly deny it like that. Snarevox (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

At best you are arguing for the sake of arguing, at worst trolling just to waste our time. The idea the no material should ever be removed from the Wikipedia is so risible that, if you actually were to believe it, you would lack the competence to participate in discussions here -- sorry, but it is what it is. Please either stop or go away, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

NOTMEMORIAL and its application to lists of victims within articles

There have been a large number of RFCs in individual articles about the inclusion or exclusion of a list of victims. Those RFCs have largely contained the same participants arguing the same positions with little clear answer as to what the wider community considers NOTMEMORIAL to apply to, with users arguing polar opposite understandings of the policy. Instead of this continuing in individual pages where a smaller number of editors can skew any one discussion one way or the other, I think it would be wiser to have an RFC to clarify explicitly, one way or the other, should articles contain lists of otherwise non-notable individuals within them or does that violate NOTMEMORIAL? I see no reason why we have to have an RFC for every mass shooting, and beyond that this would apply to way more than mass shootings, for example airstrikes, or terror attacks, or any number of other articles. I think we need clarity in the policy when its meaning is being argued as often as this one is. Just recently there have been, or currently have running, RFCs at Talk:Highland Park parade shooting, Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting, Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting and Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting, Talk:Oxford High School shooting. The closers, which includes me, have come to different conclusions on the consensus in several of these discussions, which also makes me think this needs a wider discussion that is focused on settling this in either direction at the project level and not allowing these page level arguments to proliferate. Dont think I can reasonably ping a subset of the participants, or all of them, but Ill leave a note at the running RFC that Ive opened this discussion here. nableezy - 21:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Some previous related discussions: 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019. I may be missing some. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

People always cite WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but the policy clearly states it applies to Subjects of encyclopedia articles... People may just mean we shouldn't memorialize them, but citing the policy is like citing a notability guideline for a person simply mentioned in an article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That people feel that NOTMEMORIAL applies to including lists of victims within articles is obvious, and that people feel like it does not is likewise obvious. At this point Im less interested in arguing about what it does say as opposed to what it should say. Should lists of otherwise non-notable victims of violence be included in our articles on those violent acts? If so then the language should be clear on that. If not then the language should be clear on that. nableezy - 21:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging El C as they suspended the 2019 workshop till 2020 but maybe something happened in 2020 that caused that to go off-course? No clue what it could be though. nableezy - 21:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The way I look at this is that assuming the victims are non notable individuals before the event, then what is going to be useful about those names 10 years later? It becomes just indiscrimate info for all purposes. Of course there are victims that end up being necessary to name in describing the event (the teachers at sandy hook that died while protecting the students) and those people should be named but in context of the event. Masem (t) 21:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. Non-notable individuals are important insofar as they're relevant insofar as sources focus on them, not the mere fact they died in a certain event, and I'd argue lists of victims violates NOTMEMORIAL as well as NOTDIR, NOTNEWS, and basic adherence to summary style and good encyclopedia writing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Should we have an RFC on what it should say and implementing it? nableezy - 22:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

NOTMEMORIAL applies to subjects of articles. Nobody has proposed individual articles for the victims. NOTDIR and NOTNEWS are irrelevant, they are not random or indiscriminate, their relevance is justified by their inclusion in so many of our WP:RS. A summary of an event, like a mass shooting, that leaves over half of the subject unnamed is a clearcut WP:NPOV violation. These people easily satisfy WP:NOTEWORTHY requirements (part of WP:N) and in the interests of WP:UNDUE, should be included in a manner that respects their inclusion in our sources (see WP:BALASP). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:N/NOTEWORTHY requires enduring coverage, of which normally for victims that were bystanders and non-notable before, means they are still non-notable for our purposes. For example List of victims of the September 11 attacks is very much an indiscriminate list of people who were and remain non-notable 20 years later. We can certainly include ELs that point to victim lists but that should not be WP's function. --Masem (t) 00:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:N/NOTEWORTHY requires enduring coverage Where are you getting that from? WP:NOTEWORTHY clearly says WP:N does not apply to the content of articles, and lays out methods for determining how best to determine what should be included. We've already established that many of these mass casualty events are notable, in the case of a mass shooting event, it's then a matter of balancing coverage of the perpetrator against the coverage of the victims. The event would not be notable if not for the victims, and leaving them out is (IMO) a clear violation of WP:NPOV. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You're making the assumption that covering the victims necessarily means listing their names. TompaDompa (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Why would we deviate from our reliable sources that do? And why only on that, but not on listing the perpetrators weapon of choice, their childhood, and any other minor detail you can imagine. How do you believe that is at all balanced? This is why WP:UNDUE opens with Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Our reliable sources are dedicating entire articles to the victims, their lives, and how they died. Naming them would, IMO, be the bare minimum to make these articles more balanced. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, there are several possible reasons we would do things differently from the sources. One point that is commonly brought up in these discussions is privacy concerns. Another is that an encyclopedia and news media have different considerations. But that's not really my point. My point is that "we have to cover the victims" and "we have to list the victims' names" are very distinct positions that could easily be conflated and turned into a motte-and-bailey argument if one is not careful. TompaDompa (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that naming victims of mass shootings should be the bare minimum to make articles more balanced, and it follows current journalistic standards about articles on mass shootings. Naming victims can be a simple list with names and ages. That said, I can see how a policy change would create problems for other types of Wikipedia articles with lists of victims. I think the epidemic of mass shootings in the U.S. is creating a special circumstance and perhaps there needs to be a policy for naming victims only for articles on mass shootings. One of the major problems with having an unbalanced emphasis on the shooter is that it leads to copycat killings. If the victims aren't named, then at the very least there should be enough details about them to balance out details about the shooter. JJMM (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Except that isnt what the balance of sources support. For example, of the books that discuss Sandy Hook nearly ten years later, there are nearly four thousand results for "Sandy Hook" "Adam Lanza" as opposed to say one victim taken from random "Daniel Barden" "sandy hook" gives a bit over 500. The detail given in those 500 mentions is trivial, one mentions he was given a fireman's farewell, most just simply include him in a list of victims. Lanza's upbringing and so on is given a huge amount of attention. And why should be readily apparent to anybody. But, again, Im less interested in debating what the current wording supports or does not, and I disagree with you for the record and find the idea that simply including a list within another article when that list would be disallowed as a stand-alone list resolves any issue to be baffling, as opposed to trying to settle what our policy should be. Its fine if there is a consensus for the inclusion of these lists. Its fine if there is a consensus for the inclusion of the mini-bios as discussed in the Uvalde article. And its fine if there is a consensus against those things. What is less fine is for these arguments to be taking place disjointedly across individual articles. We have a dispute on what policy says and more importantly what it should say. Lets work on seeing if there is a consensus, project-wide, for that. nableezy - 03:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding. I never said equal coverage of victims. In all the articles I've seen where we name the victims, the perpetrator is still often covered in significantly more detail. My reference to WP:BALASP was simply to note that there exists guidance already. In so much as what this policy says, I agree with Cullen328's comments below. If anything, since apparently the current wording confuses some editors, it should be tightened up to remove any ambiguity about it only applying to subjects of articles, not to article content on otherwise notable events. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Except that the fact that the suspect/perp is nearly always given far more coverage in the news as investigators try to figure out the "why" of the event. Per WEIGHT, that means that I expect to see far more about the suspect than the victims. It is false balance to say that we need to balance that coverage of the suspect with more coverage of the victims, so BALASP doesn't apply here. Masem (t) 12:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Well you said that the victims are over half of the subject, and beyond that these are not conflicting viewpoints. It is not a viewpoint that these people were killed, so I do not even start to understand how you apply in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources to that. But if what you mean by your DUE arguments is that coverage of the victims as a proportion of the coverage of the event overall requires coverage of the victims in our articles then yes I agree, though I dont think it follows that it requires a listing of names. But as far as balance goes, it is exponentially weighted towards the attacker over the attacked in the sources. But most of the argument about DUE just does not make any sense to me, that is about balancing conflicting viewpoints. There is no conflicting viewpoint on did Daniel Barden die at Sandy Hook (at least not any valid one). nableezy - 14:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Our coverage of the victims is a "viewpoint", just as our coverage of the perpetrator is another viewpoint. Other viewpoints include: public reaction, political reaction, the event itself and how it unfolded, etc. The intent is not to memorialize the victims, but rather not to censor them either and make our readers feel like the only thing to die that day was dry statistics (ages and races) and not actual people. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the objection is not to coverage of the victims (in aggregate) but to what I have seen on various pages, a simple list of names. Describing that as a "viewpoint" seems a bit of a stretch. Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Describing it as a memorial is just as equal of a stretch if there isn't something else saying, "this is dedicated to:" etc. Huggums537 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If it is not a memorial, what is it? Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe you described it yourself as a simple list of names... Huggums537 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a description of it, I mean what is the purpose/utility of it? Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the question has no relevance. It's like asking what the purpose/utility of many of these articles is. (Especially if you're asking someone not that interested in humor.) Huggums537 (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If I ask it about article content in general, it's a very easy question to answer. Not so easy in this case, doubtless why you are unable to answer it. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, why are there many people who want to include victims' names on articles about mass shootings, yet none on most articles about other types of mass-casualty incidents & those which took place in other countries? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It does seem like there's an impassioned effort to memorialize or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That's not Wikipedia's role. Reidgreg (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I got that impression too. OrgoneBox (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment What would be the purpose of including in an article what could potentially be a large list (think war memorial) of non-notable names. If there is a point, I'm sure someone will disillusion me so although my preference would be not at this point, I will wait and see if there are arguments that have not occurred to me and meanwhile try to read those prior discussions (ugh).Selfstudier (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  The potentially large list of victims need not be included in the crime's main article necessarily, being a sort of appendix, as is the case of the List of victims of the September 11 attacks and the Casualties of the September 11 attacks article. — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Permit lists Mass shooting articles exist because people were murdered and these murder victims always receive substantial media coverage, so it is entirely appropriate to include victim lists. While we do and should not include every bit of information reported by news sources, if the sources do focus heavily on a specific aspect of a topic then it makes sense for Wikipedia to contain information on that aspect as well. Regarding WP:NOTMEMORIAL, that policy basically restates our notability requirement; it says absolutely nothing about content within articles cited to reliable sources. Even as currently written, the policy should not be read to prohibit victim lists. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Per BLP1E, people whose death is the only reason they are reported on are not considered notable. Just because there may be coverage of a victim after the event, doesn't make that an encyclopedic relevant. Most of these post event reporting on victims try to make the person seem more important than they really are. Masem (t) 23:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  That policy applies specifically to the subjects of articles; it does not prohibit describing otherwise non-notable people who played a significant role in a notable event within that notable event's article. Regarding importance, the entire point of articles on mass shootings is to summarize the murder of multiple individuals. I would say that the identities of these people is very relevant. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Again ten years after the shooting, are those victims going to all be remembered and easily identified? Some might (those known to have tried to stop the shooting for example) but certainly not all, the ones that remained innocent bystanders. Masem (t) 23:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Quite possibly yes. It is not particularly difficult to find sourcing on the victims of say the Bath School disaster (1927) or other major shooting that happened decades ago. If a shooting is actually remembered, then I imagine the victims would as well. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  But that's "possibly", and as such, means whether to include victims or not should be a made of how sources far distance from the event in time discuss the event, not those at the time of the event. Otherwise, it is crystal-balling how the event will be seen in the long term for their inclusion. Masem (t) 12:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  The victims have coverage now right here in the present meaning their inclusion does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. The Ten Year Test (which is part of an explanatory essay) itself requires crystal ball gazing; you literally asked me to predict what coverage is going to be like in ten years. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  The point about the ten year factor is that we have many mass shootings that are older than.that,and nearly all the time, while the shooting and suspect may be discussed, the victims are generally not covered. So until it is clear that victims have a long term coverage, they should not be included. --Masem (t) 14:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Masem: Please read WP:NOTEWORTHY (which is a subsection of WP:N). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also, WP:BLP1E clearly says it applies only to living or (recently deceased) people in the last paragraph. This in addition to the facts that it is intended for articles not content, and notability doesn't apply to content... Huggums537 (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  In other words, clearly not about people who have been dead for a long time so this idea about "enduring coverage" for dead people is a little bit ridiculous. Huggums537 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't remember exactly what happened in 2019, but the broad strokes as far as I'm able to recall is that the pro-list wanted to incorporate the WP:CASL essay into WP:BLP, while the anti-list wanted WP:VL, instead. I don't recall what if anything were to happen to WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Obviously, the matter can be revisited now through any formal proposals, wherever (might be worth a WP:CENT). Sorry, writing in haste, so don't really have time to refresh my memory by reviewing the material again — though, not sure I would even if I had the spare time, as my experience has been that this is a time sink that never goes anywhere, always ends with no consensus to do anything. But maybe this time will be different, who knows. Here's hoping. G'luck! El_C 23:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Was some canvasing done, and after that was brought up ended up temporarily postponing the proposal as being compromised. Some reason I thought another one started later on, but I didn't find it when I did my quick search earlier, but like you said they always end up in no consensus or no change. The only consensus I remember being established was to decide things on case by case basis, even though that was what was already happening, it did stop the people that liked to refer to the results of consensus in the shooting that happened the week before the current shooting. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• The policy language at WP:NOTMEMORIAL is crystal clear: it refers to Subjects of encyclopedia articles, not at all to mentioning victims of notable crimes in articles about those crimes. Accordingly, all such mentions of NOTMEMORIAL in discussions like this should be dismissed out of hand, as irrelevant and off topic. We have countless articles about notable murders that mention the murder victims by name, which is entirely appropriate. The Highland Park parade shooting with seven fatalities is a perfect example for debate. An encyclopedia article about a crime like this should provide content about the impact of this crime on that community and on society as a whole. That cannot be conveyed by dryly stating that seven members of the species Homo sapien perished. These included a grandfather who did not really want to be there, a woman highly active in her synagogue, and a married couple who left an orphaned 2-1/2 year old toddler laying under the bleeding body of his father, and other people who should have their name, age and a sentence or two of well referenced content, so that our readers can gain a deeper understanding of this particular crime. Mentioning and briefly describing these seven people is entirely appropriate in my opinion, because all seven are receiving plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Mentioning WP:BIO1E in this context is spurious and inappropriate, because that refers to articles about individual people, not to mentioning non-notable people in other articles. Again, we do that all the time. When dealing with the 2017 Las Vegas shooting with 60 fatalities or the September 11 attacks with nearly 3000 fatalities, other factors pertaining to length may come into effect. I think that an external link to a reliable source listing all the victims is appropriate in such cases. But such articles about major mass casualty events should always list the notable fatalities. Cullen328 (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• For the record, regarding Highland Park, all those things are there, just the victims are not named in the prose. But that parents of a surviving toddler, a grandfather visiting, thats in the article. Just without the "in memoriam" feel of a list of victims. nableezy - 05:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328. Also, about the Highland Park article, the details about the victims were just removed by another editor. I hope the information can be re-added. JJMM (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think NOTMEMORIAL should have any bearing on this, since it is just a bullet point in a section about not using Wikipedia as a hosting service, which isn't really the issue here. There is an issue, though, which I would characterize as being more about the proportionality of such lists to the subject matter. It seems fairly obvious to me that in an article about a notable incident with, say, three victims, it would be odd not to name them; but it would be even odder to name every victim of an incident with three hundred victims. It can be awfully hard to judge where this line should be drawn in a particular case, however. I think a general rule of thumb would be a good idea, but I don't think WP:NOT is quite the place for rules of thumb. -- Visviva (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think the issue largely comes down to finding that cutoff. An event with a small # of victims, e.g. 1-4, would usually only be notable enough for an article if one or more of the victims or perpetrators meets notability requirements on their own. In most of these cases, the victims are more important/notable to the event because they were individually targeted. In a mass killing/casualty event, the number of victims alone is what makes the event notable. More often in these cases the victims are not individually targeted - the event would've occurred with or without several of the victims being present. EatTrainCode (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  The problem that I see with that is it leads to some absurd, IMO obviously, results. Such as, in a topic area Im familiar with, due to their being a smaller number of Israeli victims of a given Palestinian attack they can be listed, but a longer list of Palestinian victims of an Israeli attack could not because it is too large. We would be pushing our thumb on the systemic bias scale even further in the wrong direction IMO if you had these cutoffs. Why would we list four victims but not say 14? nableezy - 17:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, a wider discussion is needed. Clearly, the community disagrees on what WP:NOTMEMORIAL means. BilledMammal (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as mentioned by WikiVirus in the first part of this discussion, this has been discussed many times, with no clear consensus. Some previous related discussions: 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019. I may be missing some. WikiVirusC(talk) 21:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Though I am hopeful that a new RfC would have a clear consensus, I am not confident of that. Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would think that the guideline below WP:NOTMEMORIAL, i.e.: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, would be more applicable - simple lists of things not sufficiently notable to merit their own articles are not particularly useful from an encyclopedic perspective. Given the disproportionate space already occupied by death-related events, we hardly need to encourage their expansion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  I was going to point out that the wikiproject level guidance for listing alumni at WP:ALUMNI also would be a reasonable equivalent point. Unless a victim was a critical part of the event (teacher making effort to save kids but killed in process) or notable before, these lists devolve into simply lists of non-notable individuals and can be a problem, particularly with larger events. Masem (t) 11:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• To be clear, is this RFC only about the inclusion of simple lists of the victim's names and ages? In the case of the Robb shooting, even after consensus was reached to include a list of names & ages, there were more efforts to get additional information about the victims included in an attempt to "balance" the article against information about the shooter. Many of WP:MEMORIAL comments were targeted at this suggestion and not the inclusion of the list itself. EatTrainCode (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, on Robb Elementary School shooting, mini-biographies of the victims were repeatedly added. They included info as trivial as their hobbies, as well as their favourite foods & music. That was followed by a discussion about the matter in an attempt to legitimise their inclusion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Although this is an RFC, it is not that widely advertised so perhaps it should be considered more as RFCbefore, an attempt to see if there is any consensus at all. At the moment, seems like a good candidate for central discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's been a couple years, I think a solid, very focused yeah-or-nay centralized discussion (something like "Should Wikipedia contain itemized lists of victims of crime/disaster") would be helpful. Without answering the question of whether the community thinks that broad a question falls under NOTDIRECTORY, it's basically arguments that can't go anywhere.

