Wikipedia:Village pump (all)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the Village pump (all) page which lists all topics for easy viewing. Go to the village pump to view a list of the Village Pump divisions, or click the edit link above the section you'd like to comment in. To view a list of all recent revisions to this page, click the history link above and follow the on-screen directions.

Click here to purge the server cache of this page (to see recent changes on Village pump subpages)

Village pump sections
post, watch, search
Discuss existing and proposed policies
post, watch, search
Discuss technical issues about Wikipedia
post, watch, search
Discuss new proposals that are not policy-related
post, watch, search
Incubate new ideas before formally proposing them
post, watch, search
Discuss issues involving the Wikimedia Foundation
post, watch, search
Post messages that do not fit into any other category
Other help and discussion locations
I want... Then go to...
...help using or editing Wikipedia Teahouse (for newer users) or Help desk (for experienced users)
...to find my way around Wikipedia Department directory
...specific facts (e.g. Who was the first pope?) Reference desk
...constructive criticism from others for a specific article Peer review
...help resolving a specific article edit dispute Requests for comment
...to comment on a specific article Article's talk page
...to view and discuss other Wikimedia projects Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
...to learn about citing Wikipedia in a bibliography Citing Wikipedia
...to report sites that copy Wikipedia content Mirrors and forks
...to ask questions or make comments Questions


Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved to a sub page of each section (called (section name)/Archive).

Policy

The use of 'infobox country' for fictitious states

It has always been my understanding that the intended purpose for infoboxes is to provide a summary of key non-controversial data for an article. It appears to me however that with regard to one particular article topic - so-called 'micronations' - this has not been the case, and that instead they have been systematically misused. Specifically, it has been common practice to use 'infobox country' for in these articles, despite the fact that the entities they describe are essentially fictitious entities, invariably lacking diplomatic recognition, and almost always lacking any property of an actual nation-state whatsoever, beyond those existing in the fertile imaginations of those promoting them. It seems to me to be self-evident that the use of an infobox otherwise reserved for real entities is liable to be misleading to our readership, many of whom may not take the time to read the entire article, and to (hopefully) discover that the 'country' being described has no basis in reality.

The 'micronations' topic has sadly been plagued for many years by promotional editing, the citation of dubious sources, dishonest representation of content from more reputable sources etc, etc, along with associated sockpuppetry, off-Wikipedia canvassing, and general abuse of the platform, and in my opinion the manner in which the use of the 'county' infobox has seemingly become standard practice appears to be a remnant of that.

To give a specific example, the Liberland 'micronation' is one of the more well-known and systematically-promoted of these supposed entities, with the consequence that the presence and/or content of the infobox in our article has been the subject of multiple ongoing disputes. Over the years, it has at various times been graced with all sorts of unsourced and/or otherwise untenable claims regarding everything from the size of the population (which is zero, as far as any credible source has ever reported) to the existence of a whole slew of self-appointed government officials (at least one of which was added by said 'official' himself), claims regarding 'official currencies' and 'official languages' and even a specific 'calling code' - the last at least labelled 'proposed' and citing a source, though the source itself fails to provide any evidence that a proposal has actually been made to anyone in a position to act upon it.

At various times, those supporting the use of the infobox in this content have made various arguments in its favour, most of which have come down to the questionable assertion that since the article describes the subject as a 'micronation', it isn't necessary to explain anything further, nor to use them for any other purpose than to present the partisan claims of those promoting the entity described. This seems to be disingenuous at best, if not outright dishonest, given that it relies on the readers careful reading and/or prior knowledge to counter the inherent bias in presenting what is essentially fiction as fact. It shouldn't be necessary to have to read an article to discover that one is being misled by the accompanying infobox.