  I will say that the focus on "balancing" articles towards victims to me falls deeply afoul of understanding Wikipedia's NPOV pillar; we are supposed to just follow the sources, and it's very rare sourcing focuses as much on the many many victims as it does the fewer perpetrators. That's just the nature of coverage of crime. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  This ... the reason the suspect/convicted person gets so much biographical coverage is that this is generally part of the news reporting trying to understand the why behind the crime and how this person became involved, not so much that they want to give a full biographical profile of the suspect/convicted person. This is not the type of coverage that victims would get, unless they were actively involved in trying to stop the crime or protect others. They are faces and names that are meant to sympathize with the victims and particularly in school shootings, to evoke empathy for the victims and distain for the shooter. That's the type of biased reporting that per NPOV (YESPOV) we should not be including. Even when included on a WP article, these victim lists are generally present to try to elicit the same feelings from the reader. The victim list of a typical schooling shooting can be replaced with "X adults and Y children between the ages of n-m" and that conveys the same fundamental information essential to the event without trying to create emotion to it. Masem (t) 17:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  While I agree with this, it's also true that in recent years the sources have been shifting away from focusing on the perpetrators of mass shootings. The same people advocating for victim lists/bios are the ones trying to remove what they see as excess information (including names + photos) on the shooters. Focusing on the arguments around victim lists and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL is missing the larger issue. EatTrainCode (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  That seems like a separate issue? Again, we should be following the sources. I think arguably the biggest problem with our crime articles is the choice to have victim or criminal biographies (complete with infoboxes) randomly smushed into the articles about the killings (which feels like a BLP1E end-run, if nothing else) but that's not really related to the memorial issues this section is discussing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  the sources have been shifting away from focusing on the perpetrators of mass shootings Interesting if true, do you have a source for that assertion? Not really sure what you mean by larger issue, it seems a different issue altogether. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  That may refering to how there is a trend to not glorify the suspects, eg such as in the wake of Christchurch, on the basis that these suspects did the crime for attention, and the excessive media coverage of them only feeds that. However that is not the view WP has taken as as long as we arent talking about a minir, we will nearly always name the suspect if fhe media has done so too Masem (t) 22:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how I would source an overall trend in media coverage, and I'm largely playing devil's advocate based on several discussions I saw across multiple Wikipedia articles with mass shootings recently. The FBI and WHO, among other organizations, have made an effort to reduce media coverage on mass shooters - going as far as to recommend a “Don’t Name Them” policy for the shooters. Reaching a consensus on victim lists is important, but I think it's clear to anyone paying attention to discussions on these types of articles that this topic is symptomatic of a larger debate around how Wikipedia covers these events. EatTrainCode (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  OK, so it might be true but while we're waiting for an RS, its OR and recent (I will have a look at the material someone else has posted below). It still seems to me that linking these two issues together is inappropriate, the argumentation is distinct even if the issues are connected via an event. I haven't really had occasion to think that much about the second issue other than noting that typically everyone wants to know about the perp, why did they do it and so on and then there is going to be charging, trial and the rest, assuming they weren't themselves killed. It doesn't even need to be a "casualty" event for that to kick in, a lot of people would know who Ghislaine Maxwell is and like as not, know very little about any victims. Personally, I don't see the need for photos of perps (or victims), but that's maybe just me. Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  we are supposed to just follow the sources, and it's very rare sourcing focuses as much on the many many victims as it does the fewer perpetrators. And yet for some events we have entire secondary source articles written on the victims. Even years later, in some instances. Our coverage of the victims, per NPOV, should be balanced as in our sources. How that balance is arrived at is (according to what I've read in our policies/guidelines) mostly a matter of proportion. So if our sources are devoting 2/3 of the coverage to the shooter and the overall event, and 1/3 of the coverage to the victims, then our article should reflect that. In the worst cases I've seen lengthy articles where the "victims" are notated by numeric count, age range, and ethnicity and nothing more (basically 2-3 sentences). Despite our sources including details on who they are, and obviously, their names.

  To the broader question this discussion was started on, I think it should be clearer that NOTMEMORIAL only applies to entire articles on non-notable people, not to content within articles where the notability has already been established (to be fair, NOTMEMORIAL already does not apply to content within articles, but apparently some people are confused by the wording as is). I think editors abusing the "case by case" result of the prior RFC should be reprimanded for engaging in WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND mentality, and we should get back to making a complete encyclopedia, not one that pushes certain points of views (like that the victims of these events are irrelevant and don't matter, when our sources clearly tell us they do). Reasonable people can disagree on the finer points, but we shouldn't have a handful of editors stonewalling these articles over their own personal biases. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  An issue still is the 10 year factor and RECENTISM. The media in the short term may give coverage of the victims in detail, but over time, that doesnt happen, yet the suspect or convicted remains of interest of time. That is part of the crimology and psychology of these events that get long term coverage, which its what we should consider the point of balance. Victim lists are an artifact of RECENTISM by the media and which we should avoid. Masem (t) 03:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  An issue still is the 10 year factor ... an arbitrary number, which if we held to it, then these articles wouldn't exist at all. But they do, so... here we are. ...and RECENTISM RECENTISM isn't a bad thing, being cognizant of it is not a problem, but that is emphatically not an excuse to censor our articles of people so clearly relevant to the events. We wouldn't even have articles on these events if the victims hadn't died. As far as long term coverage, here's one three years after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting:

  • "Remembering the 59 Slain Victims of the Las Vegas Concert Massacre, 3 Years Later". People (magazine). 2022-05-23. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-05-28 suggested (help)