Given the above concerns, I would have to suggest that the appropriate course of action would be for WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc, etc to be properly enforced, and that the systematic abuse of infoboxes in this context be dealt with - by explicit change of policy if that is needed - and that this misrepresentation be dealt with by removing these boxes of disinformation entirely. Infoboxes for countries should describe countries, not fantasy worlds, and they don't belong in artices describing the latter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. SportingFlyer T·C 15:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them aren't even real micronations. Certes (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering… is the type of info someone would expect to see in an infobox for a micro-nation the same or different than what is standard in the country infobox we use for a recognized nation state?
I ask because I can see how having an infobox for these entities might be useful… but perhaps it should be a new, separate infobox, with different parameters. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional locations should use Template:Infobox fictional location. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the template is almost meaningless in this discussion. It's just a name used to let other editors know what type of content it should be used on. If you look at the template's redirects you will also find Template:Infobox micronation which has been redirecting to it since 2013. The discussion that resulted in the removal of the infobox was short sighted. If you have issues with the data entered, handle it like we do any other piece of information. Gonnym (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, we deal with 'information' that violates WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc by removing it entirely. Which is what I am proposing. The problem isn't the name of the infobox (I never suggested it was), the problem is the way a convention normally used for non-controversial fact is systematically being used to promote fiction. This is dishonest, and would remain so regardless of how the box of fictions was renamed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If information added to the infobox is not verifiable or is not cited to reliable sources, that falls under policies like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. The name of the template of the infobox being used seems secondary. To use a parallel example, academic scholarship tends to regard the Book of Esther as being probably fictional, but the Esther (permalink) page's use of the "infobox person" template isn't a problem since the information it contains simply provides plot-and-analysis-relevant information about her in the narrative's setting. So if reliable sources don't say what Liberland's population is (to use your example), the Liberland infobox doesn't say it; if reliable sources don't say someone is part of Liberland's self-purported-but-unrecognized government, then they don't get added to the infobox.
I'm not seeing what policy needs to be changed. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV seem adequate for dealing with information added to infoboxes; the infobox and its name are secondary. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's a practical example: the infobox for Liberland stated that Vít Jedlička is 'President'. Is that verifiable? It is certainly verifiable that he describes himself thus, but should we be presenting such an unsupportable claim as if it is factual in an infobox? I'd say that it was a gross violation of WP:NPOV to present his claim that way - and that is essentially the only way these infoboxes are being used. Nothing they contain is uncontroversial fact, and given that empty boxes are useless, policy requires removal. Not endless arguments over sourcing, not endless addition of promotional BS. Removal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's verifiable (at least for 2015). Gonnym (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...self-declared President Vit Jedlicka...". That doesn't make him a president. It makes him someone who calls himself one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Micronations are not fictional, in that they're not in the domain of fiction drafted up by some writer or alt-history person. They're real claims of land, almost always completely BS. Despite their lack of recognition, micronations still have concrete claims of land area and population (haters may claim 0 isn't a population). They also have flags, insignia, mottos, anthems, etcetera. Anything that fails verification may be removed, but my opinion is that it should still have infoboxes. Liberland, in its infobox, said its status was an "unrecognized micronation", which I believe is sufficient to convey it has no diplomatic basis. The infobox should stay.
As mentioned, unverifiable information must be removed per V, RS, and NPOV. SWinxy (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, micronations are fictional in that they are inventions of someone's imagination. Sealand did manage to create a physical (but not a legal) presence by squatting for a while on an abandoned defense tower, but micronations in general have no physical or legal existance. Our articles about micronations are not about things that exist in the real world, they are about fictitious entities, no matter what claims their proponents put forth, Donald Albury 20:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"But, micronations are fictional in that they are inventions of someone's imagination." Isn't that true of ALL nations? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are editors here who are peeved that people come from offsite to try to promote a microstate that they either like or maybe even have personal ties to, which is understandable. hitting upon the idea that the denial of a infobox somehow dilutes the legitimacy of the micronation status is just daft and petty. as long as it is clearly stated what they recognized/unrecognized status is, an infobox should be returned to the article. ValarianB (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of side points people are making but I think that a dedicated Micronation infobox would smooth much of the drama out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other comments above have it exactly right. There seem to be a small cohort of editors who are just personally irked that a "fake" or "illegitimate" or inconsequential country can have a page of its own, let alone an infobox of its own. Of course, this is highly biased, especially when notability and reliability of sources guidelines have all been properly followed, and claims cited. Rather than recusing themselves of being editors of these articles, they're engaging in the opposite: starting proposals to remove infoboxes, etc.
Infoboxes are fundamentally summaries of basic information that one would find within the body of an article; plain and simple (it's in the name: it's a box with information that comes from the body of the article). They have no fancier or more stringent requirements than do the bodies of articles. Insofar as the body text of an article exists with properly cited sources, that same information can be summarized in an infobox, which is what is being done in every case on WP. Articles on micronations are no exception to this.
Regarding these arguments about "unsupportable claim": if the entire article is prefaced with the words "unrecognized nation" or the like, it's amply clear to anyone reading that the claims made by the entity in question in the article are disputed. This is hardly any different than the article on Taiwan claiming that it's a "country" when even the UN seemingly disagrees with them. There's variation in how much legitimacy there are to these claims, but insofar as these claims exist, what matters is whether they are notable and are verifiable (by way of secondary sources reporting on them); that's it—nothing else matters.
Finally, what's especially ridiculous is like the previous editor wrote, we're ultimately talking about a "Infobox micronation" template being used here. Why would there be a problem with a micronation article using an infobox made specifically for it? What other infoboxes should it be using if not the one tailor-made for it? Getsnoopy (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it would be a good thing if Wikipedia articles on 'micronations' made their unrecognised (and almost always entirely fictitious) status clear in the lede, there have been consistent efforts to prevent this (see e.g. this edit, and the edit summary [2]). And in any case, as I wrote above, it shouldn't be necessary to have to read an article to discover that one is being misled by the accompanying infobox. As for comparisons between Taiwan (population 24 million) and Liberland (population zero), I'd have to suggest the numbers speak for themselves. This isn't about diplomatic recognition, this is about entirely imaginary entities which have none of the attributes of a nation state at all. No population. No infrastructure. No economy. Nothing. Objectively, almost all are little more than websites with delusions of grandeur. Describing them as 'unrecognised' anythings is of itself misleading. They aren't 'unrecognised'. They are fictitious. Taiwan isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are problems with editors not including the per-verifiable-reliable-sources unrecognized status of a micronation in the lede, that seems like a content dispute matter about the lede rather than a policy question about infobox use. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If people would actually address the policy question I have described here, rather than looking for ways to avoid it, we'd maybe get somewhere. I have so far seen nobody offer any sort of explanation as to why any infobox (on anything) should be allowed to present fringe and/or fictional promotional bullshit as if it is objective fact. That is what I am objecting to. Not because of the name of the infobox. And not because of the presence or absence of words elsewhere in the article. The 'information' in the infobox is misinformation. It violates core Wikipedia principles. Or if it doesn't please explain why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't satisfactorily explained how the information is misinformation. No one would actually be misled by the claim that Vít Jedlička is the president of Liberland, for example. Micronations are "made up", but so are all nations. Removing the infobox just makes the relevant information harder for our readers to find. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto; I couldn't have phrased it better. In the same way that the article on Middle-earth has an infobox that makes a bunch of claims without every one of those claims being prefixed with Warning: this is a fictitious claim, infoboxes about nations (whether micro- or not) do the same thing. The topic of the article might be fiction per se (but then again, all nations are fictitious like you said), but that doesn't matter; what matters is within the realm of that topic, whether the claims being made are true. This applies to literally every article that is about a human construct. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Micronations are "made up", but so are all nations." This is exactly the facile drivel that has blighted the topic for so long. Yes, nations-states are social constructs. That doesn't make them all equivalent under Wikipedia policy. Or under common sense. Try getting through US immigration with a Liberland passport, using the same arguments. You'd probably do as well by proclaiming yourself a Sovereign Citizen and citing Admiralty Law. Social constructs become real things, when people sufficient people collectively act on them. And, in the case of nation states, when they have the power to back it up. That's what a state is. That is how one recognises one. Not something that people believe should be one, but one with the means to enforce such a belief. The United States is a social construct. The USS Nimitz isn't. If people want to concoct a fantasy world where the existence of the Nimitz doesn't come into such questions, good for them. Just don't do it on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're flogging a straw man there. No-one is saying "Micronations are indistinguishable from internationally recognised countries". They are saying "There is no problem in stating the uncontroversial facts about a micronation using the same template as a country, provided that the infobox is clear about the status of the purported micronation". For what it's worth I wouldn't mind using Infobox: Country for Gondor or Narnia either, provided that it was entirely clear in the infobox what the status of the thing being described was. (I think it's also worth mentioning Transnistria, South Ossettia, SMOM, Northern Cyprus, even Taiwan against the idea that it's entirely clear and undisputed what is and isn't a country.) TSP (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how exactly is the infobox here "clear about the status of the purported micronation"? [3] The only indication in the infobox is the word 'micronation'. Add 'unrecognised', it gets removed (and the same thing has happened repeatedly in the article lede for that matter). And the arguments are almost always the same 'all nations are social constructs', 'it is all sourced' (it is, to the people promoting it), 'it says micronation so that makes it clear' (which it doesn't, since expecting readers to know what 'micronation' is supposed to mean isn't appropriate in a general-purpose encyclopaedia). And round and round it goes. Any excuse to make these fictions look more credible than any legitimate application of Wikipedia policy would permit. It's been going on for years. It is systematic. And in some cases (e.g. Liberland) it is being done by people with a direct financial interest in plugging their imaginary territory, along with associate cryptocurrencies and the rest. These things matter. They aren't just concoctions for entertainment. Not while e.g. the Government of Egypt has had to put out warnings about social media posts plugging 'Liberland' as a destination for emigration. [4] Wikipedia is being used to spread disinformation, for profit. And those being profited from are in such cases the most vulnerable, and worst place to take the loss. We don't plug snake oil. We don't plug Sovereign Citizen 'Admiralty Law'. Why are we plugging 'micronations'? How are they any different? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you mention "snake oil". The page for Medical uses of silver does have an infobox for colloidal silver, and there is an infobox on the Bates Method page. As with micronations, I don't quite see how summarizing information in an infobox constitutes "plugging", as you say. We aren't plugging books, politicians, or tropical storms by summarizing their data in infoboxes. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's a totally different thing. I certainly was never against adding the word "Unrecognized" in the Infobox because it's right there in the lead of the article; it would be silly for someone to be against putting that information in the Infobox. That's an entirely separate point from whether the Infobox per se should exist, let alone on all micronation articles. This seems like a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very clear that AndyTheGrump has a problem with micronations. There is nothing wrong with that. What however is a problem is the battleground attitude displayed above in attempting to impose that point of view on Wikipedia articles in multiple ways. We are not "plugging" micronations any more than we are "plugging" South Ossetia, Taiwan, Microsoft Windows, Book of Genesis, Kim Kardashian, Al-Qaida, Church of Scientology, Sovereign Military Order of Malta or anything else by having an article on them. If the subject is notable then we should have a neutral, factual article about it and there is no problem with having an infobox on that article. Which infobox to use is dependent entirely on which is best suited to display the appropriate information, nothing else. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have a problem with the way micronations are promoted on Wikipedia. There is an ongoing effort to treat micronations as equivalent to real nation-states. Yes, some micronations are notable, in that there is abundant, independent coverage, as is the case for Sealand or the Conch Republic, where there are/were real-world events, but one was a pirate radio, and the other is an ongoing publicity campaign to promote tourism. Many other micronations are fantasies, with "coverage" being largely self-generated or no better than "mainstream" sources repeating press releases. Micronations have no legal existance, and, in most cases, no real-world presence, yet their proponents have repeatedly tried to present them as real nation-states. Donald Albury 14:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Donald Albury puts it well. Using the country infobox helps validate those who want to believe that this bullshit is real and makes it harder to edit in an already contentious area. SportingFlyer T·C 12:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So pointing out on WP:VPP that policy has been systematically violated is 'battleground behaviour' is it? Nice way to shut a conversation down... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles cannot be exclusively sourced to self-published sources, that is entirely clear. If there are instances of that, fantastic, please propose them for deletion. But if they're being picked up by mainstream media, sorry, we follow that, even if you believe that they're just repeating press releases. I'm not clear which policy you think has been systematically violated here.
I absolutely agree that these articles need to be clear on the status of the institutions depicted, but I'm not really sure what that has to do with use of infoboxes. It kind of feels like you're trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS here? There's no evidence in the Egyptian article you posted above that people believing Liberland is a recognised country has any connection to to do with Wikipedia - especially not English Wikipedia, as it's stated that most of the discussion is in Arabic.
On how to make status clear, This seems fine? 'Micronation' in the heading; 'Status: Unrecognized micronation' in the body; 'Area claimed' and similar in describing attributes; 'Liberland ... is an unrecognised micronation' and 'Liberland has no diplomatic recognition from any recognized nation' in the article lead. Looks good to me. TSP (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an infobox is to quickly summarize key facts for the reader, and I agree that use of the Nation infobox results in a misleading outcome. What we include in the template listing micronations includes failed historical rebellions, municipal publicity stunts, and Liberland-style entities. It is not clear to me that the sources treat all of these things as of a kind, as we do. An infobox for the third type of micronation should indicate at the top that it is about an "Unrecognized Micronation" - arguably a bit redundant, but "Micronation" is not a commonly understood term, and too easily confused with "Microstate". I think the relevant fields would be "Claimed by", to identify the people or group promoting its existence, "Dates claimed", for the period it was promoted, and "Area claimed", with a map. Attempts to fill in the other fields in the Nation infobox invariably result in an infobox that misleads the reader more than it informs by leaving the reader with an impression that this is a genuine state, and puts undue weight on aspects that are trivial in this conext, like flags, mottos, and currency, in a way that is out of step with the body of reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If infobox country was forked to infobox micronation, or if infobox fictional location was used instead of infobox country, would the reader even know it? I don't think the name of the infobox matters to readers. Levivich (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Sealand infobox below looks good to me. Using an {{infobox micronation}} with parameters that reflect the actual key components of micronations (which are not the same as the key components of countries), and that accurately label those components ("area claimed" etc) makes sense. Levivich (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No infobox. Using an infobox identical to that of actual countries is putting the micronation's unrecognized claims in wikivoice, which is not compliant with NPOV. Infobox country params were chosen because they are considered to be the most unifying, fundamental data and are reliably released through official government (or scholarly/NGO/tertiary) publications for all nations. They are inherently DUE because they are expected to be reported widely in high-quality RS.
These infobox country params for micronations can NOT be expected to have the same level of robust, official/RS sourcing, and in fact most would require attribution or context when in the article body. They are no more inherently fundamental to the topic than a glossary of trivia/maps at the end of any fantasy book, and there is certainly no expectation of uniform attention or treatment from sources across all of what we call "micronations". JoelleJay (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of nothing more fundamental to a micronation than claims of location, area, population, founder(s) and leader(s) (flag(s) are also common to both but not essential to either) - i.e. the same information as for countries. Infoboxes, whether for country or micronation, simply state in wikivoice what the verifiable claims are, not how truthful or generally accepted they are. Absolutely all of your objections can be overcome by simply noting clearly in the article lead and infobox that the subject is a micronation - and we already do that. We even wikilink the term "micronation" so that those who are unfamilar with it can learn. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 questions (not directed at any specific editor)… 1) Which parameters currently included in the country infobox would we have to remove if we created a separate micro-nations infobox? and 2) What parameters would we have to add if we were to create a separate micro-nations infobox? Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An infobox treats the micronation as if such details are always reasonable to report at all. If a given detail would simply be primary-sourced trivia that doesn't belong in the body of the article, we should not be emphasizing it in the infobox. Different micronations will have different amounts and quality of sourcing for any of their claimed attributes; even if those attributes are verifiable, they may be nothing more than fancruft with strictly in-universe relevance to the topic. And yet if a parameter can be filled it will be. The fact that "micronations" is so similar to "microstates" just makes an infobox even more misleading. JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If information isn't covered in secondary sources, aren't the policies for talking about that WP:N and WP:V? I don't really understand what's being asked for. If there isn't verifiable and due information that is due and can be summarized in an infobox, then an infobox can be foregone. If there is verifiable and due information in the body that can be summarized in an infobox, then an infobox is fine and even appropriate. Existing policies seem plenty sufficient, and I don't see a need for some explicit change in policy specifying micronation topics. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors very frequently see infoboxes as forms to fill in with anything remotely verifiable regardless of how relevant or BALASP it is to the topic. JoelleJay (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the “form” should only have fields that are “relevant to the topic” for the editors to fill in. What would those fields be for a micro-nation? Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head and in no particular order:
  • Founder(s)
  • Location(s)
  • Capital(s)
  • Area
  • Population
  • Dates active
  • Website
  • Leaders
  • Form of government
  • Flag
  • Anthem
  • Motto
  • Official language(s)
Not every micronation has all of those things, they are all relevant (when they can be reliably sourced) for the ones that do. This is wholly a subset of the parameters of template:Infobox country and almost(?) all the ones that aren't included are things that (afaik) no micronation has (things like GDP, Gini, driving side, cctld, ISO codes, international calling code, patron saint, etc) so can't be included regardless of whether the parameter exists or not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the past there has been a similar debate about the amount of detail to add to churches. From the introduction to {{Infobox church}}: Churches vary from small chapels to large cathedrals; from corrugated iron sheds to architectural masterpieces of international importance. This template has to be adaptable to the worship locations of all religious denominations and as a consequence, it has many parameters. It is therefore important that editors exercise discretion in selecting an appropriate number of parameters. If the infobox for a particular church becomes excessive WP:BOLD applies and less significant parameters should be removed. Could a similar caveat to the talk page be applied here? We don't need more templates, we need more selective use of them. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a given detail would simply be primary-sourced trivia that doesn't belong in the body of the article, we should not be emphasizing it in the infobox An infobox summarises the body of the article. If something is not in the body of the article, for whatever reason, then it shouldn't be in the infobox. Whether something is "trivia" is a matter of subjective opinion, if editors disagree then seek consensus on the talk page, seeking additional input (e.g. WP:30) if necessary. Whether something is primary sourced or not is irrelevant - primary sources are entirely unproblematic (and sometimes desirable) for simple factual information and WP:ABOUTSELF material (which covers most of what infoboxes cover). Secondary sources are required to demonstrate notability, but if the topic isn't notable it shouldn't have an article (with or without an infobox), if a topic is notable enough for an article then there is no reason for it not to have an infobox. Thryduulf (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is put better than I could've said it. I'm inclined to Thryduulf's sense of the matter. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am arguing that which "simple factual and ABOUTSELF" material is actually encyclopedic enough for an infobox is far too variable and inconsistently relevant for micronations. There is plenty of factual, verifiable-in-RS info available for almost all members of some groups that still doesn't make it into infobox params because editors have determined it is not vital info on that topic. Like an actor's eye or hair color. Why shouldn't the considerations that led to those facts being excluded from a particular infobox be repeated here, for a group where it is not clear if any parameters are expected to be integral details for many members? A micronation's "national anthem" could have the same broad sourcing as that of a real country, or it could exist in name only sourced to an offhand comment in an interview and not actually represent a real song. JoelleJay (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem is not with infoboxes, it is a content dispute with other editors. The way to resolve a content dispute regarding what should be in a specific infobox is to discuss the content with other editors at the article concerned and then abide by the consensus reached. Trying to remove infoboxes from all micronation articles because you disagree with the content of some of them is exactly the same as, and exactly as inappropriate as, trying to remove infoboxes from all articles about actors because you think eye colour and height are trivia that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether something is primary sourced or not is irrelevant - primary sources are entirely unproblematic (and sometimes desirable) for simple factual information and WP:ABOUTSELF material (which covers most of what infoboxes cover). The article still needs to comply with WP:ASPECT. The information given prominence in the infobox doesn't need to be merely verifiable, but should be presented in a way that "treats each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." For micronations, I think the fields that would generally be emphasized by sources are who promoted it, where it was claimed, and when it was claimed. Everything else, including the purported structure of its government, population, etc. is either not likely to meet WP:ASPECT or requires too much qualification and explanation to be easily summarized in an infobox field.--Trystan (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything about your comment is a matter for consensus among editors at the talk page of the individual article, because what weight is due will be different in every case (for example, location is a more important aspect of Liberland than Independent State of Rainbow Creek). It's not a reason to remove infoboxes from micronationa generally. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suoport removing infoboxes from micronation articles. As set out in my comments above, I support the creation of an infobox for micronations that has fields and labels that are generally appropriate for micronations: "Claimed by", to identify the people or group promoting its existence, "Dates claimed", for the period it was promoted, and "Area claimed", with a map.--Trystan (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to fork the country infobox given that fields relevant to micronations are a complete subset, and there isn't any promotion happening, no NPOV violation, or any other reason why we need to batter readers over the head at every opportunity that micronations are not countries. If they are reading an article about a micronation, that explicitly says its a micronation, that links to the article explaining micronations, etc, then its already clear enough without needing to insult their intelligence or fear that "proper" countries might get infected, or whatever other reason there is for the hate displayed here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think infobox parameters are chosen? JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which parameters are chosen for the template or chosen to be filled in on a given article? For the former, template editors and maintainers tend to include all that are relevant for a substantial number in the relevant set. For the latter, a consensus of editors at the individual article. I don't get why you are asking that though? Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
template editors and maintainers tend to include all that are relevant for a substantial number in the relevant set. I am arguing that we have not yet determined the set of "which parameters are relevant" for micronations. If we are to have infoboxes for them at all, the parameters need to be chosen based on what has actually been treated as "fundamental" info by independent secondary RS, not what we assume would be fundamental through analogy with real countries. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without wading into every side argument in this, I'm going to support the notion that this template should not be used for any fictitious country or for any alleged micronation that is not treated as a real country in numerous independent reliable sources. For disputed territories, break-away republics, occupied territories that were formerly countries, etc., there should be a criterion that it have (or at the time had - some of these will be articles on historical polities/nations) an actual functional government, not just a declaration of a rebellion or whatever. It's not WP's job to "label" things as countries/nations/states that the majority of pertinent RS do not treat that way.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using infobox country does not label the subject as a country, see for example Sealand and Austenasia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those issues where I really wish Wikipedia had some basic capacity for user testing. My strong suspicion is that a group of users shown those two infoboxes, and then asked to describe what they think those things are, would largely come away with the impression that they are real, functioning governments of places. Which would be clear evidence that the purpose of the infobox, to summarize the key features of the page's subject, is not being met.--Trystan (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aerial view of Sealand in 1999
Do you really believe that most readers, if shown an infobox that contains this image, with this caption, would largely come away with the impression that they are real, functioning governments of places?
If so, then I suspect that user testing for the opening paragraphs would produce equally disheartening results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Principality of Sealand
Unrecognized micronation
Aerial view of Sealand in 1999
Claimed byPaddy Roy Bates, Michael Bates
Dates claimed1967 to present
Area claimedOffshore platform off the coast of England
In that one case, the picture might well give them pause. At the same time, the presentation of the infobox is saying, "Here are the key features you need to know about this topic: this place has a flag, a coat of arms, a motto, an anthem, it's a constitutional monarchy, it's led by a prince...". By contrast, an infobox that summarizes the actual key points of the topic, as framed in the article and supported by the sources, would leave little possibity for confusion. Those fields are not the same as the available fields in Infobox Country, and that is true in general for micronation articles.--Trystan (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the presentation of the infobox, with "Micronation" at the top equal in size to the title and titles such as "purported currency", no population figure and a size of "approximately 1 acre" might might not leave people with enough of an impression of how much disdain for the subject they should have or they might confuse it for a "real" country? I don't buy it. Remember that NPOV applies to everything, regardless of how real or important we personally think something should be. Thryduulf (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the infobox I proposed convey disdain? I don't see how. I think a NPOV approach requires us to highlight the unrecognized status (and often complete lack of de facto existence) of these entities as their single most important defining feature, but that is to comply with WP:ASPECT. I personally don't feel disdain for them.
But I'm happy to turn to addressing the specific points you raise, and why I think the infobox I have proposed presents a more accurate, neutral, and clear summary of these topics than the current application of Infbox Country. "Micronation" as a term is uncommon, recent, and easily confused with microstate. Readers can't click on every link in an article, so I don't think adding the clarifying word "unrecognized" is undue. For size, yes, Sealand is small, but most micronations are not distinguishable from microstates based on size. I don't think it is reasonable for a reader to be expected to notice that population is missing from the Sealand infobox, or to make any inferences from that fact. The notion of what is meant by "population" for a micronation is inherently unclear (c.f. Glacier Republic), so I don't think that is a meaningful field for micronations generally. "Purported currency" is probably the best field label in the current application of Infobox Country, but from reviewing several micronation articles, I haven't found one where the purported currency is actually a key feature of the subject. Clarifying that the currency is "purported" is good, but then why are we not similarly qualifying the statement that the organizational structure and various other aspects are also merely "purported"?--Trystan (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly comes across as disdainful even if thats not what you intended. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:DUE applies here too. Putting the flag and crest of Sealand in an infobox isn't neutral. SportingFlyer T·C 14:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don’t necessarily disagree that an infobox could be useful on these articles, but mimicking the trade dress of legitimate country infoboxes serves to mislead. I also find it misleading to fill in the “Government” fields like “President” and “Minister of Finance”. The people self-appointed to these roles are not at all what readers will understand a president or minister to be. Words have meanings. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about a generic "People" or "Key people" category like we use with companies? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are we to decide who is and who isn't a legitimate holder of a title? Once we start doing that for micronations we also have to start doing it for states with limited recognition, and for "proper" countries where there are disputed claims to the legitimate government. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't think this is a slippery slope... Sealand is not Kosovo and this wouldn't establish any sort of consensus or precedent for those vastly different categories of articles. I don't think its a question of legitimacy, we can still have the full title in the article after all, but a question of due weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sealand is not Kosovo, but it is all one continuum from serious but non-notable micronations through to micronations that actually control some tiny territory (e.g. Sealand), to nations that control non-trivial territory but are unrecognised by everyone, to those that are recognised by a few, to those that are recognised by most. Then there are entities like the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the Holy See, that don't neatly fit anywhere on the continuum. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my concern as well. Much of the thread has circulated around emphasizing what is "official" and "real", but the "official" and "real" are not nearly so uncontroversial as implied. If "unrecognised micronation" in the lede isn't clarifying enough, then as another example is "Native American reservation" too unclear and unusual a term for Navajo Nation? Someone without familiarity with of U. S. history might plausibly not know what reservation means in the context of nation-state sovereignty. Should the "infobox settlement" of the Navajo Nation not resemble that of a country so much, with its capital, government, population, GDP, etc.? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navajo Nation is a legally-defined entity whose governance and land claims are recognized by the US. There is no similarity here between it and an micronations which by definition do not have legal recognition. JoelleJay (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except some micronations do have some legal recognition, as noted elsewhere in this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these examples of micronations with legal recognition? Note that diplomatic recognition is limited to sovereign states. JoelleJay (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sovereign state" is not black and white. For example, Libreland has recognition from Somaliliand, which has recognition from Taiwan, which has recognition from multiple indisputably sovereign states. The Sealand article claims "de-facto recognition" from the UK and Germany. Where do you draw the line? Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that whole Taiwan extends legal and other forms of recognition to Somaliland they do not extend diplomatic recognition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Navajo Nation has no diplomatic recognition but does have legal recognition. No matter how hard you try, it is not simple. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I draw the line at "most recent sources call this a micronation"! It's not that hard. JoelleJay (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that legal and diplomatic recognition are completely different things, take for example Taiwan which enjoys legal recognition from far more counties than it enjoys diplomatic recognition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not a continuum, the cutoff for what is a micronation is its designation as a micronation in RS. No one here is arguing about anything other than micronations, so entities that have not been widely described as micronations are irrelevant. However, the diversity you note among what have been classed as micronations is precisely why the country infobox is inappropriate to use, as there is too much variation in coverage and topic relevance of most of the parameters. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that what is a micronation and what isn't is not black and white. There is no more variation among micronations than there is among countries and other entities that don't fit neatly into either category. Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Legal recognition as a state by sovereign states" is pretty black and white. And there certainly is far more variation among micronations in whether any particular infobox parameter can be filled and sourced to IRS coverage at all, let alone coverage demonstrating it is a fundamental aspect of the micronation. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Legal recognition as a state by sovereign states is very much not black and white - see the lead of Sovereign state. Everything else is irrelevant to whether there should be an infobox and if so what it should be called as explained by multiple people multiple times in this discussion already. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn’t need to be complicated. If reliable sources don’t treat it as a real country, then us treating it as a real country would be undue promotion of a fringe perspective. The existence of a continuum does not seem to prevent sources from clearly distinguishing the things at the opposite ends of the continuum. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, what is the objective definition of a "real country"? Secondly, explain how us including information in an infobox (but not the article) about a "non-real" country is promotion but including the same information about a "real" unrecognised country isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that a real country is whatever reliable sources treat as a real country. We don’t need to get into any deep epistemological debate here - we just need to follow the sources. The due weight of reliable sources clearly treat micronations as something quite distinct from what the majority of readers will recognise as countries, and also distinct from other types of disputed regions.
I mentioned trade dress above because even completely factual information can serve to mislead if packaged in a form with a strong association with a thing that is clearly different. This is one of the reasons we wouldn’t use Template:Chembox on Dilithium (Star Trek). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this. WP is not the arbiter of what is and isn't a country, let alone the extent of its legitimacy. Hence, it refers to them using neutral language and just presents the facts as they are: "hey, it's a country, but an unrecognized one according to so and so reliable sources." Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not sure why this discussion is veering toward "what will users think? will they think it's a real country?"
Just for context, Liberland has full diplomatic recognition from Somaliland, which is an unrecognized (though not micro-) nation itself but has a large land area with actual people living in it and such. It is an insult to all the people living there and their government (which, mind you, operates in basically exactly the same way as does that of Kosovo) to say that "WP doesn't think Liberland is a country, so that's what's real" when they obviously thought it is and decided to enter into relations with it. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying WP should decide what is or isn't a country. We are going by what the sources say, and if they designate an entity as a micronation then that means we do too. Micronations are definitionally not legally-recognized by sovereign states and thus are definitionally not classified the same as any of the other types of non-sovereign polities that have been mentioned so far. From our own article: Micronations are aspirant states that claim independence but lack legal recognition by world governments or major international organisations.[5][6] Micronations are classified separately from states with limited recognition and quasi-states, nor are they considered to be autonomous or self-governing as they lack the legal basis in international law for their existence.[7] While some are secessionist in nature, most micronations are widely regarded as sovereignty projects that instead seek to mimic a sovereign state rather than to achieve international recognition, and their activities are almost always trivial enough to be ignored rather than challenged by the established nations whose territory they claim
Sources do not treat them as "real" countries and neither should we. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that we will have another shouting match about the definition of a micronation if Liberand manages to get diplomatic recognition from the Javier Milei Government in Argentina, who had previously vocally supported Liberland.
Furthermore, if you search Liberland on YouTube and set it to show recent results, you will find dozens of videos of people settling Liberland starting from mid-August 2023. At the very least, one can see the Liberlanders permanently parked a houseboat on there, and selling accommodation for $100/night on said houseboat. (Check their website.) This brings the question, does Liberland really fit in the definition of a micronation presented above? 2001:4430:4141:7BBE:0:0:81D:C0A4 (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Argentina formally recognizes Liberland and sources state it is no longer a micronation, we can revisit its classification on wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some items related to how Croatia views Liberland, for future reference:
Document UP/I-216-04-23-01/1873 (expulsion of an EU national): “[Vít Jedlička] as the creator of the idea and the project of the parastatal entity [of Liberland]… . ”
Document: NK UP/I-216-04-23-04/192 (expulsion of a non-EU national): “The given area is claimed by a Czech citizen Vít Jedlička as the state of Liberland and the proponents of the parastatal entity…” 2001:4430:4121:E806:0:0:DE5:F0AC (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following link contains the reply of the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs after a Liberlander letter-writing effort in 2023. One can say that this means that Croatia views Liberland a mere trivial project, or on the flip side that it warrants enough attention for an official reply.
https://liberland.org/en/news/522-liberland-responds-to-croatian-foreign-ministry 2001:4430:4121:E806:0:0:DE5:F0AC (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. When an organisation/similar has a visual emblem, displaying it in the article is absolutely DUE, and the infobox is a suitable place for that where one exists. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the organization is fictional, using visual emblems make it look like the organization actually exists. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly micronations are not fictional, but even if they were that wouldn't be a reason not to display their emblem in an infobox, see e.g. Umbrella Corporation, S.H.I.E.L.D., Department of Extranormal Operations, H.A.M.M.E.R., SPECTRE, ... Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't WP:FRINGE though. WP:PROFRINGE clearly applies here. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would documenting the existence of an unrecognized micronation and its visual logo be promotion? It seems like a mainstream point of view that Sealand and Liberland exist as human phenomena, and they have coverage in relevant news media. The views that are fringe are their claims of sovereignty, and the pages don't promote those claims of sovereignty; the pages report that they have claimed sovereignty and report those claims have gone unrecognized. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. This would include flags and seals, I would imagine. SportingFlyer T·C 15:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the existence of a micronation is unestablished by RS, then the quoted policy applies and we shouldn't have an article about it. If RS confirm the existence of the micronation, even if it's only as a micronation, then its graphical symbols should be usable even if they are only based on the micronation's own data. Animal lover |666| 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? WP:FRINGE explicitly disallows that. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FRINGE does not disallow the neutral reporting of factual information about a fringe topic. Using an organisation's own symbols on an article about that organisation that explicitly puts the status of that organisation into context (and having "unrecognised micronation" in big letters does do that) is neutrally reporting the factual information about that organisation. Including such symbols in other articles will be UNDUE in almost every case I can immediately think of (List of micronations being an exception) but that's a different matter.
NAMBLA is a notable organisation that promotes a fringe POV (that could lead to real-world harm, unlike anything to do with micronations), yet there is no suggestion that using their logo in the infobox about them violates either guideline you quote (or the WP:NPOV policy to which it relates). Indeed not using an organisation's logo (where there are no venerability or copyright issues) could be argued to be contrary to NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, NAMBLA's logo is infamous and widely reported in RS. In contrast, the various details and visual paraphernalia that can be associated with micronations in general rarely get mentioned anywhere besides the micronation's own website/publications. JoelleJay (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions/inclusions of the flag of Liberland in reliable sources include: CNN, The Japan Times, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, EUObserver, and Vice. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said in general, for the full set of params, not "specifically the logo of arguably the second-most famous micronation". JoelleJay (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what does "in general" mean then? What is the objective standard that defines when including a micronations symbols is "fringe" and when it isn't? Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
whoever added the infobox proposal to the right, i'd support that. restore a box, but redesign it so it doesn't copy the nation infobox style, layout, and fields. ValarianB (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it doesn't really matter, tbh, as long as the infobox conveys the info, the status of the entity in question. Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting issue, and one I had not previously considered. It appears to me that the essence of the discussion is whether the decision to use the country infobox at all is effectively a communicating non-neutral editorial viewpoint. I think that on balance I mostly fall in line with those concerned that the country infobox serves to give an inaccurrate impression of micronations. The modified box modeled on this page would be acceptable. I share the concerns voiced here that the infobox by its very nature is intended to summarize and convey the essential facts of the topic. For micronations, the most essential fact is that it lacks status recognized by any other entity and the box should instantly make this apparent to the reader. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s simpler than that … having an infobox in an WP article is simply a way to provide information about the topic in an organized format… it does not confer “legitimacy” on that topic.
That said… when it comes to micronations, while I do think having some information presented in infobox format is useful, I agree that there is a valid discussion to be had over what information should be provided in that infobox. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the point that several other editors that "micronation" should almost always be prefaced with "undrecognized." I don't think it's a fair expectation that a general readership inherently knows the difference between a micronation and the European microstates.