  I'm sure if I went digging I could find sources for victims of other events years on as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  we shouldn't have a handful of editors stonewalling these articles over their own personal biases Can't be a handful, can it? If that were the case they would not be able to impose their view. Selfstudier (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  About 2-3 die-hards, yes. And while I initially edit warred with them, 1) that's counter-productive and obviously WP:EW is a thing, and 2) eventually we almost always get consensus to include them in some form or another. The problem is the protracted, sometimes a month long, debate that is just a recycle of the same arguments typically. But because they don't like it, they will stonewall repeatedly, to a point that is, I think, disruptive. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Youre posting an explicit memorial and arguing that means these lists are not memorials. People magazine has a different mission than Wikipedia. nableezy - 13:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  "There's no long term coverage of victims!" **shows editor source of long term coverage that is considered reliable per WP:RSP** No, not that source! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ —Locke Cole • t • c 14:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Unaware of anybody saying there is no coverage of the victims long term, but proportionally, in actually reliable sources, the weight of that coverage simply pales in comparison to the coverage of the shooter. And yes, People magazine is a garbage source for the Las Vegas shooting, and I cant seriously believe you feel otherwise. And that is a memorial, you are not even disputing it. nableezy - 14:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  You yourself just stated that People magazine has a different mission than Wikipedia. so even if they have their coverage in a memorial style doesn't mean we have to because their mission is different than ours. We only need to summarize the verifiable information. In fact, we aren't supposed to be editorializing in any way like they do so it isn't a problem even if they are a memorial because they don't have to follow our rules only we do. Huggums537 (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm honestly curious: what sort of long term coverage of the victims would you expect beyond memorials? As to Unaware of anybody saying there is no coverage of the victims long term, did you miss Masem's insistence that there be coverage after ten years (AKA: long term; I'll reiterate that there doesn't appear to be any policy or guideline behind this arbitrary ten year number)? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  If the only coverage you can find for including it is that there are some memorials in the popular press then my view is that is evidence that the only reason to include such a list is to memorialize them, and I dont think that is Wikipedia's mission. What coverage would prove your point to me? If you could show for example that a book about these events, or some criminal justice or other academic field's journal article on it gives substantial focus to the victims in its coverage so that it would make sense to include the same relative proportion of our article on that event. Because I feel you, when you make the DUE argument, are missing an important part. A tiny fraction of sources that discuss these events name the victims. That tiny fraction is the proportion that DUE assigns to that coverage. nableezy - 23:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  It amuses me that you continue to berate/diminish a reliable source. You may proceed with that if you wish, just understand that I see what you're doing. As to Wikipedia's mission, I think it is to provide a well referenced collection of information that has entered the corpus of human knowledge. I think that when our sources provide significant coverage of something and our article editors twist themselves into knots to avoid covering that same thing it looks very suspicious. You can label it whatever you like, I choose to call it noteworthy information of a notable event. It's telling that your only defense appears to be to attempt to trivialize it by referring to such coverage as a "memorial".

  To circle back to an argument I've made in the past: These events are notable. Their notability hinges on the deaths of the victims. If these mass shootings had been some random person going into an abandoned building and shooting out the windows or putting bullet holes in the walls, we would not even consider having an article on it. But because people were murdered, that event gets widespread coverage in reliable sources, and we consider it notable. It's unacceptable to cover these events in such detail from the shooters perspective while going out of our way to avoid discussing the victims (even though our sources do). They are an inseparable part of the event. Neutrality and due weight demand that we at least name them if our reliable sources do. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Berate/diminish a reliable source? What is it that you see. Maybe try WP:AVOIDYOU, and really if you want to say what your suspicions are then say them but if you dont then keep that kind of crap to yourself. But if we are talking sources, People (magazine) is certainly reliable for the names of those killed. Is it however the type of source an encyclopedia article on anything other than perhaps the love interest of a celebrity should be relying on? I cant seriously believe this needs to be stated, but no, it is not. Yes, of course it is "reliable" in that what they report is generally accurate. But what am I trivializing here? It is a memorial. You know how I can tell that? Because its title is "Remembering the 59 Slain Victims of the Las Vegas Concert Massacre". That isnt trivializing it. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is also a memorial, and I would never imagine trivializing it or diminishing it in any way. But I also wouldnt say that we should also be memorializing those people on Wikipedia, that isnt our mission here. But again, you are ignoring that due weight requires weight in proportion to the rest of the coverage. And the 146 books that even mention Sonny Melton, much less the tiny number that go in to any depth in their coverage of him, compared to the over 4000 that discuss the shooting in depth suggests that this weight is ~0. nableezy - 13:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  According to WP:RSP: There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons, but the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source. That is the current community consensus on that specific source. Despite this, you've attempted to trivialize/berate/diminish the source rather than addressing the central issue: there is long term coverage of victims of mass killing events. I do take issue with your simple Google search "research", but given that you're apparently taking this personally now, I'll exit discussing this with you and leave it to others to raise what I hope are obvious objections to using those results as anything definitive. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  I believe I already stipulated that People is reliable for the fact that these people died there. I dont think anybody is challenging the fact that these people were shot and killed there. If you would like to ignore my argument to simply restate yours then sure, exit. But since you have no answer to the facts that People is a source primarily focused on celebrity news in the United States and not the type of source that we should be basing an article on a mass shooting (completely ignoring WP:SOURCETYPES) on or that this piece is explicitly a memorial Im just going to assume those facts remain unchallenged in any way. And since you are unable to refute the fact that the weight that the preponderance of the sources give to the victims names is exponentially less, and ~0 relative to the entire topic of any given mass shooting, I will assume that you concede that WP:WEIGHT does not support the idea that the victims are "more than half the subject" or anywhere close to that. nableezy - 16:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, I can refute it. But you're taking things personally apparently, so I'm exiting, as I already said. I think your Google search results are fucking terrible though, and aren't anything anyone should make a conclusion on this issue with. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Im not sure how else to take it looks very suspicious but I have no problem ignoring that and continuing if you find a point to discussing this without questioning the good faith of your interlocutor. I certainly dont question yours. nableezy - 18:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• I had posted the following to the Oxford High School shooting Talk page on Dec. 5, 2021 [3]: Research has shown that the amount of attention given to mass shooters correlates with increased imitation shootings. Wikipedia is not news but it is a type of online media. There is both scholarly and media research showing it is best to avoid naming mass shooters frequently, and only when critical to understanding the event. Therefore, the issue is not just that it helps to focus on victims/survivors (their names, stories), but also that it helps to name mass shooters less frequently and to give them less attention…despite the notability of the event. Review the following:

-"Don’t Name Them, Don’t Show Them, But Report Everything Else: A Pragmatic Proposal for Denying Mass Killers the Attention They Seek and Deterring Future Offenders" in American Behavioral Scientist

-"Does Media Coverage Inspire Copy Cat Mass Shootings?" from National Center for Health Research

-"Mass Shootings: The Role of the Media in Promoting Generalized Imitation" in American Journal of Public Health

-"A Call to the Media to Change Reporting Practices for the Coverage of Mass Shootings" in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy

-"RTDNA Guidelines: Mass Shootings" from Radio Television Digital News Association Ethics Committee

JJMM (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I see the argument. Still, we follow the sources, not lead them. If sources take the advice on board, it will then be auto reflected in our articles. Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources are currently taking this advice, and there are now multiple articles from reliable sources about victims of mass shootings in the U.S. But editors that are against naming victims or having any details about them in Wikipedia mass shooting articles are deliberately leaving out details about victims from these sources. That, to me, is not a good faith effort to "follow the sources". JJMM (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, we are having the discussion. Just because something appears in sources doesn't mean it necessarily has to go in our articles. My own objection is not to coverage of the victims, it is to lists of victims and those articles have not altered my opinion about that. Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that an underlying consideration is that we don't use "memorial" type considerations (or similar such as seeking to provided extra emphasis or impact) as reasons to weigh in towards inclusion. With these reasons removed, there is insufficient reason to put lists of victims in articles.North8000 (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What about lists of internees, as at Frongoch internment camp? I can understand a list of notable individuals, but the others there seems to me to be wholly random. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO that's a different question and a different situation both in several ways. But I'd limit it to otherwise notable individuals. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I really wasnt trying to just restate the arguments about the individual RFCs here, but I think even this discussion shows that this needs to be discussed at a wider level. Does anybody want to setting up an RFC as suggested above (a solid, very focused yeah-or-nay centralized discussion (something like "Should Wikipedia contain itemized lists of victims of crime/disaster") would be helpful)? nableezy - 13:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I think such an RfC probably shouldn’t be yes or no on their inclusion entirely, since I think it's likely most people might fall somewhere in the middle. I think structuring it like "should lists of victims generally be included/generally should not be included" would be more useful as it stakes out a more suitable position for a guideline regardless, and leaves more room for where to go from there should consensus be achieved. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

And how should we go about getting that going? nableezy - 14:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Community being in the middle, and a lot thinking "it depends" is why we are in current state. Generally becomes to vague. Even if we decide generally it should/should not, the argument will just become when are the exceptions to the generally. It will just be the same current consensus of deciding on a case by case basis per article. Along with phrasing, a mention of it applying to list-list, and in prose should be explicitly said, so there is no confusion of "that RfC was about list not prose".

Separate from the victim list themselves, there probably should be some kind of community consensus on the interpretation of NOTMEMORIAL, which is what I thought we were doing here. Does it apply to only articles or does it apply to content of articles. Some interpret it as applying to articles only, based on first sentence. Some say the second sentence is independent of first and applies to everything. Some agree it applies to articles but cite it via the "spirit of the policy". WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree that "somewhere in the middle" isn't going to really work for lists of names unless there are some explicit rules about when a list can go in and when not. Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this, it should be crystal clear that NOTMEMORIAL only applies to full articles (hand-in-hand with our notability guidelines), and that for article content relating to deceased individuals of otherwise notable events WP:NOTEWORTHY is what guides us. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

All those prior discussions as well as this one, are saying it is anything but crystal clear. At least you are being consistent with your essay,Wikipedia:What NOTMEMORIAL is not Of course there is another Wikipedia:Victim lists :) Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: What if we break this down into the cases of living and deceased victims? For living victims, WP:BLPNAME states: When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. and Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event [...] it is often preferable to omit [names], especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Sources for recent events are mostly WP:Breaking news sources which can be WP:SENSATIONAL and in my opinion do not meet the level of caution that should be exercised. For older events, consider whether sources reporting on the anniversary of the event or providing detailed journalism or analysis provide a victims list. Additionally, WP:AVOIDVICTIM states to exercise caution with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. So, lists of living victims would not be justifiable in most cases, in my opinion. For deceased victims, WP:BDP states that BLP policy applies to the recently deceased in some cases (e.g.: material about gruesome crimes) and in combination with the sentiments of NOTMEMORIAL (Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased persons) the concerns for living victims above might be applied to the recently deceased, which would exclude naming victims based on breaking news sources, and again leave the decision to whether there is coverage in later sources. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Where did anyone suggest naming living victims in this conversation? the concerns for living victims above might be applied to the recently deceased No. In most of these instances the names of the dead are widely publicized and attempting to omit them is just utterly pointless. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed wording for RFC

I had a go at an RFC (below, at the bottom of the page), if anyone has strong objection, please say here and we can perhaps change it before there are replies. If it is OK, I will add it to WP:CENT Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I dont know what the rush to make that was, would prefer it be ironed out before starting. nableezy - 17:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if I misunderstood you, I thought you (and others, including myself) were looking for an RFC. We might alter it, there is only one reply until now. Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed the tags and closed it, over to you. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries, would rather just iron out the details and then start the RFC. Ideally with buy in from all sides here. nableezy - 18:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding the RFC, I think that it's important to avoid an RFC that ends on "decide on a case-by-case basis", because that's not the real issue here - it is extremely unlikely there would be consensus for a sweeping requirement or ban on such lists. The issue is that we're seeing similar arguments, again and again, on individual pages and discussions; we need to provide guidance for what the default is, for what arguments and situations are appropriate or inappropriate for a list of victims. I would suggest the following up-or-down questions, in a broader RFC about establishing guidelines for when we should include lists of victims in articles on mass shootings, disasters, and similar events:

• Should lists of victims generally be included for the purpose of parity with the names of the perpetrators, or in the name of similar forms of balance?
• Should lists of victims generally be included for the purpose of memorializing the people named?
• Should lists of victims generally be included simply because coverage of such a list exists in reliable sources?
• Can lists of victims generally be presumed to be core information that is required for a comprehensive article?
• Generally speaking, should the default be to include or exclude a list of victims, absent compelling article-specific arguments otherwise?
• Note that all questions assume that the bare minimum of WP:V is satisfied, of course. That part is non-negotiable and probably doesn't need to be said, but I figured I'd spell it out to be sure there's no confusion.