On infoboxes: like it or not, they are perceived a certain way by the general WP readership in my opinion. That perception being that it's the bare facts of a subject, and the ultimate form of wikivoice. So real care needs to be taken into consideration on what information gets included. I picked a random micronation I remember reading about, Principality of Hutt River, which also happened to be one of the more "real" ones before it was ended. I think it's overall okay at presenting information neutrally, but are things like an anthem, motto, ethnic groups, time zone essential to understanding an Australian's oddball tax evasion scheme (with apologies to the memory of HM Prince Leonard)? At best it's crufty, and at worst it adds to the presentation of the subject as "real" as the general readership perceives it. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the |status= parameter isn't used more in these infoboxes. Something like |status = unrecognized micronation with links, or even a plain English summary like |status = failed attempt to start a new country would likely be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such is stating unrecognized or generally rejected claims as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Should not be done. Infoboxes should only (explicitly or implicitly) include undisputed facts because they are too brief to include anything that needs explanatoin, calibration or attribution. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use Template:Infobox fictional location for micro "nations" just like we presently do with Land of Oz, Camelot, Gotham City and 556 other fictional countries. This useful template gives information for micro nation believers and aficionados while making it clear to the general reader an article is not describing a real country. If this bothers them, said "nations" can send their navies to San Francisco to bombard Wikimedia's offices.--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 19:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Micronations are not fictional though, so that would be completely inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000 so why do the infoboxes for places like Taiwan, Northern Cyprus and Guyana present statements about the country's area that are the subject of disputes? Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate to use a different infobox or inappropriate to sortie their fleets and deploy their armies?
In any event, if they're real countries, they can get Interpol to arrest @AndyTheGrump for opening this libelous useful discussion. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 19:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is decidedly not NPOV to describe a non-fictional entity as fictional. Whether or not they are "real" countries (whatever that means) is not relevant - it is unarguable (at least in the cases I'm familiar with) that they claim to be countries and so we report those claims neutrally and report the status of those claims (i.e. who recognises them, etc) neutrally too. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Agree. And if that explanation / clarficiation / context won't fit in the info box, IMO the item should be left out of the info box. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't put the explanation of the status of claims about/by "real" countries in their infoboxes, indeed we're far more explicit about the status of micronations in the infobox than we are about places like Cook Islands, Northern Cyprus, Ingushetia, Wa State, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I would recommend changing all of those. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then, per List of territorial disputes you should be recommending removing the area from the majority of "real" countries. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I don't have a recommendation that would be tidy. And degree of acceptence would also be a factor. But, as a note, specifying an area of the country is not directly weighing in on the disputes which affect the area.North8000 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if specifying disputed facts is not weighing in on the dispute for a "real" country, why is it for micronations? It is generally accepted as fact that Taiwan claims the area controlled by the PRC even though it doesn't have de facto control over that area, it is generally accepted as fact that Liberland claims the area not claimed by either Croatia or Serbia even though it doesn't have de facto control over that area, it is generally accepted as fact that the Hutt River Principality claimed 75km² of land on the Australian continent even though it is at best debatable whether it had any de facto control over that area, it is generally accepted as fact that Ukraine claims the area of Crimea even though it does not have de facto control over that area. The basis for the claims differ, as does who disputes them and why, but they are all disputed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pretending to have a tidy answer, I'm just discussing considerations. Let's say that somebody claims that Rhode Island is an independent country and not a part of the USA. If in the USA article it discussed the State of Rhode Island, that is a pretty clear claim that Rhode Island is a part of the USA. And if in the Rhode Island article, there is an an infobox titled "Republic of Rhode Island" that is a pretty clear implicit claim that it is a country. But if in the USA article, the the listed total area of the USA includes the area of Rhode Island, thast is not such a clear claim/statement that Rhode Island is a part of the USA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea that vanity projects do not deserve to be treated (and infoboxed) the same way as real states. The Banner talk 09:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the infoboxes of Israel (a real country with recognition by most, but not all, UN members) and Principality of Hutt River (a micronation). The former has fields "Area" (with footnotes due to the territorial dispute) and "Currency", while the latter has "Area claimed" and "Purported currency". And the latter says "Micronation" at the top, which the former doesn't. Animal lover |666| 14:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