Those questions are central. If there are other recurring arguments for including lists, please suggest them so they can be asked as well; but those three come up again and again, and they're not really article-specific in and of themselves. If we established that lists can be included on a case-by-case basis but that an article-specific rationale is required and that those three reasons alone are not sufficient, I think that would solve the core problems here. Conversely, of course, defaulting to include or determining that one of those three arguments is sufficient - which would amount to the same thing, since those three arguments are largely applicable to all mass shooting articles - would also resolve things. --Aquillion (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

My argument for including names has always been that they are core, contextual information that ought to be included for the sake of having a comprehensive article. In other words, I believe including names furthers an encyclopedic purpose. (After all, the entire purpose mass shooting articles exist is because a group of people were murdered). Purposes one and two are inherently unencyclopedic purposes while point three elicits an immediate WP:NOTEVERYTHING objection. I personally believe that the question that needs to be resolved is "do victim lists in articles on mass shootings advance an encyclopedic purpose?" Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That would roughly be covered by the last of those four questions, I think (it's really the most important, but I feel it's worth nailing down the other three because they come up a lot.) Asking "is it encyclopedic" is tricky because many people are going to say "well, that's contextual" which leads to the current situation where we say we want to decide on a case-by-case basis but many people have arguments that functionally push the "context" in one direction on the other on every single article, resulting in endless redundant discussions where the actual arguments don't differ at all. So we need to decide what the default is. A default of "include" would align with what you're saying, while if the default was "exclude" then you'd be expected to provide an argument specific to that article about why it is encyclopedic in that specific case (and simply saying "victims lists are always encyclopedic" or "it's encyclopedic by default" wouldn't be sufficient, because a wider consensus to exclude by default would clearly be rejecting that.) Still, there's no harm in asking it, if the RFC will be a series of simple up-or-down questions. It's also useful to get up-or-down answers on each of those questions, even though the last one is the really important one, because knowing why we default to accepting or rejecting (and which arguments have been accepted, rejected, or reached no consensus) provides a bit more direction for those individual discussions rather than the debates we have now. --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I keep bringing up the ten year test because that should help refine what is significant to an encyclopedia built mostly on news sources that aim to cover the day to day. In a shooting, how the shooting happened, who did it, what justice was served, and changes made as a result are clear 10 year ideas, but the identity of the victims, short of demographics, are not. Masem (t) 06:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I like "enclyclopedic" being a core question (that's what wp:not is about) but "advance an encyclopedic purpose" is a far broader and vaguer term than "enclyclopedic". Many could argue that "enclyclopedic purpose" is "providing information" which would include everything that is excluded by wp:not. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I am struggling with how broad an impact we might have with the use of "victim" in this series of questions. The question bringing about the discussion is about mass shootings, but "victim" can be seen in a much broader context - as basically any notable event that involves an injury or fatality could include lists of non-notable victims (from large scale events to a traffic collision, to casualties of war, or from disease). I also wonder if the series of questions asked should also include additional information more than names of victims? - Enos733 (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this only affects lists. In-text discussion of victims (including naming them if there's sufficient sourcing to write something in-text that isn't just a list) would of course be unaffected regardless of the outcome. --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: So these are good questions, but my only problem is that most of them are already answered by our existing policies, and the answers would really just be showing how people interpret the policies (which raises with it all kinds of other concerns, like can the community of editors override our policies on this singular issue, especially when NPOV states at the very top that it is not negotiable, and cannot be overridden). I think one question not addressed is nailing down whether people think the current NOTMEMORIAL wording applies to just articles (my reading) or to even content within articles (which is what so many who invoke it seem to believe, even if the wording doesn't seem to support that). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

To be completely clear, this would be an RFC to set policy. It is obvious people have different interpretations of existing policy; but that isn't what's important. We need to decide what we want policy to say on this. If you believe that the outcome contravenes a non-negotiable policy you could try and raise that at a wider venue later on. --Aquillion (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Leave out as default. Victims who were specifically called out by the murderer by name (in shouts at the scene, in a manifesto written beforehand, or a confession stating that the killer targeted them particularly) can be named. Victims notable before their death can be named. Anyone else should be left out pending the results of the "ten year test" as mentioned by Masem. We should not be in the habit of parroting the sensationalism of the newpapers. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)(PS: I'm not sure if this is indented to the correct level. This is my response to the entire discussion.

Can you explain why we're applying this "ten year test" to only one part of the notable event? Wouldn't we logically demand ten years of coverage for any recent event (or even subjects in general) before allowing an article then? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Look, we're just going round in circles, how about we focus on what we want the RFC to look like (Aquillion suggestion for example), we're not going to solve this without one. Although it remains perfectly possible we won't solve it with one, either. Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think those first few questions should be part of the RfC. The general concern is mostly in the last question, of should we or shouldn't we include. I am in favor of including victims names, but I never have felt that simply saying who died was memorializing them. I don't feel background information on random targets, even when published in RS, is needed, but background on the shooter usually is needed. So I don't there is a balance or it was reported issue needing to be addressed. While everyone can bring their own other options, I feel the RfC should be as simple as possible, and with directly opposing views such as "We should include names, or "We shouldn't include names". Also should be clear that we are referring to naming the victims, not simply putting them into a list, so the RfC would cover both names in lists and prose. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I would think a possible question on the RFC would be if we should or should not include victim list, and a secondary, that we should not, what rationale dies that fall under , without expressing NOTMEMORIAL. If consensus is for not having such lists, we can use the second question to decide where to add the advice against lists (which end up at NOTMEMORIAL but that is not clear). If consensus agrees the lists are ok, then it would make sense to spell out NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to victim lists. Masem (t) 19:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• The issue is that ultimately we're probably going to end up saying "decide on a case by case basis", even if we have a default. So it's useful to collect recurring arguments (especially sweeping ones) and see if we can reach a general consensus on them. You can see many people, above, saying "we should include victims' lists for balance" or "we should include victim's lists because they deserve equal billing with their killer" or the like, and having an unambiguous RFC result we could point to saying that that's not a valid rationale would help avoid redundant discussions and would help encourage discussions to go towards more useful / valid arguments instead. More generally, my concern is that if we only ask the final question but none of the earlier ones, and the final question gives an "exclude by default" answer, we will still see people constantly using generic "it's encyclopedic" or "we need parity" arguments even though those arguments are ones that point towards including everywhere. I think a split decision is unlikely, but if one happens it would be informative in terms of the differing things the community wants for these articles. --Aquillion (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree keeping current consensus of case by case basis is most likely. The more complex the initial questions, the more likely of no consensus happening with people disagreeing to one degree or another of complexity. That's why I prefer something simple and straight forward. If base questions is simple, people can agree/disagree with the basis and anything additional in there response. I agree with Masem when he says have a secondary question involved. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The more questions we ask, the more information we get. I feel it is absolutely essential to get a straight up-or-down answer on the core rationales people give for including lists, so we can at the very least find out which are inappropriate. Putting more in the response is a terrible idea that would encourage another useless no-consensus outcome - we want to break it down into a series of hard yes-or-no questions to at least narrow the area under dispute. eg. you say that you consider it a given that parity and memorialization are not valid reasons to include a list - but many people above continue to argue that they are, and it's a constant reason people give for including them in discussions. Therefore, we need a simple up-or-down RFC on those specific questions, so that (assuming the RFC rejects them) future people who mistakenly make those arguments can be pointed to an existing RFC and told they need another rationale. --Aquillion (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I said a separate questions for those things should happen. For the main question, asking whether they should or shouldn't be include, should be simple. Giving more complications in initial questions will require more detail in responses, and much more likely to be no consensus. If question says "Should victims names be there because of XYZ", you will get responses that say yes to victim names but no XYZing, which is basically is a no to the question but yes to victims list, and which to make things nonconclusive for the RfC. Any additional detail given to a simple yes or a no, still is a direct yes or no, just with additional comments not conditionals. Obviously closer is going to have to all comments into account in both ways. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I look at it this way, in the fuzzy wikipedia system. In making a decision on whether or not to include the names of victims, unenclyclopedic considerations would otherwise be likely to exert influence e.g "as a memorial" , "to respect the dead", "to places extra emphasis on the fact that people died" "to have a stronger effect on the reader". In the fuzzy Wikipedia system, "Not a Memorial" either says "don't do that" or counterbalances doing that. So then the net effect is to make the decisions based on encyclopedic considerations. If you ignore the nature of the wiki system and try to get stand-alone-prescriptive, (via an RFC or whatever) it would just make a mess out of the situation. One area which might be good for clarification is that it currently influences such lists within articles but is not written explicitly to do that. North8000 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

What would you write in order to clarify that? Isn't the likely outcome still what we have now, case by case? That is a legitimate outcome if we don't mind spending time and energy on multiple RFC's elsewhere with apparently contradictory outcomes. Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

See the questions I propose above. We can ask a series of questions about what people consider valid rationales to include lists of victims, one of which would be Should lists of victims generally be included for the purpose of memorializing the people named? A negative outcome there would allow us to then update policy to make it unambiguous that that is not a valid reason to include a list of victims, and arguments premised on it could be disregarded afterwards as being against established consensus and policy. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Permit lists, both within articles and standalone (like the List of victims of the September 11 attacks, which I initially put together, and was discussed at AfD; disclaimer).

1. I agree with Cullen328, Spirit of Eagle, Locke Cole and WikiVirusC that NOTMEMORIAL applies to subjects of articles, not to list entries;
2. Like Visviva, I too don't think NOTMEMORIAL should have any bearing on this;
3. To the objection that long lists of victims might overwhelm the crime's article, WP:SPLIT applies, and the list may be published as standalone, as an appendix (or See also) to the main article; and
4. To the objection that a standalone list of otherwise non-notable victims of a notable crime violates WP:N, one need only verify that WP:LISTN establishes that:

   Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

   — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• This isn't the RFC; we're still discussing how that will be worded. I think there's general agreement that lists will be permitted (in the sense that we're not going to push for an absolute unconditional ban everywhere.) The question is whether they should be included or excluded by default, and what sorts of arguments are appropriate for including or excluding them in general. --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Proposal for RFC question: “Do victim lists in mass shooting articles have the primary effect of providing encyclopedic information or memorializing the victims?” This gets to the very heart of the issue and was specifically designed as an either-or type question so that an outcome of “decide on a case by case basis” is unlikely. I think we should also strongly encourage responders to explain the reasoning behind their !vote and discourage them from merely linking to or proving a basic summary of policy without explaining why and how that policy applies to the issue at hand (i.e. “exclude per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize the deceased”-this is a bad argument because it assumes without providing justification that victim lists serve primarily as memorials). We are all aware of the key policies and are at odds because we disagree on how to apply it; mere reminders that a policy exists does not nothing but clutter up the conversation. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this avoids the main question (include or exclude by default.) My answer would be "no" or "neither", say, and some people are going to answer "both." We want precise answers to finally settle things. More generally my problem with this is the same one I outlined above - this reads as asking whether they never provide encyclopedic information; what we want is to firmly nail down the question of whether they are included by default, and to specifically address each possible argument that people might make to include them by default. That way, if we get a negative in inclusion, we can point to the RFC and say "no, we established that that specific sweeping argument is invalid; you need a more specific one." Conversely if we get a positive then we will know what specific arguments justify inclusion and therefore which have to be answered if they're going to be excluded on any specific article. I would suggest the questions I mentioned above, with Can lists of victims generally be presumed to be core information that is required for a comprehensive article? as the question for the encyclopedic-information aspect instead, since that is the really' pressing aspect when discussing whether they should be included or excluded by default. I do also feel we need the up-or-down questions on the "balance" and "memorial" aspects so there's no doubt about those. These are simple up-and-down questions that will cut to the heart of the issue without leaving us in another vague state where people repeat the same arguments over and over again on every article where this dispute occurs. --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. I’ve read through your multi-question proposal in a bit more detail and I think what you’ve suggested is probably the best route forward. It’s precise, forces people to engage with the real issues at hand, and is likely to produce some results. (I’m not sure if you made some updates or if I just did a really terrible job reading your proposal, but I rescind my prior objection). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Question - Just to be clear. This (above) is not an RFC? Correct? We are just preparing the proper wording for an upcoming RFC? I am confused. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes to all the above. nableezy - 01:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

For an RFC, how about: "Add the following:

"Goals to memorialize, honor or place extra emphasis on victims are not reasons for including lists of victims. Lists of victims are seldom included in articles unless such serves an unusually strong encyclopedic purpose." "

North8000 (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Lists of victims are seldom included in articles Bullshit. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't seem very neutral for this particular RfC. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I like the five proposed questions. However, I notice that they do not make clear whether this is about lists of living victims, lists of deceased victims, or lists of living and deceased victims. What the responder infers could greatly inform their responses, so it would probably be best to state this plainly. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree that this needs to be clarified in any wording so that editors don't mistake that we're talking about dead people (though I would be curious about how living victims are viewed; my view would be to follow our sources and respect BLP concerns). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I summarized what I could find for living victims in another 18 July comment above – oh, wait, you already saw that. I guess you mean current views polled through an RFC rather than the community viewpoints codified in policy. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Update

Well, what became of all of the above? It's been a while. Has an RFC ever been started? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The idea was that the parties here might coalesce around some sort of RFC, hasn't happened as yet. Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent correction to Simple Lists

I agree with the recent minor correction made by Tavix, and I think the suggestion made by BilledMammal about rewriting conflicting guidance to match an incorrect small segment of policy is a bit senseless when you consider all of the conflicting guidance that would have to be rewritten. Not only would MOS:DABMENTION have to be rewritten since it allows links to non-notable parts of articles, but MOS:DABRED would have to be rewritten since it allows redlinks if they are mentioned in other articles. Does it make more sense for all that guidance to be rewritten simply because BilledMammal says that little segment take precedence, or does it make more sense to recognize the small segment is clearly mistaken, and correct it? Also, a blanket policy restricting all DAB lists to "notable only" doesn't just conflict with the above mentioned MOS, it is in direct conflict with WP:NNC, and WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I see this little piece of malformed policy as nothing more than a way for bad actors to tell editors with good intentions who have followed well written guidance tough luck because we gotcha on a little technicality since policy trumps whatever guidance you followed. Huggums537 (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

DABRED wouldn't need to be rewritten; it only allows redlinks to be provided when the topic is judged to be appropriate for a future article, which requires it to be notable.