Based on the above discussion, it looks like there may be a consensus, but a formal RFC would be needed to test that theory. Would the options of keeping Infobox Country and adopting the micronation infobox proposed above be suitable? Does anyone have any suggested changes to the proposed infobox first?--Trystan (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose changes, because it's simply not necessary (micronation infoboxes and articles already make everything perfectly clear while maintaining NPOV) and the proposed version is less useful - particularly the "claimed by" field makes it appear that the claimants were working in partnership whereas in reality one is the successor of the other. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "claimed by" label should read "initiators", "proponents" or "founders" or something to that effect. A "claimed by" label can be read to suggest that the initiators are claiming the territory for themselves, which not all of them do. Freetown Christiania for example, one of the only two or three micronations with real and lasting cultural significance, was very emphatically not "claimed by" anyone.
Renaming "area claimed" to "location" would generally lead to shorter descriptions and easier consensus.
A "type" label of sorts describing the raison d'être might be worth considering. Freetown Christiania was an intentional community; this is the most important thing to know about the project besides its location and approximate extent in time. Kugelmugel was an art project. The Hutt River Province was a political statement. The Kingdom of Elleore is a private leisure activity. The OWK is a business venture. The raison d'être is generally the most important property of any of the handful of micronations that actually matter. (The only possible exception I can think of is Sealand, whose most important property may have been the fact that it had a colourable (if ultimately insufficient) claim to independence.)
I believe it is important to make a clear distinction, on the infobox level, between micronations with real political or cultural impact on the one hand, business enterprises that just barely meet technical notability requirements on the other. People have already pointed out that many readers absolutely will read a country box as a low-grade certificate of legitimacy and that it therefore is a stealth NPOV violation to stick normal country boxes on sleazebag affinity scams like Liberland. A dedicated micronation box will help; a type label of some sort will help further. GR Kraml (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Proponents" and "Location" sound good to me. I agree that a "Type" field would be useful, as the subjects we describe as micronations variously include failed rebellions and self-described publicity stunts. In some cases, "Type" might be difficult to determine from available sources, but it could always be left blank on a case-by-case basis. What would you suggest for what I had as "Dates claimed"? Something like "Dates promoted"? Or just "Dates", but then it is potentially unclear whether we are talking about the period during which it was promoted or the period of its de facto existence (if any).--Trystan (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "type" would have to be left blank in some cases and I don't mind.
Either "dates claimed" or "dates promoted" should be fine. "Dates claimed" doesn't have the legal ambiguity issue that "claimed by" has, and if you're not the product of a formal claim of some sort you're probably not a micronation.
I agree that "dates" alone is bad. In micronations that have permanent residents or that come with long-lasting non-resident communities attached to them, the community as such can (and often does) start earlier and end later than the claim to sovereignty. GR Kraml (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the different types of infobox side-by-side (hopefully my bodged formatting works, please fix it if it doesn't).

Infobox country with
micronation parameter
Infobox country without
micronation parameter
Proposed custom infobox
Principality of Sealand
Micronation
Motto: E Mare Libertas (Latin)
"From the sea, Freedom"[1]
Anthem: "From the sea, Freedom"
Location of Sealand
Aerial view of Sealand in 1999
Aerial view of Sealand in 1999
Organizational structureConstitutional monarchy[2]
Prince 
• 1967–2012
Paddy Roy Bates
• 2012–present
Michael Bates[3]
Establishment
• Declared
2 September 1967;
56 years ago
 (1967-09-02)[3]
Area claimed
• Total
0.004 km2 (0.0015 sq mi)
(approx. 1 acre)
Purported currencySealand dollar
Principality of Sealand
Motto: E Mare Libertas (Latin)
"From the sea, Freedom"[1]
Anthem: "From the sea, Freedom"
Location of Sealand
Aerial view of Sealand in 1999
Aerial view of Sealand in 1999
GovernmentConstitutional monarchy[2]
Prince 
• 1967–2012
Paddy Roy Bates
• 2012–present
Michael Bates[3]
Establishment
• Declared
2 September 1967;
56 years ago
 (1967-09-02)[3]
Area
• Total
0.004 km2 (0.0015 sq mi)
(approx. 1 acre)
CurrencySealand dollar
Principality of Sealand
Unrecognized micronation
Aerial view of Sealand in 1999
Claimed byPaddy Roy Bates, Michael Bates
Dates claimed1967 to present
Area claimedOffshore platform off the coast of England