In addition, dab pages to non-notable people have three issues. First, hundreds of thousands or millions would be required, resulting in them being unmaintainable and as as result less suitable for readers to find the article they are looking for than the search function; mentions added after the dab page is created are unlikely to result in the dab page being updated in a timely manner, and thus the search function is more effective. Second, they make it harder for readers to find the notable individual they are looking for; imagine adding all the non-notable people named John Smith to John Smith. Third, there are often multiple, equally suitable targets, and we do not know which one the reader is looking for; for example, are they looking for Patricia Jenkins's participation in the 1904 Olympics, the 1908 Olympics, or the 1912 Olympics? In a dab page, we would have to assume a single, most likely target, which will confuse readers looking for a different target, while the search function places no such requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

DABRED would in fact have to be rewritten, and so would WP:D3 as well as WP:DABREF when you consider the only way to really prove any redlink is notable is to add the citations, and the way D3 is currently written citations are not allowed. WP:CSC talks about this redlinks and citations thing although the guidance is admittedly meant for articles not DAB navigational lists. The naming problems you are talking about are already covered quite well at WP:NAMELIST where we can easily organize and manage names without forcing a minor notability policy note that conflicts with other guidance, and has no other support anywhere else in policy backing it up. Huggums537 (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, nobody ever asked for DAB pages to non-notable people [that aren't already allowed] in the first place. Your suggestion that making this correction to the policy is an equivalent invitation to millions of non-notable entries is just a bunch of poppycock. D3 makes it clear that entries without blue links should not be included, so that would never happen because you would have an extremely difficult time getting thousands, or maybe even just only hundreds of non-notables that are also mentioned in other articles, and even if that would happen it would not change anything by keeping this incorrect bit because we are already linking to non-notable people mentioned in other articles per DABMENTION anyway so keeping the faulty bit of policy helps nothing. Not only would you have to rewrite DABMENTION, you would also have to make changes to an unreasonable amount of DAB pages that already contain links to non-notable people or things mentioned in other articles. Huggums537 (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

nobody ever asked for DAB pages to non-notable people in the first place - that isn't correct. For example, Arthur Harley is a dab page to non-notable people. I also think you are significantly underestimating the number of non-notable people mentioned on Wikipedia if you think there are only a few hundred or a few thousand such DAB pages that could be created if this part of NOT was removed.

And neither D3 nor DABRED would need to be rewritten; as I pointed out DABRED already only permits red links on disambiguation pages when the topic is judged to be appropriate for a future article. BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It is correct now. I've added the additional context to my comment, but the point is that nobody is asking for anything that isn't already allowed. Even the example you provided is already allowed. I think you are seriously overestimating what *could* happen just to push your POV based on nothing more than the bare fact that lots of non notable people are mentioned on Wikipedia, while history itself has data to support the fact that this incorrect bit of policy isn't stopping these pages from being created anyway, and millions of them have not got out of hand yet. OTOH, the policy is falsely misleading people into believing something that isn't true about DAB's, which is that DAB pages are "notable only". Huggums537 (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Harley (2nd nomination) shows a strong and clear consensus against for BilledMammal's interpretation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. My change simply reconciled a conflict that arose from a bold, undiscussed addition that had gone unchallenged until being used in that AfD against the established WP:DABMENTION guidance, one that can be traced back all the way to the first draft of the guideline. (As an interesting aside, that first draft had a DABMENTION example of John Smith (composer) (born 1955), wrote the theme music to Seinfeld, which is the same name being used here.) My change should thus stand unless consensus can be formed in favor of deprecating WP:DABMENTION, for one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  See WP:CONLEVEL - a local discussion at an AfD cannot change policy. In addition, the line you proposing removing as been in this page for eight years; you need a consensus to remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  He never said the local consensus at AfD should change policy. He was clearly saying that there was consensus in the 2005 guidance long before someone came along making the policy error in 2014, and we are just now finding out about the error because of the AfD discussion. Tavix mentioned making changes to the policy in that discussion, but J947 also said the policy should be clarified. Huggums537 (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The LISTN guideline doesnt talk to the notability of individual items on the list but the notability or lack thereof of the list topic utself. Using notability to restrict additions if the consensus allows for it. Eh alumni listd.Masem (t) 23:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles., but it doesn't even matter that you are completely wrong about that because the only thing in WP:LISTN that applies to DABS is the quote I mentioned in the OP since DABS are navigation aids, not lists, which are a type of article. You say using notability to restrict additions if consensus allows for it, but consensus has already been restricting additions regardless of notability since 2005 with DABMENTION and the 2014 policy error has had no observable effect on that since we still have the many non-notable listings as evidence of this. Huggums537 (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The only effect the policy error is having is to cause misunderstanding and conflict such as in the example provided by the AfC discussion where it is clear the misunderstanding occurred with this policy error and the editor who nominated the deletion. The error needs to be removed to prevent further incident of misunderstanding and conflict. If deletionists want the DAB guidance changed they are free to try, but until then this conflict error here is causing damage and must be removed. Huggums537 (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you are referencing WP:ALUMNI as you did earlier in the NOTMEMORIAL conversation, then the only thing I can say about that is you have a great talent for pointing to guidance that doesn't apply whatsoever since ALUMNI was intended for the strict use of school articles in particular, and I've already pointed out that DABS are not even articles at all, but navigational aids. Huggums537 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• I just now noticed that Star Mississippi closed the above mentioned AfC with a suggestion to have a meta discussion about this. I think it will be appropriate to ping users from that discussion as well as users from the previous discussion that were pinged by the nominator: @Eviolite, Mdewman6, Shhhnotsoloud, Lugnuts, Blue Square Thing, Johnpacklambert, TartarTorte, Gidonb, AusLondonder, Bungle, and LibStar: please weigh in on the discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. Clearly I'm happy for a broad inclusion within dab pages to lists. It provides the opportunity to argue for redirect at AfD discussions, which seems to me to be a pragmatic, compromise option when there is a suggestion of some notability but the sourcing is difficult to access - for example, in the case of Arthur Harley the politician, I would be very surprised if there wasn't sourcing via PapersPast that might allow for an article to just about be created that met GNG. I'm not sure, but it's possible. The same applies to Arthur Harley the gymnast - but in that case, sourcing is much more difficult as he's British rather than a New Zealander, so free, universal access to press sources is generally more difficult (but he was an Olympian - chances are that if he'd competed in 2012 for the UK we'd have loads of sources). In these sorts of situations, I tend to think we're better off not adopting a strict keep or delete line which simply causes conflict. Other people disagree and take a position that we need to massively reduce the amount of articles we have. Personally I think that causes conflict and has clearly driven editors away from the project. I suppose that's shruggable - but that's OK, someone else will come along and write an in-depth article about a moth... Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Many dab entries are notable – no one's going to dispute that Mercury (planet) and Mercury (element) deserve articles. Each of those topics would have an article called Mercury except for similarly named subjects preventing them from being a primary topic. However, other dab entries substitute for redirects rather than articles. Even if neither Arthur Harley is notable, that name would be a credible {{R to list entry}} to either page which would survive RfD, but for the fact that another person shares the name. Dab entries and name list entries only need to pass the lower threshold for redirects, and do not need to describe an entire notable topic. Certes (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

But importantly, the non notable name on a dab list should have a clear article topic to link to where that name can be read about further. A dab list with a non notable name without such a target shouldnt be on the dablist. We want either the name or the topic they are attached to to be notable. Masem (t) 20:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is already part of WP:MOSDAB, and pretty well enforced: every item on a dab page needs one blue link. PamD 20:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Which is why the change in question is good but could be amended to say "just the notable ones or those directly linked to a notable topic" would be inline with that. Masem (t) 20:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps "Just those about which or whom Wikipedia has information"? PamD 20:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes: MOS:DABMENTION already covers this well. Tweaks to clarify its wording are welcome but we shouldn't change its meaning. It's implicit that the article containing the mention must be on a notable topic; if not then the article containing the mention should be deleted along with the dab entry (unless other mentions remain). Certes (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is just remove the conflicting policy error. Huggums537 (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Or just make that DABMENTION is linked to the above addition. Policy would be saying dablists should be everything but thinks that have reasonable links. DABMENTION expanding on that Masem (t) 21:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You are trying very hard, but not succeeding. That isn't easier at all because you would still have to contend with all the non-notable entries and DAB pages that currently exist. That isn't easier, it's just what you're desiring more, and trying to make it sound as if it was easier. Huggums537 (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with PamD's wording if it has to be there. The intent of navigational aid policy is to [facilitate the ease to] point to other places where Wikipedia has information, not for the embodiment of the enforcement of a lesser notability guideline that doesn't really apply. those directly linked to a notable topic appears to be saying that all DAB entries mentioned in an article must be directly linked to the topic they are mentioned in. That is not consistent with DABMENTION. There is no requirement for the mentioned subject to be directly linked to article topic, only that it be mentioned in another article. Huggums537 (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean "linked" not as in hyperlinked but discussed as you state. Masem (t) 06:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, well then your suggested wording would be out of line with DABMENTION then, not inline with it, which is why something like PamD's is all the much better. Huggums537 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to mention my profound shock about your admitting taking this position discussed just as I stated very openly as you are right out here in front of God and everybody, but you don't even seem to be embarrassed or anything. I must be missing something beyond my comprehension... Huggums537 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Dab page entries like the two on Arthur Harley are useful: they help the reader who is looking for info on either of those AHs, and they alert the editor who might be about to create an article on one or the other (or indeed a third), to reduce the risk that we end up with duplicated articles, or wrongly-connected links. Either of those AHs could well have been the subject of a redirect, and because there are two, we need a dab page. Similarly, anyone for whom a redirect would have been useful, but where the redirect is ambiguous, needs a dab page entry or a hatnote, to help the reader and the editor. Redirects, and dab page entries and hatnotes, help readers navigate to the information they want to find, even if we don't have a whole article on the topic, or even if the name we have chosen for the topic is not the one they are using. If there's a "John Smith" who is mentioned in an article or a list, with some useful information about him (say, that he represented the UK in the 1908 Olympics, or that he was an unsuccessful candidate about whom we have sourced content, not just the result, in an 1881 election), then he should be included in the John Smith disambiguation page. (Another area we could usefully think about is how best to present a page like that, with many people of the same name: is the reader best served by a list in strict A-Z, ie by middle names; a list in chronological sequence of birthdate, either total or chunked by century or similar; a list sorted by occupation (politicians, sportspeople, musicians, etc)?) PamD 20:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreeing with the majority of opinions above. However, I'm not sure if that sentence about dab pages (even if tweaked) really belongs there. Here's the paragraph it appears in:

Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. Nor should listings such as the white or yellow pages be replicated. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for more information.