Given the clear distinction between the first two, and how much clearer they are, I simply don't buy the argument that people will confuse it for a "real" country. Labels, etc. can be tweaked if necessary (I actually prefer the header presentation of the proposed box as it makes it clear "Micronation" is not part of the name), but there isn't any need for major changes or for wheels to be reinvented. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but this comparison is a great illustration of why standard country boxes are out of place in micronation articles: they improperly amplify and foreground a bunch of meaningless trivia. The fact that Sealand purported to be a "constitutional monarchy" is vacuous considering that the royal family never ruled over anyone but themselves. The number of readers whose attention needs to be drawn to the fact that Sealand's purported currency was the Sealand dollar as opposed to the Sealand drachma is zero. The number of readers who will profit from being able to recognize the Sealand flag next time they see it in the wild is also zero. The list goes on.
It is objectively bad editing to needlessly front-load an article with irrelevant factlets. No infobox at all is better than an infobox whose main effect is pushing meaningful information further down the page. GR Kraml (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. Centering the trappings of countryhood, as in the first two examples, gives them undue weight. The flag, the anthem, the motto, the coat of arms… these are all calculated to confer legitimacy-by-association. Micronations are dressed up to look like a country, but this is essentially deceptive mimickry, and we shouldn’t participate, particularly for micronations that are enmeshed with shady cryptocurrencies. Calling the Sealand guy a “prince” is effectively taking a fringe claim at face value. Yes, I know there’s no mathematical objective definition of a prince, but just because something is a social construct doesn’t mean it doesn’t mean something. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not a micronation's claims are deceptive mimickry or are good faith assertions (that the rest of the world disagrees with) seems like a determination for reliable secondary sources, and something to be summarized on a case by case basis at each article. If reliable secondary sources report that someone is the unrecognized president or prince of an unrecognized micronation, how is it "participating" for Wikipedia to summarize that information? Or will we go through the articles for biblical figures and say it's "deceptive mimickry" to note the probably-fictional Esther is identified in the Book of Esther as queen of Persia, or to list the Tomb of Job in Job's infobox? Is the Goncharov infobox "deceptive mimickry" despite the body-text reminders that it's a meme? Is it "deceptive mimickry" to report that the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest had a government type of "consensus decision-making with daily meeting"s when it was never recognized as a "real" settlement, government, country, etc.?
I think these are fully contextualized, and it's possible for micronations to be contextualized as well. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to decide what is "real" and "not real"; Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources. If reliable sources say an unrecognized micronation has an unrecognized currency, or an unrecognized prince, etc., we summarize that. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with P-Makoto. It is not Wikipedia's job to say what is and isn't "dressed up like a country", "deceptive mimicry" or whether any given person, organisation or thing is "enmeshed with shady cryptocurrencies". We report what reliable sources say about the subject. Including a flag in the infobox at Azawad, Rojava, West Papua or Islamic State is not "participating" in anything, it's not "deceptive mimicry" or any other epithet you wish to denigrate the subject with. Anything else is a gratuitous failure of NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do policies like WP:UNDUE exist? That's right, because the choice to include something is unavoidably a choice to give credence to it. To pretend not to understand this is to pretend to be epistemologically illiterate. The path to making Mr. Sealand's claim to princeliness "fully contextualized" begins with not investing it with misleading distinction. GR Kraml (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what is "misleading" about presenting the facts neutrally. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you disagree with WP:UNDUE? If so, why? GR Kraml (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm saying that what is and isn't DUE can only be determined at the individual article level, that including things that are due is not giving it credence, engaging in "deceptive mimicry" (or anything else of that nature), and that everything discussed here (flags, coat of arms, etc) is potentially DUE on some articles about micronations. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they're DUE for some micronations, they can be included elsewhere in the article, just like any other info that we don't put in the infobox. There is no indication any of these items is actually a core aspect for most of these topics, as evaluated by IRS sources. It is not NPOV to treat artistic endeavors or corporate promotion or cryptocurrency vehicles or protest communes or profit ventures as if we assume they all occupy a single point along the spectrum of "nationhood" and are all inherently likely to even have any of the above extra features from infobox country let alone place the same meaning on them.
Micronations are much more defined by what they are not than by what they are, which makes anything beyond a barebones infobox unacceptable. JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf remains more persuasive in making a case that hews close to Wikipedia policies. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the majority of commenters here, nor the text of INFOBOXPURPOSE the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content., nor other guideline criteria like Is the field of value? How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox? Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article? and Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox? If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all. and INFOBOXUSE The meaning given to each infobox part should be the same across instances of that type of infobox. Nor accessibility guidance that states Pages with excessive icons can also cause loading problems for some people. JoelleJay (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of commenters here have expressed opinions that (in whole or in part) directly contradict core content policies and so the majority of their comments can and will be disregarded by whomever closes this discussion. Everything else you've written is either stating things that are not in dispute (the infobox should summarise key facts that are already in the article) or completely irrelevant (e.g. there are a grand total of zero icons across all three infoboxes). Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I quote directly concerns which parameters to put in an infobox template, which clearly should require some consideration beyond "if it's an important aspect for recognized countries it must be a key fact for micronations". And I'd love to know which "core content policies" mandate that infobox country or any infobox must be in certain classes of articles!
icons encompasses any small images – including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals, flags. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained many times in this discussion, NPOV requires we treat subjects neutrally, which in this instance means treating a micronation and a non-micronation with the same coverage in reliable sources equally not going out of our way to denigrate micronations based on some editors' beliefs. If we have infoboxes for countries (and we do) then we need to have the same type of infobox for all countries, including unrecognised ones, and each infobox should have the fields relevant to that subject. There is no difference between what is relevant to micronations and what is relevant other nations (as classes). What fields should be populated on a given article can only be determined at the level of the individual article, because that's the only level at which you can determine due weight.
Regarding logos and crests, either they are fine accessibility wise on articles about all countries or they are problematic on articles about all countries. There are no "small images" in either infobox, and in terms of total images from the page title to the top of the references section (including prose and infobox) there are 8 images on the Sealand article and over 50 (plus an audio widget) on the Kosovo article. Of the two the Sealand isn't going to be the one with accessibility concerns. Thryduulf (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying NPOV requires us to structure our articles on micronations as if they were legally recognized countries and, therefore, requires us to give them the same infoboxes because there's no difference in what is relevant to them. WOW.
You don't think it's just a little bit OR to consider, automatically, the thousands of online-only micronations (like this "hypothetical project" formed by some teenagers in the 90s, or this one designated as an extremist social network), or a one-man effort to become a new province under another country's rule, or advertising campaigns, or projects with the stated intent to start a micronation via crowdfunding, or admitted scams, or a documentary project with no intent to declare independence, or a "political and constitutional simulation" by law students, or an underwater libertarian paradise proposal/scam; or entities primarily known as art projects or cryptowebsites or migratory fraud schemes or non-profits or neighborhoods that happen to also be called "micronations", as being on equal footing with each other let alone comparable to "other countries", inherently deserving the same emphases and display of regalia? All because some RS or an editor characterized them as micronations, a term that has no basis in international law or shared criteria other than "not legally recognized by sovereign states"? You think any of this supported by NPOV? Really? JoelleJay (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV requires we treat subjects neutrally, which in this instance means treating a micronation and a non-micronation with the same coverage in reliable sources equally I think what you’re missing is that micronations and non-micronations don’t receive the same coverage. Consider, for example, this Wired article about Liberland: [5] which takes a skeptical tone, uses “country” (their scare quotes), and describes it as a “crypto project”. Or, this paper: [6] which ends with a quote that sums up the non-Sealand projects nicely: The rest of the virtual states do not have statehood, but only exploit the myth about it. They earn by selling souvenirs and coins, and at best they are a local landmark. The legal creation of new states by private people is no longer possible, and, therefore, the problem of virtual states is finally transferred to the virtual space, becoming one of the methods of conducting an entertainment Internet business. The myth of statehood has finally become a part of the digital civilization. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or this one: Westarctica, Sancratosia, Slowjamastan, and other fake nations may have some things to teach real ones. We can ignore the title per WP:HEADLINE but the rest of the article does the job more than adequately: They replicate the symbols, documents, and acts of legitimate states. Micronations create flags, passports, and currency; establish constitutions; and hold elections or plan their lines of succession. and Their online citizenship applications have been known to accidentally deceive individuals who legitimately hope to immigrate. Framing micronations as the same type of thing as legitimate countries, when the sources go out of their way to explain why they are different, is not NPOV - it’s false balance. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, one last time:
NPOV requires us not to take sides where there is a controversy. NPOV does not require us, and UNDUE expressly forbids us, to pretend there is a controversy where there isn't one. "Is Kosovo a country?" is a controversy. We are required to stay neutral on this. "Is the Kingdom of Elleore a country?" is not. We are required not to push the falsehood that the answer is up to meaningful debate.
In addition, as @JoelleJay has demonstrated, INFOBOXPURPOSE requires us to use infoboxes to summarize things that are key facts and to exclude any unnecessary content.
Readers come to any given article with the implicit assumption that the infobox will contain key facts, both because of the interface affordances involved and because this is what infoboxes do in every other article. They implicitly expect these key facts to be key in both senses: germane to understanding and contextualizing the subject on the one hand; well established and largely unassailable on the other. A picture of the flag of Liberland is neither: it tells you absolutely nothing useful; it's not even the flag they actually use; you would struggle to find so much as a single independent RS that clearly defines and describes it.
Actively lying to readers about the meaning and significance of what they are looking at strikes me as an NPOV violation of the first order. I mean seriously, if actively pushing all-but-unsourced random bullshit is not against the rules then what is. GR Kraml (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on...what do you mean "Is the Kingdom of Elleore a country?" is not. We are required not to push the falsehood that the answer is up to meaningful debate. While you might have a point about Slowjamastan, micronations such as Liberland have been acknowledged and/or recognized by other nations (e.g., Somaliland, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Colombia, Malawi, and even Croatia/Serbia). And what Thryduulf is referring to is that UNDUE applies at the article level, so whether the country is notable enough to be written about on WP is determined by at that level. Once you've decided that an article is DUE, then it needs to have some content in it that justifies having the article in the first place. That is exactly what's going on here. And besides, it's frankly silly to suggest that content is DUE when it's in the body, but suddenly not when it's summarized into an infobox.
I'm not sure what you mean by A picture of the flag of Liberland is neither: it tells you absolutely nothing useful; it's not even the flag they actually use; you would struggle to find so much as a single independent RS that clearly defines and describes it.. That's literally the flag that is used by Liberland, and is sourced in NYT; I'm not sure what you're on about. And if flags of countries are not useful, then we should remove them from all country articles? Getsnoopy (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...it's frankly silly to suggest that content is DUE when it's in the body, but suddenly not when it's summarized into an infobox. Why would that be silly? Per MOS:INFOBOX, "...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article..." Per WP:ASPECT, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." It logically follows that aspects of a subject not treated as key facts in the body of reliable sources should not be presented as such by including them in an infobox.--Trystan (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but what the key facts are about a given subject can only be determined at the level of the individual subject. Based on a skim of sources, the flag of Liberland seems just as important to the topic of Liberland as the flag of e.g. Myanmar is the to the topic of Myanmar and more important than e.g. the flag of the Islamic State is to the topic of the Islamic State. We have (seemingly uncontroversially) included the flags of both Myanmar and Islamic State in the infoboxes about those topics, so there is no justification for excluding the flag of Liberland in the infobox about Liberland. In contrast I'm uncertain whether the Grand Duchy of Avram even has a flag (it has a coat of arms which might also serve as the flag but that's unclear). Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are meant to hold key facts very common to a class of subjects, and which parameters to include when making a new infobox template necessarily requires looking at the class in general. The class of micronations is meaningfully distinguished, by secondary and tertiary RS, from all types of real countries.
We have numerous tertiary sources treating significant subsets of the real countries as a "complete" group (even when differences in sovereignty are noted and those members are separated from the main group), often accompanied by individual blurbs for each member of what those sources consider the most important facts for countries in general. This informs on which details are BALASP for countries in general and thus should go in the country infobox.
We do not have a solid body of RS treating substantial subsets of micronations as part of the same group as real countries. The variation among micronations is so substantial, and the appellation so informal and inconsistently applied, that any infobox aiming to represent key facts from IRS sources shared by most members of the class will be very small. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so that's a nonsense interpretation of DUE that doesn't warrant further discussion.
Something being verifiable in IRS does not make it a BALASP. Something receiving substantial coverage or description in IRS (which the flag does not receive whatsoever in the NYT article) does not necessarily make it BALASP. Something actually being BALASP for a page does not mean it should be in the infobox. And it certainly does not mean that thing should be a parameter for infoboxes in all pages of a certain class.
Whichever discussion determined the items that should be in the infobox for real countries decided that flags should be in there, probably because that's one of the standard pieces of info accompanying each country in academic/tertiary RS that address both the set as a whole and some details of each member. E.g. CIA Factbook. The same is not true for micronations. We do not have a comparably large body of high-quality tertiary RS, on micronations as a set, demonstrating which aspects of a micronation are considered fundamental. Almost every recognized country will have IRS sources discussing or at least describing its flag (and most other major parameters in the infobox). The same is not true for even every notable micronation, therefore being included in an infobox cannot be supported, per INFOBOX. JoelleJay (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally the flag that is used by Liberland, and is sourced in NYT; I'm not sure what you're on about. As I explain in this edit, the Liberlanders use the flags of Croatia, Serbia or Hungary in places where flags have actual significance, e.g. when the boats in their "official" "state fleet" need to be equipped with ensigns. Their videos are staged and edited to hide this fact, but they do.
They are generally very careful to avoid claiming sovereignty or nationhood in any context or forum where such claim could potentially matter. As the very same NYT article shows, for example, they do not challenge the presence of Croatian cops in "their" "country", nor do they attempt to evict the Croatian civilians who (continue to) use the beach for summertime leisure activities. Their web sites and communiqués keep going on about bona vacantia and whatnot, but when they get dragged to court for criminal trespass to land they meekly plead unrelated jurisdictional issues. The fact that the purported state of Liberland never, ever, under any circumstances actually uses its purported state flag is just one of the things that tell you they do not believe what they say they do.
And if flags of countries are not useful, then we should remove them from all country articles? Flags from real countries obviously are useful, but then again you know that, and you also know that nobody claims otherwise. GR Kraml (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a clear distinction between the first two, just subtle wording differences. The side-by-side presentation convinces me that the proposed custom infobox is better for readers. Schazjmd (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i like the 3rd one. the flags and coats of arms aren't real, toss em. ValarianB (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a shocking disregard for NPOV (and WP:V). They are as "real" as any other coat of arms or flag. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the header "Unrecognized micronation" is a good change, but all else in the third infobox seems if anything a reduction of information. Why not have the flag? Recognized nation-state status seems hardly like the hurdle we expect for whether or not a logo is pertinent and informative. We don't require companies, sports teams, or NGOs to be sovereign before we include their imagery, flags, logos, etc. Why wouldn't a reader be interested in knowing what flag an unrecognized micronation flies, if it does fly one? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the less trivia we emphasize in an infobox, the better. If a flag or coat of arms actually has significance in secondary sources then an image of it can be put in the article, it doesn't need to be an infobox parameter. And definitely agree with everything @GR Kraml said. JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third infobox is clearly the best and minimises the amount of trivia proponents might be able to add. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're getting into failures of WP:AGF as well. We don't neuter the encyclopaedia because non-neutral editors might add things which may or may not be trivia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they are not as real as the coat of arms and flag of say Great Britain or Wales, the idea that anyone would suggest they are raises issues of competence here, tbh. something that has centuries of reliably-sources tradition a and coverage has no comparison to a thing created in Photoshop in a day. retaining an infobox for these articles is a good idea, but lessening their likeness to a real nation inbobox is preferable. ValarianB (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not as respected and they have none of the heritage or prestige, etc. but that doesn't make them somehow not real. Unless you are claiming that the new Flag of Kyrgyzstan or Flag of Afghanistan (the Islamic Emirate one) are not real? Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that many people here are engaging in WP:IDONTLIKEIT while trying to masquerade it as legitimate WP policy.

Why does England get to have its own flag?

- Because it has centuries of heritage and tradition. So why doesn't Liberland get to have its own? - Because there are very few articles citing it. How many articles does it take for a flag to become "real"?

- ...


Maybe we should take down Somaliland's flag, and hell, even South Sudan's flag, since it's only been around since 2011, which is a mere 13 years. Getsnoopy (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. It's not centuries of tradition that bestow notability and due weight. It's not even "reality" (contestable as that is with social constructs) that bestows either; the fictional Gondor quite appropriately has its coat of arms in the infobox as a quick and way for viewers to identify the topic, and Rohan, Middle-earth has its flag. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Braun2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b "Principality of Sealand" (PDF). Amorph!03 First Summit of Micronations. Artists' Association MUU. 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 October 2014. Retrieved 3 September 2023.
  3. ^ a b c d MacEacheran, Mike (5 July 2020). "Sealand: A peculiar 'nation' off England's coast". BBC Travel. BBC. Retrieved 23 September 2020.
I like the third one, with the suggested changes of "proponents" and "location" etc. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I think we have a clear question. "Should articles on micronations (a) use Infobox Country with the micronation parameter, or (b) use an infobox with the label "Unrecognized micronation" and the fields: type, proponents, dates claimed, and location?" If someone wants to start an RFC on that, I think that would be the best way to resolve this issue.--Trystan (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know how many there are? Micronation infoboxes, that is. Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are approximately 159 articles and redirects categorised in (subcategories of) Category:Micronations (I say approximately as my de-deduplication wasn't rigorous). Not all of them are going to be suitable for an infobox (e.g. Kickassia) so see that figure as an upper bound (unless and until there is a new notable micronation of course). Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1, that seems like a good way forward. Levivich (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should also be the option for no infobox, considering there are several that are primarily known as other things or are not called micronations in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably if an entity is not primarily described as a micronation in RS, then it wouldn’t be in scope of this RfC. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question could be phrased as "Where articles on micronations use an infobox, should they use...".--Trystan (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1, this seems just about ideal. GR Kraml (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. JoelleJay (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Levivich (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the RfC suggested above open yet? 211.251.171.197 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but feel free to participate in the discussion which may lead to an RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


RfC: micronation infoboxes

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(1) Principally, consensus is for option B. This option is widely preferred as being distinctive from the regular country infobox, and having better parameters. Regarding certain parameters:
(a) Consensus is against generally including the flag, coat of arms, and other purported symbols of the micronation, though it may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. The ultimate conclusion is that these symbols are often not recognized or reliably verifiable, and could easily mislead a reader; that they are not used in the same way as countries, and so should not be treated in the same way. Certain symbols which are recognized or reported by reliable sources may be appropriate to add, as important information.
(b) There is no consensus about the inclusion and use of certain other parameters, which are subject to the claims of the micronation itself. For example, key officials or currency, which are not easily verifiable by reliable sources, and therefore run afoul of WP:V. Though the provided option B does not include these parameters, there is a meaningful amount of discussion regarding it. Participants are generally at an impasse about the propriety of including these parameters when they hold no outside recognition or verifiability. Otherwise, the parameters are in accordance with the original option B.

(2) Consensus is against the idea that it is a WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE violation for micronations to receive infoboxes. This argument is similar to the "trade dress" problem addressed in paragraph (1)(a): it is an endorsement and legitimization of their claims, in violation of WP:NPOV. But the consensus is that it is appropriate to state verifiable claims, which are identified as such, even within infoboxes.

(3) Consensus is for including "unrecognized" to clearly identify micronations as not being the same as a "true" country—this is echoed in the choice to use an infobox which is distinctive from the country infobox. The primary motivations were avoiding at-a-glance mistakes, and preventing a reader from having to do further research, in accordance with MOS:NOFORCELINK.

(4) Consensus is against any reference to micronations as "fictitious" in the same sense as "literary fiction". To do so would contradict WP:NPOV and substitute editors' views for reliable sources'. In that vein, it is wholly inappropriate to use the fictional location infobox.


Closed by TW 03:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where articles on micronations use an infobox, should they use

A. infobox country (with the micronation parameter)
B. a custom infobox with the parameters type, proponents, dates claimed, and location; and image options limited to images of the country and/or its geographic location on a map
C. a different custom infobox

If C, please specify which parameters should be included. JoelleJay (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mockup of infoboxes for Sealand (refs removed):

Infobox country with
micronation parameter
Proposed custom infobox
A.
Principality of Sealand
Micronation
Motto: E Mare Libertas (Latin)
"From the sea, Freedom"
Anthem: "From the sea, Freedom"
Location of Sealand
Aerial view of Sealand in 1999
Aerial view of Sealand in 1999
Organizational structureConstitutional monarchy
Prince 
• 1967–2012
Paddy Roy Bates
• 2012–present
Michael Bates
Establishment
• Declared
2 September 1967;
56 years ago
 (1967-09-02)
Area claimed
• Total
0.004 km2 (0.0015 sq mi)
(approx. 1 acre)
Purported currencySealand dollar
B.
Principality of Sealand
Unrecognized micronation
Aerial view of Sealand in 1999
Claimed byPaddy Roy Bates, Michael Bates
Dates claimed1967 to present
Area claimedOffshore platform off the coast of England
Type[type determined by page consensus]