So, the first sentence says Wikipedia articles aren't simple listings. It gives an example of such simple listings in the third sentence (the yellow pages), followed by a link to further guidelines. The bit about dab pages (the second sentence) sits quite incoherently right in the middle of that, interrupting the logical flow of the text. Simple listings without much context is what dab pages actually are, so they're a counterexample here. If they are to be mentioned at all (I don't know if they should be), that will make sense to be at the end. – Uanfala (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This is actually a good point, and I had thought about mentioning it, but was thinking perhaps I should stick to the simple original topic of whether we should keep the correction made by Tavix or not. However, I do agree with you that the whole undiscussed bold edit made in 2014 is rather out of place now that you mention it... Huggums537 (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The "logical flow of the text" wasn't "quite incoherently right in the middle of that" when it was written. When it was written, the wording was as follows:

1. The White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses are not encyclopedic. Likewise, disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person in the world named John Smith — just the notable ones.

At the time, people were adding themselves to DAB pages and articles about high schools and middle schools. I added this wording to have something to point to when they did it. Where should I point them in the future when I see this nonsense?

Slightly off-topic, I think it's clear that there are or should be two notability guidelines: notability for mention, and notability for article. DAB mentions for people who are notable for inclusion in a portion of an article somewhere are perfectly valid, but not everyone who is mentioned necessarily deserves their own article. Do we have any policies that address this as such? Differentiating who is notable enough for their own article, and who is only notable enough to merit mention? J^♯m (talk | contribs) 17:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is WP:N for differentiating who is notable enough for their own article and WP:NNC is the guidance to refer to for who is notable enough to merit being mentioned in content within an article. Huggums537 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

In other words, we already have guidance for such, and the guidance tells us that notability only applies to the creation of articles, not the content within them. Merely mentioning someone within an article only requires that it follow other editing rules such as verifiable, and NPOV, but not notable. Huggums537 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

But every topic that might meet NNC may not be appropriate for a dab page inclusion. For example in an article about a shooting in a small town or city, we may mention the police chief's name as to effectively describe the investigation, but we would not likely include that name on a dab page, since the discussion on the article isn't really talking about the chief. Masem (t) 01:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Let the current wording stay. The requirement of a single blue link for each entry limits the dab's value as a navigational tool since all non-notable topics mentioned in multiple pages will have to be excluded. BilledMammal is thus probably correct in saying that the search function would be more effective for that purpose. Notability is a reasonable threshold for inclusion, and makes navigation straightforward. At least, having a dab page solely to distinguish minor and obscure list entries contradicts the spirit of WP:D and WP:LISTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The dab's value as a navigational tool is far from limited because you can have multiple entries for each article that contains a mention since each blue link would be different for each article, therefore nothing is excluded whatsoever, and the restriction really is no limitation at all. Also, notability is not the current threshold for inclusion, nor was it intended for "navigation". Lastly, I have already made the point that DAB pages are are navigational aids and not articles and lists are a type of article so list rules don't apply, but I am glad you linked to WP:LSC to prove the point even more for me since it states Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item., but this is forbidden for DAB pages because they follow different guidance as they are for different kinds of pages. As for having a dab page solely to distinguish minor and obscure list entries contradicting the spirit of WP:D, I would say the contradiction is highly debatable, and hasn't caused any problems while the policy error here is a much greater contradiction that has caused known damage which I've pointed out earlier. Huggums537 (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Supported by reliable sources" only means "verifiable", not "cited", otherwise purely navigational lists would all be disallowed; and "membership criteria" aren't "likely to be disputed" in dab pages. Otherwise, LSC gives no exception for dab pages that I can see, at least as far as the crucial "not just verifiable existence" is concerned.

To give an example of what I said earlier, a non-notable individual like Émile Sarrade could not be listed in a dab page because he is mentioned in two pages, Tug of war at the 1900 Summer Olympics and Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics, and there is no reason to prefer one over the other, knowing that WP:D3 limits the amount of blue links to one.

The important point here is that WP:Disambiguation applies to "potential article title[s]", not every single thing mentioned anywhere. Most of the time this will mean something like an alternative name for notable topics (like the redirect "Bacchus" for "Dionysus", which is listed at "Bacchus (disambiguation)"), or sometimes an important subtopic likely to be split from the parent article. "Arthur Harley" and "Émile Sarrade" meet none of these criteria. NOTDIRECTORY and D don't seriously disagree. If you want to look for a contradiction in the rules, you should be complaining about the fact that DABMENTION doesn't lay out any limits for inclusion (though, as a MoS guideline, it's not its job to do so). Avilich (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No, Émile Sarrade could certainly be listed in a dab page, assuming there were a couple of other persons of that name, and could have links to more than one of his pages if that was the most likely to help the reader. WP:DABSTYLE says Rarely should a bulleted entry have more than one navigable link; including more than one link can confuse the reader., but "rarely" implies "sometimes". This is indeed done where someone who is a red link, or is just listed in black in a dab page, has a couple of apparently equal mentions - appeared in two films, medalled in several Olympics, etc. If there were more than one, I'd give a couple and use wording with "including ... ". PamD 17:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Rarely" + WP:D3 = no. What I mentioned isn't a rare or exceptional case. Avilich (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that the sentence "Likewise, disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person in the world named John Smith — just the notable ones." was added on 28 December 2014, but does not seem to have been discussed on the talk page (this archive seems to cover that period). Given that disambiguation pages are not lists (see MOS:LIST and MOS:DAB, which are completely distinct) I suggest that the sentence is inappropriate and should be removed. A description of disambiguation pages is irrelevant to a section about "Simple lists", because dab pages are not simple lists: they are navigational aids. It might be appropriate to mention surname listings such as Davies or List of people with surname Smith, which are not disambiguation pages but lists (or, in the former case, an article about the surname, which include a list). PamD 18:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a case of ONUS that the sentence has been there for some time, with many editors' eyes to see it (before the recent changes) and this has implicit consensus to keep. Masem (t) 23:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has yet pinged Jsharpminor who made the change. Avilich (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully support the suggestion made by @PamD, and my read of the discussion suggests @Tavix, @Blue Square Thing, @Certes, and @Uanfala would likely support such an action as well, but I would let them speak for themselves. However, I wanted to point out that just because the sentence has been there a long time is practically meaningless since WP:WEAKSILENCE shows points 3., 4., and 5. in the box that apply very well here. Also, WP:ONUS The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. We are disputing the content. That means the onus is actually on you for proving any worthy consensus for inclusion. Huggums537 (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This page has been viewed over three million times since then, and has 1743 watchers. If you had disputed this in 2015 then you would be right, but as you are disputing it now there is currently a consensus for inclusion, and a consensus is required to remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You should be aware of a few things: 1) Neither ONUS or SILENT talk about how many page views or watchers are involved, but 2) the so-called "current consensus for inclusion" no longer exists per Consensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). and 3) a silent consensus doesn't even apply anyway per Apply the rule of silence and consensus only when a weak consensus would suffice. Silence and consensus does not apply when either a strong consensus or a mandatory discussion is required. and Even in these cases, however, dissent might show up later, and it is then no longer appropriate to assume consensus. Just like earlier, bare facts about millions of page views and hundreds upon hundreds of page watchers doesn't mean the rules somehow translate into some other meaning. Huggums537 (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with that section of the essay; most of our policies and guidelines are based on bold changes that have since obtained consensus through the length of time they have been visible in prominent pages, and allowing editors to dispute that five, ten, or fifteen years down the line is likely to cause significant disruption. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's convenient! Disagree with sections that don't support, and agree with sections that do. Seems like a workable strategy I guess... Huggums537 (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with sections that don't support, and agree with sections that do. - Where did I say that? I note that the page you linked is an essay. BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Huggums537. To have one's own article requires notability. To be mentioned in an article requires a far lower standard. In particular, to be listed on a disambiguation page only requires a WP:DABMENTION. Lists other than dabs can set their own thresholds. Sometimes that can be high – for example, Foo College#Notable alumni usually demands an article – but usually it is nearer to the dab entry standard. Certes (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

And I'd agree with all of that. Lists and redirects to them allow a middle ground between bright-line inclusion and hard-line deletion. That's a good thing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• No, for dab it needs to be a "potential title" as well. Avilich (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Dab entries aren't restricted to potential article titles, though that's a really common misconception (most recent discussion). – Uanfala (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the entire sentence. Disambiguation pages are not lists, they are governed by separate guidelines. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

As I argued above, I believe that the sentence should be removed as well. – Uanfala (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The change was in response to an IP trying to add a non notable Ajay to that diamb page [4] Masem (t) 01:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

More relevantly, it was in response to an IP trying to add an Ajay with no WP:DABMENTION. Non-notable Ajays who are described in Wikipedia are welcome (in Ajay (given name), which has since been split off from the dab). For example, Ajay Gogavale is correctly listed despite not having his own article. Certes (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is mostly it. I grew tired of seeing DABs sprouting redlinks to (for example) eighth-graders who added themselves to a Wikipedia DAB of their name. I also saw multiple instances of articles for middle schools and high schools where people were adding themselves to the article under "List of notable alumni" or some such. I certainly didn't expect at the time that the wording would survive this long, or that it would generate a huge debate eight years into the future, but there you have it.

I think the wording should stay, in some form, in some policy somewhere. I'm not saying it needs to stay here. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 17:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

When I see people adding list entries with redlinks to articles about themselves, I just revert with a pointer to Wikipedia:Write the article first (WP:WTAF), which does the job well. – Uanfala (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Simple listings summarises two complex sets rules in a very concise subsection. It sets a minimum standard for list entries in articles (note: dabs aren't articles) and also hints at WP:DABMENTION. Should we explicitly limit Simple listings to lists in articles, and refer the reader to WP:DABMENTION for dabs (without attempting to promote it from guideline to policy)? Certes (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• WP:WHYN: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists). end of discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thsts raising the question if the Dab page itself is notabke or not, which per WHYN we dont even question. But that doesnt apply to the contents if a dab page. Masem (t) 01:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  Oh please. Stop being ridiculous. Doesn't apply means doesn't apply. All disambiguation pages means all disambiguation pages. But, even if we were to pretend to play your silly little game, WP:NNC would mean notability still would not apply to the "contents". It simply doesn't apply no matter how many ways you slice it. Huggums537 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  See WP:CSC; notability does sometimes apply to the contents of lists. BilledMammal (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  The relevant section to refer to in CSC for navigational aids such as DABS is the third bullet point: Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. Which clearly says you are not required to omit non-notable entries and that is entirely inline with DABMENTION. Huggums537 (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't fully agree with that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that your statement that notability never applies to content is incorrect, and that the requirement that WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies to disambiguation pages is not exceptional. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  You are right. That policy error is not exceptional. It is out of this galaxy extraordinary! Huggums537 (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Reading DABMENTION more closely and where it sits in the part of how to format dab pages, it does not actually appear to be a guideline on what topics to include or exclude. It is basically saying that an entry on the list should include a link to a page That mentions and Not to link to a page that doesnt, potentially leaving an all black (no link) line. There is nothing I can immediately see to prevent the Ajay situation related to inclusion of non notable and unmentioned names on a dab list, which is clearly not practice. --Masem (t) 02:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  WP:D3, MOS:DABBLUE, and MOS:DABNOLINK all cover this quite well. Huggums537 (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  To a point but in reading those, the mosdab page overall avois directly stating what should not be listed which is when no blue link can be made (but dabmention suggests otherwise). Yes, we dont want to limit dab pages to only notable terms but what should be excluded when the term is not notable is vague. Masem (t) 05:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  For both dab pages and creation of redirects, the exclusion should be "terms which do not lead to some information in the encyclopedia". PamD 07:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think something needs to be said about not dabbing terms that are only mentioned in passing, eg the name of a local police chief that may be needed to ease how the narrative of an event that occurred, but otherwise not involved with it. Masem (t) 11:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  DABMENTION has the following line specifically for cases like that: a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. The understanding is that most passing mentions don't provide value to the reader. – Uanfala (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  But as I wrote above DABMENTION doesn't restrict dab additions that do not link to anything (last part of that MOS). The overall MOS:DAB It is internally inconsistent. Masem (t) 12:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  The DABMENTION section doesn't need to repeat points that have been addressed in several other places, including further up on the same page. – Uanfala (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  The point is that there is no concise statement on the MOSDAB page that says what entries should be included or excluded, particularly for where the term itself is not blue linked. Masem (t) 12:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  How about the very first sentence of MOS:DAB, which defines dabs as non-article pages designed to help a reader find the right Wikipedia article when different topics could be referred to by the same search term – how can a dab page help a reader find the right article if no article exists? This is further spelt out right at the start of the section MOS:DAB#Individual entries, which states the purpose of dab entries is to direct the readers to Wikipedia articles on the various topics which might be referenced by the term being disambiguated, and then a few bullet points down this is further elaborated with the advice to [i]nclude exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Yes, there's certainly scope for major rewrites of the bits in MOS:DAB and WP:DAB that govern what can and can't be included as entries, but in their current forms there's no shortage of clear and concise formulations of the rule that dab entries should link to existing articles. – Uanfala (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  MOS:DABMENTION works well for those of us who maintain disambiguation pages. It includes a good example of a character who doesn't merit her own article but is included with a blue link to the notable play in which she features. Certes (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  But as I have pointed out, the last part of DABMENTION appears to allow an entry with no links, neither the term nor an associated article. It could be fixed by adding, for example "If an entry lacks any links going to other Wikipedia pages, then it should be removed" --Masem (t) 01:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't understand why you keeping going on about that. I really don't. First off, WP:MOSDAB is only one particular section of the dab guidelines and there's no need for it to repeat everything else said in the rest of the guidelines. Second, the meaning of that guideline very, very clearly does not allow entries without links: its whole text would be utter poppycock if you assumed that it did. You seem to be approaching that text looking for loopholes that may be exploited by some mischievous lawyer who's being wilfully obtuse. The dab guidelines aren't meant for wilfully obtuse mischievous lawyers; they're guidelines for good-faith editors, they're not trade agreements between countries. – Uanfala (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  The best option is to add an appropriate link, rewording if necessary. If no such link is possible, then the entry should be removed. If Mercury had an unlinked entry Mercury FM, a radio station in Surrey, United Kingdom then we should link Mercury FM, not remove the entry. Carelessly omitting a pair of brackets is not a licence to delete. Certes (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  The reason I'm there looking for loopholes is that this is what novice editors and often IP ones do to make chances. I know that we talk of the spirit of P&G, but these editors don't so if you have a contradiction or loophole, it will be exploited (it is the same reason that at WP:N we don't talk about the minimum number of sources needed, for example, as we knwo that is gamed).