Note that parameter order and styling (e.g. font size) in B are not necessarily settled. JoelleJay (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging: @AndyTheGrump, SportingFlyer, Certes, Blueboar, InfiniteNexus, Gonnym, P-Makoto, SWinxy, Donald Albury, ValarianB, Horse Eye's Back, Getsnoopy, Elli, TSP, Thryduulf, Trystan, Levivich, Martin of Sheffield, SMcCandlish, WhatamIdoing, Barnards.tar.gz, Animal lover 666, Selfstudier, Xymmax, Seltaeb Eht, North8000, A. B., The Banner, GR Kraml, and Schazjmd: JoelleJay (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one problem with the proposed infobox I see: "Unrecognized micronation" is redundant, micronations are unrecognized by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does one example say "Unrecognized micronation" and the other say "Micronation"? I don't think there's necessarily a problem with pointing out that it's unrecognized (it's true that it's part of the definition, but that doesn't mean that 100% of readers already know that), but I'm concerned that the comparison may not be fair as a result of this and other differences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We link it, anyone who hovers over it or click it will read "A micronation is a political entity whose representatives claim that they belong to an independent nation or sovereign state, but which lacks legal recognition by any sovereign state." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:NOFORCELINK. Articles should make sense to readers without requiring a link to be clicked and/or hovered over. It certainly isn't reasonable to assume that the reader knows what a 'micronation' is, and given that lack of recognition is a defining feature of the article subject, making it clear is unambiguously beneficial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since it's particularly difficult to hover over anything on a mobile device, which is two-thirds of our traffic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOFORCELINK is about prose... By that argument we should also be explain what "type" means... As well as area claimed... Wouldn't actually be possible to craft an infobox with that particular interpretation of MOS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Unrecognized micronation" is not redundant, since the word has multiple uses and often referrs to nations that are recongized, including the Vatican, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, the individual emirates of UAE, and various historical ones that no longer exist. WP's article at Micronation is entirely about the fictive-intentional, unrecognized sort, but WP is not a source for the reality of English language usage.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing micronation with microstate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, the two are easily confused, and apparently not always used consistently. Which is why it is essential that we don't use the term in the article without making clear what we are actually describing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Within the literature I've always found their use to be consistent, at least with modern sources. If we want to make clear what we are actually describing we need a whole sentence, cherry picking a single part of that description is undue and just feels jerkish which we shouldn't be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to propose Wikipedia:Don't be a jerk, be misleading instead as a new policy. For now, it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No personal attacks however is policy, and one I recommend you follow. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a straw man and is rather hurtful, is that really what you think I'm arguing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you were the to first describe the position/result you don't like as jerkish. It's entirely reasonable to suggest in response that it isn't practical to not be jerk (your view not Andy's) at the specific cost of being misleading, which using confusing wording would be. No one called you a jerk. Thryduulf should have caught that as well. If the much, much more practical cost of not confusing readers (and editors using templates) is simply using cleaer wording (including perhaps some additional clarification), then that is perfectly fine; there's nothing "jerkish" about it to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If we want to make clear what we are actually describing we need a whole sentence, cherry picking a single part of that description is undue and just feels jerkish which we shouldn't be." I'm the editor that proposed "Unrecognized micronation" as the header of the infobox, so I would like to explain my thinking in doing so. I proposed it in good faith and not with the motivation (or, I believe, the result) of being "jerkish". The main goal is clarity for the reader. Definitions of micronation tend to highlight three aspects 1) small 2) claims to be a nation and 3) unrecognized. I think the first two are evident in the term itself, while the third is not at all, so "Unrecognized micronation", while arguably somewhat redundant, better conveys the meaning. No additional wording is required to convey the core components of the definition. Because micronation is comparatively recent (only entering widespread use in the past 20 years or so), and because it is so similar to the much more common microstate, I think the additional clarification is warranted.--Trystan (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not confusing them at all. I'm stating that the usage of micronation overlaps with that of microstate. "I like a particular definition" does not equate to "everyone in the world uses that definition" (in this case it's very likely that a majority do, but that's immaterial). The broader use is attested enough that the term has confusion potential.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, please. We need to be clear that Micronations are not nations in the usual sense. Donald Albury 02:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or C. Option B unnecessarily excludes identifying information (e. g. the flag).
A "C" option that I would support would resemble A while adding a "Proponents" parameter, since knowing who declares a given micronation tends to be of interest and part of reliable source coverage of notable micronations.
I'll add that I'm not very clear on what this RfC says will be the outcome of each potential consensus. Will a new policy page be created? Will a section be added to the Manual of Style? Something else? "Should" suggests some kind of imperative, but how and where would that imperative be articulated (if at all)? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It'll just resolve the conflict of "what infobox should we use". If someone tries to change it, they will be pointed here. SWinxy (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. I'd argue that keeping Infobox country allows for the inclusion of pertinent information that the alternative infobox leaves out. Despite being unrecognized, micronations still have claims that can be verified. I think excluding them lessens the usefulness of an alternative infobox. I prefer that the infobox include things like a flag, coat of arms, motto, etc. It's at-a-glance information that proper countries also make claims of. SWinxy (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. Per MOS:INFOBOX, "...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article..." Per WP:ASPECT, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Based on how sources typically cover micronations, Option B aligns with the governing policy and guidelines, while Option A places undue emphasis on aspects treated as minor by reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B, with the additional parameter of a website, as a micronation's web presence is usually notable and a key aspect of their existence. B summarizes the actual key facts of the subject, without giving undue weight to the organization's claims. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reporting the claims made in a neutral, factual manner is (as repeatedly explained in the pre-RFC discussion) not giving them undue weight. Thryduulf (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reporting wildly implausible claims that are by definition fraudulent, jokes or artistic expression in a place and a manner that readers expect to be used for uncontroversial core facts absolutely is giving them undue weight. GR Kraml (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not neutral to call Michael or Roy Bates the Prince of Sealand in wikivoice. Most of the secondary sources in the article seem to use scare quotes ("prince") or another way of downplaying it ("so-called"). I didn't see a single one that actually called it a "constitutional monarchy" in those terms. And Sealand is the most "real" type of micronation, so should be the least able to poke holes in. I'm convinced by Trystan's citing of MOS:INFOBOX, I think it hits it on the head. Is a key fact about Sealand that it's a Constitutional Monarchy, or that its motto is E mare libertas? The second fact isn't even cited or discussed in the article. It's surely verifiable, but is it what the majority of neutral, reliable, non-primary sources would consider a key fact about Sealand, or is it trivia? Seltaeb Eht (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A (but with the heading changed to the style of the custom one) per SWinxy, per P-Makoto, per NPOV and the extensive comments I and others made in the pre-RFC discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. Because a micronation is not a country or sovereign state (unlike a microstate), articles about micronations shouldn't use {{infobox country}}. Infoboxes are for giving quick key facts about the article subject, and the key facts about micronations will be different than the key facts about countries. A custom infobox, such as B, will avoid misleading the reader into thinking that a micronation is a country, and it'll better inform the reader about the key facts of a micronation. While I think "B" is a good start for a new infobox for micronations, I would support editors' continuing to improve/discuss/adjust the particulars of parameters, etc., as I'm sure it could be further refined and developed. Levivich (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. 1) Micronations are most definitely not a "type" of nation and do not occupy any space along the spectrum of legitimate claims to statehood. They are not included alongside real nations in even a small fraction of the high-quality IRS sources that aim to cover a large subset of nations (e.g. tertiary sources summarizing the "countries of Europe" virtually never include any micronations, even when they do include quasi-states and other legally-recognized non-sovereign polities).
    2) Micronations are far too heterogeneous in what they even are to justify more than the bare minimum of parameter options. There are essentially no defining features of micronations other than lacking legal recognition by sovereign states.(*)
    3) Our guidelines on infoboxes make it clear that fewer optional parameters is preferred and that options should not be included if they are not relevant to most of the affected articles. The availability of optional fields does not mean that all fields should be made optional and The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Regarding whether to create an optional field in an infobox: How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox? Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article? and If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all.
    (*)To revisit some examples I used previously regarding how extraordinarily different in basically every fundamental characteristic even the notable micronations are: they include thousands of online-only entities (like this "hypothetical project" formed by some teenagers in the 90s, or this one designated as an extremist social network), one-man efforts to become a new province under another country's ruleadvertising campaigns, projects with merely the stated intent to start a micronation via crowdfunding, admitted scams, documentary projects that assert they have no desire to declare independence, "political and constitutional simulations" by law students, literal sarcasm, and underwater libertarian paradise proposals/scams; as well as entities primarily known for being art projects or cryptowebsites or migratory fraud schemes or non-profits or neighborhoods that happen to have been called "micronations" by someone at some point. These are not inherently deserving of the same emphases and displays of regalia as real countries, not least because most of them don't even have any independent secondary RS discussing those aspects at all. And that's just the ones that are actually called "micronations" in RS as opposed to being designated a "micronation" by some editor adding categories. JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to your point 2, that's actually an argument for more parameter options so that the one relevant to the given micronation are available where they are relevant. In regards to point 1, this argument has been refuted (multiple times) in the pre-RFC discussion - there is a single continuum from micronation to fully-recognised sovereign nation (with entities such as the Holy See not fitting neatly on it) with no objective criterion separating micronations from unrecognised nations. Thryduulf (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, no, the fact that there is some number of possible parameters that would only be applicable to various small subsets of the group "micronations" is exactly why our guideline finds it necessary to explicitly discourage including options that aren't widely relevant to the group. The availability of optional fields does not mean that all fields should be made optional, nor that large numbers of rarely used fields should be added without regard for the layout and ease-of-use of the infobox template.
    And I sure don't see where micronational status has been demonstrated as being along the same continuum. If you're referring to the claim that Liberland has "diplomatic ties" with Somaliland, then a) that is not legal recognition from a sovereign state, and b) the extent of that "diplomatic recognition" was described by the BBC as:

    The "president" of the unrecognised territory of Liberland, Vit Jedlicka, has been visiting another unrecognised republic, Somaliland, for talks about mutual recognition. The Somaliland foreign ministry tweeted that the two sides had discussed how to "strengthen cooperation".