  What would make sense at MOS:DAB is one section, near the start, of what is and isn't to be included. That advice is in the overall page, but spread out among formatting elements, and even the section "Examples of individual entries that should not be created" is more about the specific types of links to exclude. This thread started as an issue complaining of a conflict between WP:N and MOS:DAB, but without MOS:DAB being explicit on where the line is for what to include, its hard to see how to resolve this, and to that end, it makes the changes that were made to WP:N seem appropriate since this type of guideance is "missing" (in this case, hard to locate) from MOS:DAB. Making MOS:DAB explicit so that all that WP:N needs to do is point to that section when talking about DAB pages would help a lot. Masem (t) 12:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  I spend a lot of time on dab pages, and I can't remember any editor arguing against the removal of an unlinked entry by claiming that WP:DABMENTION allows it. The first line of MOS:DABENTRY says "After the introductory line comes a list of individual entries – lines which direct the readers to Wikipedia articles on the various topics which might be referenced by the term being disambiguated.. An entry which does not link to a Wikipedia article fails that definition. Simple. Yes, perhaps the wording of WP:DABMENTION could be clarified, but that would need discussion at its talk page, not on this very generial thread which started off as a discussion of "simple lists", a group of pages which does not include dab pages. PamD 13:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts has some useful advice, though it is deliberately concise rather then comprehensive. Certes (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  And right at the start of WP:DABSTYLE we see "Each disambiguation page comprises a list (or multiple lists, for multiple senses of the term in question) of similarly titled links.". No link = no inclusion in a dab page. I don't see the problem. PamD 13:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Masem, I've been dealing with dab pages for years and I've become used to several persistent misinterpretations of DABMENTION, but not a single time have I seen someone use the hypothetical loophole you've described (maybe new editors aren't as motivated to wikilawyer about a silly little dab entry as they would be about something that actually matters, like whether the article they created about their client is accepted). I agree with your other suggestion though: it would be better if the advice on what can and can't go on dab pages (currently spread across WP:DAB and MOS:DAB) were combined in a single place, without all the formatting advice and with some further notes so that it can apply to the closely related questions of what topics should and shouldn't have redirects or hatnote entries. But that's a big project that's beyond the scope of what we're discussing here. – Uanfala (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  If you haven't it, great, then I do think adding a section on what are appropriate items, and what aren't would be good.

  That would then leave WP:NOT to simply say something like "Inclusion guidance for disambiguation pages can be found at ...", and thus leave out the notability addition - that would still capture that dab pages should not be indiscriminate but the advice for what is indiscriminate can be found there. Masem (t) 01:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thinking about it, I see two times when inclusion will likely cause issues; corporations, which have self-promotion issues, and people, which have the issues I detailed above. Unless editors can see problems that I have missed with the possibility to include other non-notable entities, I would not object to reducing the scope of WP:NOTDIRECTORY down to that. BilledMammal (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  It has been weeks since the last edit, and no discussion at all on the suggestions made by BilledMammal or Masem, but I seem to understand that for now the majority of everyone is in unison with the Tavix edit being restored for the time being to leave out the contentious notability addition. I'll go ahead and boldly restore the edit to provide what I see is wanted right now regarding that contentious little part, and then we should just wait and see if the community wants discussion about these other suggestions. Huggums537 (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't believe that is appropriate; I have restored the text, and would suggest if you want to remove it that you open an RfC proposing to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Given that you were the one that added the text, its on your onus to show that there's consensus for it. I don't think this is a fight that is really needed - I would only prefer if there was a clear section at the DAB page to describe what's appropriate to include that we can use as a link from the existing text. Masem (t) 00:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't add the text; it was added eight years ago by a different editor. BilledMammal (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Regardless, I'm really shocked that you don't see consensus for removal? -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes; there is too much opposition here for us to say that there is a consensus for removal from an informal discussion. I will open an RfC and restore the text until the RfC concludes. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Opened; it will hopefully produce a clear answer as to whether there is a consensus for removal. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I already have opened this very discussion proposing the removal of the text, and you insisting by virtue of insinuation that this lengthy "informal discussion" is somehow invalidated, and demanding that it must have been held in some formal RfC process to be valid is just disruptive. Huggums537 (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  If there was a clear consensus then I would agree with you, but there is not; several editors disagree with you, and a formal discussion is the best way to determine what the consensus is. I also note that as an involved editor you should not be determining what the consensus of a discussion unless it is uncontroversial. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  The only person objecting is yourself. I see that as very uncontroversial. If you think one objection makes a controversy, then I guess we have different ideas about what a controversy is. Huggums537 (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  At least two other editors objected, Avilich and Jsharpminor; I might have missed some others. The fact that you missed those makes it clear to me that your assessment of consensus was flawed, even beyond the involved issues. BilledMammal (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  BilledMammal is not the only editor in the above discussion that has objected to the recent change. There's nothing disruptive about opening an RfC to determine project-wide consensus before making a substantive change to a policy page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  OK, so just Avilich, and BilledMammal then. Jsharpminor, said it didn't have to be here, and there is something disruptive about opening nearly duplicate discussions in separate places. It confuses things and muddies the water. Huggums537 (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also, I see my close of that duplicate discussion was reverted, and some added advertising for it at Notability talk without any mentions at all of this discussion in the RfC, or in the subsequent advertising. Interesting. Huggums537 (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I hope @Avilich, @Blue Square Thing, @Certes, @Jsharpminor, and @Uanfala are also aware of this new RfC considering this discussion was so old without any edits something like 3 weeks. Huggums537 (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware - thank you for pinging me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Pre discussion of RFC Inclusion of victim or casualty lists in articles

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.

---

RFCbefore Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#NOTMEMORIAL and its application to lists of victims within articles Previous discussions: 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019. Three essays: Wikipedia:What NOTMEMORIAL is not, Wikipedia:Casualty lists, Wikipedia:Victim lists.

Choose:

Option A) "Lists of victims of an event are inappropriate unless all listed victims have Wikipedia articles, or a section of an article, of their own" ( from the essay Wikipedia:Victim lists) or

Option B) "In events where people die by homicide or accident, it is appropriate to provide names and other minor details if our secondary sources provide such coverage." (from the essay Wikipedia:Casualty lists) or

Option C) Something else and say what it is in a sentence. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Added at WP:CENT on 11 July (self reverted)

Choice

• Option A (though I reserve the right to come up with an option C I prefer later on). Lists are inappropriate. Editors need to learn to summarize information in prose rather than enumerate information in list format. Including the names of otherwise non-notable, WP:LOWPROFILE individuals is also inappropriate, since it does nothing to further the readers' understanding of the topic at hand, i.e. the event itself (if the article incorrectly names 32-year-old Harvey Lee as Lee Harvey instead, that does not affect the readers' understanding of the event in the slightest), and it has privacy implications for living relatives and friends and so on. This typically comes up in the context of spree killings and the such, in which case casualty lists and tables (such as by nationality) come across as a kind of scoreboard for the killer(s), which is a terrible look for Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option C: Handle it on a case-by-case basis. Curbon7 (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option C Including names/age/gender of deceased victims in the article about the event where they were casualties is allowed, preferably in prose. Occupation being included can be decided on case by case basis, such as identifying as teacher/student at a school shooting, or first responder responding to incident. Other trivial/non pertinent to event information should be excluded. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• What are we choosing/discussing here. If any of these options are decided, what is to be done afterwards. Adding it to WP:NOTMEMORIAL or WP:IINFO? To propose for a policy addition at village pump? A new essay? WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because of all the past nocon, it might be better first to see if that is still the case. If it turns out there is a consensus of some sort, then the "paperwork" ought to be straightforward. Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm trying to clarify what is this RfC for, it simply says choose one. Just our opinions, and no changes to be made? If we just want to see where people stand and propose something for a policy change later on that's fine, I just wanted to clarify intent other than just choosing. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• In general, I'm not sure essays have the best options to propose. Of listed option Option A is kind of loose, with the "section of an article". Some people aren't notable enough for their own articles, but have sections, or section could be created in other articles that they are/could be redirected to. It seems to want only notable people to be listed but has additional criteria to allow the not notable for Wikipedia article, but also lets in potential WP:BLP1E people, where event might even be where they died. Option B allows for names and other minor details, when a lot of people who support inclusions of names, might not include other minor details. Age/gender is fine, sometimes profession, but "other minor details" may push supports away from the choice. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  There is Option C, it's a la carte here :) The closer has to do some work, OK. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Well voting already start now, so whatever. I was just worried another no consensus was likely to happen if we don't keep things simple in the base options. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

An editor has requested more time for discussion prior to an RFC so closing the RFC for now. Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2022 (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.

WP:NOTDIRECTORY contradicts WP:N (which it links to)

• WP:NOTDIRECTORY:

  Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones.

• WP:N:

  when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap).

Emphasis mine. — Guarapiranga ☎ 03:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• No contradiction; in the line you quote WP:N is talking about notable topics, abet ones that don't justify a standalone page. Since those topics are notable, they are permitted to be linked in dab pages under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I would actually consider the two to be closely aligned. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Per my earlier quote from WP:WHYN, I think it does contradict and we hope to have it removed in that discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• @Guarapiranga: what is the contradiction related to just the notable ones, as I understand that is your emphasis? Jay (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think they just accidentally misread the second passage as being about topics in general thinking it was a contradiction. That passage is easily confusing. BilledMammal is correct that it is technically talking specifically about notable topics so there is no contradiction in that particular passage alone. The passage is worded in a weirdly easily misunderstood way that leaves no room for discussion or guidance about topics in general. The entire WP:PAGEDECIDE section is plagued with this problem. However, the quote I gave above is evidence that the emphasis given by Guarapiranga is true to the fact of a conflict. Huggums537 (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  You're right, Huggums537. Thanks for clearing it up. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  The phrase "notable topic" occurs no less than three times in lead of that section alone, and then three more times within the section. The most intense usage of the phrase in the entire article. It is used in almost no other section in the article. Huggums537 (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for clearing that up. The contradiction between PAGEDECIDE and WHYN w.r.t. notability can be a separate discussion. Jay (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:CHG" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:CHG and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 21#Wikipedia:CHG until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Q𝟤𝟪 07:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:TABLOIB" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:TABLOIB and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 21#Wikipedia:TABLOIB until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Q𝟤𝟪 07:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC on WP:NOTDIRECTORY and notability

Should "just the notable ones" (bolded section) be removed from WP:NOTDIRECTORY?

Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith - just the notable ones. Nor should listings such as the white or yellow pages be replicated. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for more information. 02:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Compare MOS:DABRED: "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on this RfC prompted a related RfC to be opened at MOS:DAB. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This prevents the mass creation of hundreds of thousands of dab pages between non-notable individuals, such as Terry Pearce and Arthur Harley. These dab pages present a number of issues; first, only one link should be included per WP:DABSTYLE, but in many circumstances non-notable people, particularly sportspeople, are mentioned in multiple contexts, all of them equally valid as targets, and thus readers looking for a context different from the one we choose to link to will be left confused and in the wrong location.

Second, these dab pages are unmaintainable; with hundreds of thousands of them they will only rarely be updated after their initial creation, and thus readers looking for a mention of a different Arthur Harley after the dab page is created will struggle to find the mention, as rather than being taken to a list of search results that includes the article they are looking for they will be taken to a dab page that doesn't.

Third, we often don't have enough information to determine whether mentions are of the same people or of different, but using a dab page requires us to make a statement on this and thus has WP:V and WP:OR issues. For example, at Terry Pearce it is not unlikely that the Australian futsal coach and the Australian masters athlete are the same person, but we make the statement that they are different people without any evidence to support this.

These problems are all avoided by maintaining the status quo and instead directing readers to use the search function; it provides a better result for the reader, and it creates far less work for editors. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

However, if the related RfC at MOS:DAB passes, I could support removing the entire sentence on disambiguation pages, as it would no longer be needed to address the issues listed above. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Deferring to the search function is a viable alternative in many cases, but that's not going to happen by changing the dab guidelines: what's at stake here is individual dab entries of a specific, rarely encountered type. This is not going to affect whether the dab page exists in the first place. BilledMammal, if you want to make a change that will have actual effect on the usage of the search function, you can try attacking WP:APONOTE: the rule that allows editors to create lists of people as soon as there are two of them with the same name on Wikipedia. Uanfala (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Am I missing something here? Including non-notable people in DABs seems like it would completely defeat the purpose of NOTDIRECTORY. Not to mention clutter DABs on common names with more and more specific "page" names (we already have to distinguish certain people by profession, birth year, birth month, and birth day, and they're ostensibly "actually notable"). Opening this up to potentially everyone ever mentioned on Wikipedia sounds like a nightmare. JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  A more hellish nightmare would be making everyone ever mentioned on Wikipedia required to be notable. That would make article writing quite difficult for everyone. Huggums537 (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Interestingly, all the Diego and Manuel García's in the dab pages you linked, JoelleJay, are notable people with WP articles to their name. The clutter DABs you refer to are just a reflection of the reality of some names being more popular than others (chiefly amongst sportspeople, it seems). One man's nightmare is another man's dream, I guess. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  The reason that this RFC was opened is that it potentially seems to be in conflict with MOS:DABMENTION, which states If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. This was discussed heavily above with no clear consensus or resolution. Natg 19 (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  It also directly conflicts with WP:WHYN: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists) Huggums537 (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support.

  On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.

  WP:Notability therefore does not apply to redirects, as long they're used for one of the sanctioned purposes. Nor does it apply to entries on lists or dab pages. List articles must be notable themselves, of course, but not their entries (WP:LISTN):

  One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable

  Thus redirects to non-notable list entries—i.e. {{r to list entry}}—may be created, and may need to be disambiguated in dab pages. Why not? — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support, as discussed above in #Recent_correction_to_Simple_Lists. Alternatively, replace those words with "just those on whom Wikipedia has information". The present wording, added without discussion some years ago, if taken at face value would allow the destruction of many useful dab pages and the removal of helpful entries from others. The inclusion of unlinked items in dab pages is already forbidden: every dab page entry must include one blue link. (Breaking my wikibreak to chip in here, will probably not take further part in this debate). PamD 06:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per PamD, Guarapiranga and the previous discussion. In some case it is perfectly correct to include non-notable entries on disambiguation pages because doing so benefits readers, for example when there would be an uncontroversial redirect to a relevant article if the name or term was not ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. scope_creep^Talk 07:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time because it is unclear what the practical application of this RFC would be. It is far too vaguely written. If the goal is to open the door to endless lists of non-notable people to be added to the encyclopedia, then I strongly oppose this RFC. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  This bit of guidance conflicts with multiple other parts of guidance, and does nothing in the way of prevention of them being created in the first place. (As evidenced by the facts that we have them anyway, so the door is open, yet we currently have no problem with "endless lists". If this bit of contradictory guidance actually were doing anything preventative, we wouldn't see the door already open with having them in the present moment. Huggums537 (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per my own and others arguments in the ongoing duplicate discussion, and suggest this is a malformed RfC since the question being posed did not provide any context whatsoever about the dispute driving the question or any context to the ongoing duplicate discussion. My most convincing argument is WP:WHYN They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists). Huggums537 (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The specific context of the wording in question is not about lists in general; it is part of a sentence about disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages need a bluelink per entry, with non-trivial information about the listed ambiguous title. But they do not need that title to be independently notable. It should be acceptable to list titles that are not notable enough for their own article but that have nontrivial coverage in some other article, especially if (but not only if) the ambiguous title is redirected to the other article. For instance, to pick a random example, Good Design Awards (disambiguation) currently includes Good Design Award (Chicago Athenaeum), which has currently not been deemed independently notable but instead redirects to Chicago Athenaeum (I have no opinion on its notability). This listing is entirely appropriate, is specifically encouraged by MOS:DABMENTION, and should not be forbidden by bad wording in some random guideline elsewhere than our specific DAB guidance. DABMENTION already prevents the creation of enormous numbers of redlinks on hndis pages. This over-zealous wording cracks down on a non-problem, in the wrong place for guidance on dabs, and by doing so creates more problems than it solves. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding nontrivial coverage in some other article, if that was what WP:DABMENTION required then I wouldn't think we need this sentence, but it isn't - instead, DABMENTION is being interpreted to permit any mention and the removal of this wording would open the door to endless lists of non-notable people. For example, the coverage of every person listed at Terry Pearce is trivial, being just an entry on a list. However, if we also changed DABMENTION from but is discussed within another article to but has nontrivial coverage within another article then I think I could support this change. BilledMammal (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Regardless of your desire to strengthen DABMENTION, here is the wrong place to do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  My point was that your position appears to be based on an incorrect - or at least uncommon - interpretation of the current text of WP:DABMENTION. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Terry Pearce doesn't look like an "endless list" to me... Huggums537 (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstood. Terry Pearce is a list of non-notable people, and removing this wording would permit the creation of endless lists like it. BilledMammal (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think it refers to a metaphorically endless number of short lists. Certes (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Terry Pearce (disambiguation) is completely appropriate content. It does its job as a dab, making clear to anyone who searches for Pearce or makes a link to it that we have no biography on people by that name but we do have two people with similar names and four people with linkable content elsewhere. It is a non-problem that should not be forbidden. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per David Eppstein. WP:DABMENTION covers eligibility in more detail. Technically, it's in conflict with the current wording which slipped quietly into WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is why that sentence of WP:NOT is widely ignored. I agree that we shouldn't include people who only have a bald entry on a list with no significant information, and that the Arthur Harley dab probably shouldn't exist. However, that level of detail is better left to WP:DABMENTION. Disambiguation entries are a second choice when the desired title is already taken. That applies not only to topics notable enough for an article, but also to topics which would have been a redirect to section or similar if their name had been unique. For example, Mint includes a link to Spring green#Mint, aka Mint (color). Would it help our readers to remove this important meaning of "mint", because it doesn't merit a whole article? Certes (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• 'Support the wording with the bolded text serves no purpose - the meaning is clear from the section before the hyphen. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Based on discussion here, I have opened a related RfC at MOS:DAB. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, we already have well-supported, widely-used, nuanced dab guidelines that prevent indiscriminate inclusion of non-notable entries on dab pages. No, we can't legislate those away by pushing a simplistic statement into an unrelated project page. And seriously, I thought that much was clear from the above discussion, why are we still here? Uanfala (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support. This is misplaced guidance because disambiguation pages are not lists, "simple" or otherwise. Also, it contradicts WP:DABMENTION. If those want to restrict disambiguation pages to notable people, this is the wrong fight. The place to do that would be at WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix ^(talk) 11:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support to allow room for redirects to sections and other such items that are noteworthy even if they are not notable in the Wikipedian inside baseball sense. XOR'easter (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per BilledMammal. My sense is that opening up the door will create many more pages that need to be maintained and have the unintended effect of potentially sending readers to pages where the subject is barely mentioned (as would happen with a redirect). I agree that the search function is often better than a DAB page when a subject could plausibly be redirected to multiple targets. I think that the bolded words here are important to provide the expectation yet flexible enough to recognize the difference between allowing Mint and Spring green#Mint, versus adding non-notable John Smith's. --Enos733 (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:D3 says "Don't list every article containing the title", and WP:DAB is clear that disambiguation applies to "potential article titles", which will include alternative names but exclude such things as unremarkable list entries, even if they're redirects. The outcome of indiscriminately allowing disambiguation for anything will be inherently flawed since each entry can only have a single blue link, whereas many or most non-notable topics are mentioned in multiple pages. The current notability threshold is roughly compatible with all this. WP:DABMENTION, on the other hand, is a manual of style guideline that regulates how dab pages should be formatted, it has no bearing on what to include. I also agree with BilledMammal that excessive dabcruft is unmaintainable and of little use to readers when compared with the search function. Avilich (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support. These inclusions are not, in fact, causing the creation of unwieldy lists of non-notable people. I'm sure we can refine the definition of WP:DABMENTION in ways that does not exclude world-class athletes or candidates for national office merely because their name is on a list. We do not exclude subjuects from lists merely because they do not merit a separate article, and a disambiguation page is, fundamentally, a list. BD2412 T 15:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not sure why we are removing the guidance here, it seems like good advice? In what cases would you need a DAB page to have an entry that didn't link to a Wikipedia article? I am confused. --Jayron32 15:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32:, it sounds like you are misreading it then. Of course disambiguation entries need to link to a Wikipedia article, but this is saying that the person also be notable themselves. If this guidance is enforced, we would no longer be able to include disambiguation entries for people who are discussed in wider articles but do not themselves have articles. So even if a significant section of a band article is about one of the members, we would not be able to include that person in the disambiguation page (which currently would include a link to the band), significantly hindering navigation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    • In that case, I am still opposed to removing the text without replacing it with more nuanced guidance. We still want to recommend against adding every John Smith on earth to the DAB page on John Smith. Instead of removing the text, we should rephrase or expand it to capture that nuance. --Jayron32 16:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
      • That's what WP:DABMENTION is for: entries are not included in disambiguation pages unless they: 1) are discussed in another article and 2) provide value to the reader. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I don't think it's the job of WP:NOT to be duplicating detailed dab advice. Note also that if BilledMamma's proposal stays, it would for example rule out an entry for Murder of Anthony Walker from the dab Anthony Walker. Uanfala (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
        • Unless and until someone offers a more nuanced way to do it, I'm still opposed. Just because a bit of guidance is mentioned in one place on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it isn't useful to mention it in two places, and this seems like a good time to mention some guidance in two places. I agree there needs to be some change. This is a bad change, however, and I'm not willing to do something I believe makes the rules worse just because we need to do something. Someone propose a change that actually makes it better, and I'll support it. --Jayron32 16:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
          • Again, the nuance is at WP:DABMENTION. NOT is not the place for such focused guidance like this. Fundamentally, I see you are opposed to adding every John Smith on earth to the DAB page on John Smith, in which WP:DABMENTION is very clear that there should not be any John Smiths added to the disambiguation unless there is encyclopedic value to doing so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
            • Sorry, I don't think I was clear. When I said "Just because a bit of guidance is mentioned in one place on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it isn't useful to mention it in two places, and this seems like a good time to mention some guidance in two places." What I actually meant to say was "Just because a bit of guidance is mentioned in one place on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it isn't useful to mention it in two places, and this seems like a good time to mention some guidance in two places." I hope that clarifies my meaning, so you don't miss it next time. --Jayron32 16:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)