    According to Somaliland and Liberland sources, this meant they "began the mutual recognition process", which is a far cry from legal recognition by a sovereign state. And even if Liberland eventually did gain recognition, that doesn't change the definition of a micronation, and it does not suggest progression to statehood is a natural or remotely plausible outcome for micronations in general or even for a tiny minority of them. JoelleJay (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    there is a single continuum from micronation to fully-recognised sovereign nation There is a single continuum from fictional character to well-documented historical head of state and T'Challa still doesn't get an officeholder infobox. GR Kraml (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I learned recently that the definition of "country" is more diverse than I ever suspected. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a sovereign nation, recognized by dozens of countries, holds an observer post at the UN, issues the world's rarest passport (about 500 people hold one), and has no territory at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page you link literally says a sovereign entity does not have to be a country, and that the Order is an example of this. JoelleJay (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sovereign Military Order actually was the ruler of Malta from 1530 until 1798 (after being kicked off Rhodes), and the order has had a continuous existence since then. Some international organizations also enter into diplomatic relations, but they have members that are themselves nations recognized by other sovereign nations. Are there any reliable sources that describe any other "sovereign entity" that is not an international organization and does not possess any territory, but is recognized by other sovereign countries? Donald Albury 17:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont believe that there is one currently, but the Holy See before the 1929 Lateran Treaty is the only one that I know of that has fitted that description. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguably it still counts, as the Holy See has diplomatic relations and no territory, Vatican City has territory but no diplomatic relations. For most (all?) practical purposes they are the same thing, but they are technically different. The European Union also conducts some foreign relations activities as a single entity (see Foreign relations of the European Union) - whether it has territory is not a question where either "yes" or "no" are completely correct answers. You can also get into things like the difference between Denmark and Kingdom of Denmark. These are not the same thing as the SMOM but does show that terms like "country" and "sovereign state" are complicated no matter how you choose to define them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And there is deep history there, as well. The Pope was sovereign of the Papal States from the 8th century until 1870. So, we have one or two sovereign entities with deep history that have do not control any territory but engage in diplomatic relations with sovereign nations. I fail to see how that has any bearing on the topic of micronations. Donald Albury 01:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B The use of the country infobox is misleading. It gives undue prominence to the flag, coat of arms, motto and anthem; it encourages the inclusion of inappropriate parameters such as "Demonyms", "Capital" and "Official languages" (eg. at Republic of Minerva and Ladonia (micronation)); and it gives the impression that the claimants form an official government. Per Levivich above, the parameters of the new micronation infobox should be open to further discussion, to ensure it can be adapted to every use case. I like "Unrecognized micronation" despite the redundancy, because a micronation is easily confused with a microstate, and readers won't necessarily click or hover on the link to discover their mistake. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B per JoelleJay and Sojourner - the infobox country information is relevant for a real country, where currencies, flags, anthems, languages etc are actually used. Not so much for a micronation, where those are probably just words on a website. Galobtter (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. Infoboxes are intended to contain non-controversial facts only. They are not platforms for the promotion of fringe POVs regarding territorial status, sovereignty, or anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of the two presented Option A. I don't see how excluding valid information (which will be found in the article) is controversial. If it's controversial, it shouldn't be in the article. If it isn't, then it's valid to add to the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument for literally anything DUE in an article being valid as an infobox parameter. Our guidelines specifically discourage this. JoelleJay (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If it's controversial, it shouldn't be in the article" is actually an argument for not having an article at all. There is nothing about micronations that doesn't constitute a minority (most often a microscopically small one) making claims for sovereign status regarding a territory. They only exist as 'controversial claims'. This in of itself doesn't necessarily prevent Wikipedia having articles, where they can be properly sourced (we have an article on Bigfoot, after all), but what it must do is present the claims as the claims of a fringe minority, rather than as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our guidelines do not discourage this. You small group of editors which have this unclear obsession of micronations are against it. I'm perfectly fine using {{Infobox country}} for these. Just to make it more official, {{Infobox country}} -> Option A -> Never option B. Gonnym (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. Readers come to any given article with the implicit assumption that the infobox will contain key facts, both because of the interface affordances involved and because this is what infoboxes do in every other article. They implicitly expect these key facts to be key in both senses: germane to understanding and contextualizing the subject on the one hand; well established and largely unassailable on the other. A fictitious state motto that can only be cited to one blog post or a fictitious state flag flown by one handful of investment scammers is neither. The outward effect of a country infobox on a fictitious country is front-loading the article with meaningless trivia and pushing the real information down the page, which is objectively bad editing. The inward significance is that we're actively lying to readers about the meaning and substance of what they are looking at. GR Kraml (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. It's idealistic to suppose that, with option A, information that is not DUE can be excluded from the infobox via article-by-article consensus. We know that doesn't work, already, as there are just too many editors keen to fill in each and every available parameter. If you allow a government_type parameter, trivia-lovers will come by and fill it with Constitutional monarchy, quite regardless of DUE. Then you have to argue the case repeatedly for every article. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. I concur with the arguments set out in favour of this option so far, and add:
  • An argument has been put forward along the lines of "who are we to judge what counts as a real country, because there's a continuum".
    • Firstly, it's reliable sources which have the job of judging whether something is a real country - and reliable sources that put micronations on an equal footing with countries have not been forthcoming. What we actually see in reliable sources is that micronations are clearly distinguished from countries, and also from microstates.
    • Secondly, this is a rather nihilistic argument that could be applied over-generally. There's a continuum between science and pseudoscience. There's a continuum between evidence-based medicine and faith healers. Continuums are beloved of cranks, who exploit the egalitarian instinct not to judge, in order to get their foot in the door. "Maybe it's not mainstream science, but it's a type of science, right?" they say. From there we progress to teach the controversy, then we hear "they're both just theories / they're both just social constructions / they're both valid in their own way", and eventually they end up arguing that black is white. The key point is that the existence of a notional continuum does not prevent reliable sources (and thence us) from clearly distinguishing the things at the opposite ends of the continuum.
  • Why do we care so much about this? Because we must not allow Wikipedia to become the vehicle for fringe ideas to gain unwarranted legitimacy. Gaining a hint of recognition as a real country (or even as a type of country) from Wikipedia is a big win for these little projects, and at least some of these projects are outright scams. It would be negligent for us to play along. One might argue that labelling them as "unrecognised" is enough to guard against this, but I disagree that this is enough: the country infobox, complete with flags and coats of arms, has a legitimising trade dress effect on readers, that makes the subject look a lot more official than it is. Legitimisation is the intended purpose of all the regalia. Micronations dress up to look as much like countries as possible, but the lady doth protest too much, methinks, and sources don't give this aspect of micronations anywhere near the prominence that putting it top of the infobox would confer, so ultimately including all these trappings is undue.
Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. The infobox in option B leaves of pertinent details (for basically no obvious reason), and the reasons that the others provided unsatisfactorily substantiate why they should be left out (e.g., a flag being displayed for a micronation is just as relevant as a flag being displayed for a "real" nation). Also, see the discussion above for more reasons as to why.
Getsnoopy (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B Option A clearly violates WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE and should not be implemented in any case. SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't. WP:FRINGE clearly states that you can only have a fringe theory if it's in comparison to a mainstream view. What are the mainstream views for micronations? (By the way, the lack of knowledge about a micronation—i.e., ignorance— doesn't constitute a "mainstream view".) If a topic is notable enough (substantiated by reliable sources), then that's it. In a micronation's case, the entire article itself might be a relatively non-mainstream topic, but insofar as there are RS that warrant its existence, everything within it is per se not fringe assuming it's corroborated by RS. Only if there's a specific fact about them that is fringe would WP:FRINGE actually apply (e.g., Liberland being founded merely as a means to commit a pump-and-dump scam, etc.). Getsnoopy (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of these, Option A strikes me as fine if consensus on the article's talk page is for it, or something generally similar. Adjusting the subheading to clarify without need for a click that "micronation" means its claims aren't taken seriously by anyone would be fine with me. But I find most of the vocal proponents of Option B seem to be trying to deny as much as possible that micronations "exist", but since they do get coverage in RSes they want to exclude as much as they can get away with from the infoboxes on an assertion that "someone" might somehow be confused if the infobox includes the micronation's claimed flag, motto, and so on. Anomie 12:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that various supports of option B do not seem to necessarily be compatible, for example this one seems to want to use a consensus for "option B" here to exclude adding any additional fields without another huge discussion, while several other option-B supporters are already calling for additional fields. Good luck to whoever closes this. Anomie 21:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm optimistic we agree on the fundamentals more than we disagree on the specifics. GR Kraml (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't say "another huge discussion" would be required to add fields, I said consensus would be required to do so. I was responding to the claim that, if the Option B infobox is the consenus of this RFC, there would be nothing to stop anyone from coming along and adding all of the fields to make it look just like Option A, which I don't think would be in good faith. Option B was workshopped in the discussion above, and I expect such evolution would continue if it were implemented.--Trystan (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Options B or C - I agree that infobox country is inappropriate and that micro-nations should have a unique infobox… that said, I would include more parameters than are presented in option B. For example: I do think we should include the flags and coat of arms. HOWEVER, I would probably place them elsewhere in the box (placing them at the top does give them UNDUE weight… but including them somewhere in the box is DUE).
Still, which parameters to include (and where to include them) can be amended later. The issue NOW is whether to create a separate, new micronations box or not. And THAT I support. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why do you think using infobox country is inappropriate? Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar, I keep thinking about this and wondering whether it matters (to readers; the name of the infobox clearly does matter to some editors). Let's assume that we create a shiny new Template:Infobox micronation. What will happen next? Well, I think we'll expand the infobox until it is, for some articles, indistinguishable at a glance from Template:Infobox country. Oh, I need to add "my" parameter. Don't you think "your" parameter could be useful in this group? And they want "their" parameter. Who could object to including an WP:ELOFFICIAL link? We do that for far more dubious outfits (including spammers). The subtleties of layout difference will be lost on the reader, and some years from now, we'll be back at TFD with another merge proposal with editors like @Pigsonthewing and @Danlaycock presumably voting again to merge them, because they're basically duplicative.
For me, the bottom line seems to be a big old "Who cares?" What matters, as you say, is what gets shown to the reader. It does not matter to me what code the editor types to make that appear for the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I almost feel the same… but… I think there are enough differences in which parameters are appropriate (and their presentation within the box) that a separate box makes sense. Blueboar (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that any of the options is reasonably appropriate. What I'm more concerned about is editors saying things like "Let's have a separate infobox, because I don't want to show their made-up flag", but once the separate infobox has been created, there is literally
  • no way to prevent anyone from adding a flag parameter to the new template, and
  • no way to prevent an editor from putting the flag in |image1= even if there's no specialized flag parameter.
If there is content that we do/don't want displayed, we should be talking about the content here. Instead, we're talking about details of technical implementation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option B explicitly sets out what fields should be included. If this discussion results in a consensus in favour of adopting the Option B infobox, blatant attempts to subvert that consensus would be reverted. The infobox could of course be expanded in the future, but there would need to be consensus to do so.--Trystan (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trystan, the text says "the parameters type, proponents, dates claimed, and location; and image options limited to images of the country and/or its geographic location on a map", and the displayed infobox shows "Area claimed", which isn't in the list. Which Option B is the One True™ Option B? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As originally proposed in the discussion above, the parameters were "Claimed by" and "Area claimed". By discussion, it was proposed that those fields instead be labelled "Proponents" and "Location", respectively. That change is reflected in the wording of Option B but not the infobox presented. Because that change wasn't contentious in the discussion above, I am sure the discrepancy could be resolved by consensus if Option B is implemented.--Trystan (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A is fine, it identifies the entity as a micronation, which is the key point. No point in an additional effort to differentiate beyond that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B summarizes key aspects of the micronation in a way that better communicates to the reader the nature of the article topic. I showed both to three very casual readers (non-editors, only read wikipedia when it's top of their search results, had never heard of micronations, and one of them believes everything google tells them comes from wikipedia): when they viewed A, they were confident that it was a tiny country somewhere; when they viewed B, they weren't confident about what it was because people were just "claiming" it but they were pretty sure it wasn't a "real" nation (and intended to go look up "micronation" later). Anecdotal, but I found it interesting. To me, the two infoboxes are comparable to infobox_person and infobox_character. Schazjmd (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B as clearly differentiation is needed. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option A also provides differentiation, why is that not sufficient? Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's clearly confusing to the lay community. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JoelleJay, why is the proposed specialized infobox so much smaller than the normal country one? Is this a key feature of the proposal (e.g., make the map half the size and make the infobox narrower, so it seems less important), or just an accident? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of this is an effect caused by my prefs, I think. I see the first infobox with images at 300px wide, and the second has been hard-coded to 200px wide. The current default is 220px, so if you are running default prefs, you will see an image that is maybe 20% smaller for the mockup. If you are running with 300px, then it's half the size. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't create these mockups, I just took them from the discussion above, but I don't think any size differences are intentional. We'll hammer out the exact technical specifications on B if it gets consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I created the first side-by-side comparison (in the #Moving forward section). For the two {{infobox country}} variants I just copied the code from the Sealand article, I think they use default widths? The custom infobox (option B here) I copied from the one further up the page that I think @Trystan created. Thryduulf (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Infobox country seems to use user-specified image size, and to adjust the infobox's overall width to accommodate it. The mockup has hard-coded the image width at 200 px (=noticeably narrower than the infobox). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing and JoelleJay: I've adjusted option A to make them both the same width, see note below. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B per JoelleJay. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. It needs to be clearer that these "nations" are notional/fictive/intentional, not actual countries in the usual sense, and the wide panoply of parameters that apply in the case of recognized countries are not really applicable or encyclopedically useful for micronations (in this sense of that term). Use of them is apt to be misleading to readers, and is a PoV excercise towards legitimization.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B Micronations are a fictional constructs not countries and most of what appears in these infoboxes is simply made up by someone one day and have little independent coverage. Our presentation of these places should limit undue placement of self-proclamations and fantasy flags and only include actual key facts as reported by significant independent sources with appropriate context. Reywas92Talk 18:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I keep seeing editors say that micronations are "fictional". (The article on Micronation makes no such claim, describing them as "a political entity" instead, and we seem to be agreed that it's not a Fictional country.)
    So I wonder: Are political parties "fictional"? Is a Corporation "fictional"? They're not tangible, and there are debates about how "real" some intangible groups are (e.g., Corporate personhood, Juridical person). It seems to me that a micronation's claim to be a sovereign nation is actually false (not "fictional"), but its claim to be a group of people is as true and non-fictional as any other social group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B gets the point across that while it may be a physical area that exists, it is not an actual sovereign nation with genuine coats of arms, flags, currencies and the like. ValarianB (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A does exactly the same thing. Although the flags and coats of arms are usually genuine - e.g. I'm not aware that anybody disputes that the flag and coat of arms of Sealand represent Sealand, regardless of whether they recognise Sealand as an independent nation or anything else. In order for a currency to be "real", it just has to be accepted as a means of exchange by two or more people - for example shopping vouchers, beer tokens, casino chips, etc. are all real currencies even if they are only usable in very limited circumstances. WP:N deals with things that are not real. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this was your 49th comment in this discussion. ValarianB (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of comments alone does not indicate bludgeoning or lack thereof. The simplest way to avoid someone pointing out that your !vote is based on a factual inaccuracy that has been pointed out multiple times is simple - don't make comments that have been noted multiple times as factually inaccurate. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit repeated endlessly does not become fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I keep calling out the bullshit. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What an utterly infantile response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attacks are not acceptable, even if you cannot refute the argument. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to raise my characterisation of your post elsewhere if you feel so inclined. Though note that I will use your above response as further evidence of the same. And while I'm at it, point to the ample evidence of bludgeoning already provided. WP:BOOMERANG isn't policy either, but it is sound advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AndyTheGrump, please refrain from personal attacks against editors like Thryduulf. I've been watching the conversation, and Thryduulf has maintained politeness, focusing on behavior and policy issues. And please don't reply by 'daring' editors to report this somewhere; desiring to achieve a cordial editing environment without resorting to administrator intervention is part of attempts to assume good faith and gently redirect energies. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    now 52. that you're in the minority who disagree with my opinion doesn't make it wrong. if there's any takeaway from this subject for you, accept a loss gracefully. ValarianB (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again the number of comments alone is not relevant. You are entitled to your opinion (as is everybody) but this is not about matters of opinion, it is about matters of fact. The number of people agreeing with something is completely irrelevant to whether it is factual or not, and mostly irrelevant to whether it is compatible with policies and guidelines or not (the partially relevant part is that consensus can choose to disregard/not apply some policies/guidelines in the specific circumstance, NPOV and V are not examples of those though). Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    what we are dealing with here is the false representation of a bunch of squatters as a nation. the new infobox resolves that. really quite simple. ValarianB (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no matter how many times you try and impose your POV on the world that's not what we're dealing with here (at least in the majority of cases). Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    54 AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe that option B sorely lacks some important information A has. If an entity has obtained notability by imitation of a real state, then information relating what the entity has done related to said imitation must be included on Wikipedia, especially if it has been mentioned on multiple notable sources as such.
    Here are some things that I noted:
    -The flag is arguably the most important thing a micronation's identity hinges around, and to include it can be treated as incorporating the logo/emblem of a organization, not an actual state. If its still a tad bit misleading, add a disclaimer that says 'Unrecognized Flag' and something along the lines.
    -B does not tell who the current claimant of the micronation is. Having a history of claimants can be useful to readers, who might get confused, for example, on whether the late Paddy Bates is still the leader of the project.
    -Writing the micronation's area claimed and the date of claim in a more simplified form doesn't feel very neccesary. 211.251.171.197 (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    what we are dealing with here is the false representation of a bunch of squatters as a nation. Hmm…that applies to the United States too, though I doubt you'd be saying the same about that. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. Much I agree with has been said for this option. The most important reason, to me, is that of Wikipedia not being misleading in appearance (as well as in text, of course). (As an aside, I think fictional (as in literary fictional, e.g.) countries' flags may be included in the corresponding articles' infobox, when these flags have become iconic; and hardly any readers will be misled into thinking that the Klingon Empire or Babar's Kingdom have anything to do with the real world they live in). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have adjust the infobox country example (option A) so that it is the same width as the custom infobox,[a] originally it used the default image thumbnail size set in user preferences so appeared wider than option B for at least some editors. If option A is chosen it will (almost certainly) use the default size, whether option B would use default size or fixed width has not been discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. By omitting symbols like flags and coats of arms, Option B prevents us from displaying some of the most prominent and recognizable means with which a micronation portrays itself. This seems especially relevant for micronations – because they have minimal controlled land or ability to project power, the display of symbols is effectively the only way that most micronations make their claims; this means that, within the context of writing about micronations, a given micronation's symbols have a high level of encyclopedic value. Displaying a flag doesn't suggest that Wikipedia endorses the micronation's claim any more than displaying the Enron logo suggests that Wikipedia believes Enron to have been conducting legitimate business. As for the question of possible confusion, I don't feel that Option A risks any confusion beyond that which could be easily addressed with some small tweaks to parameters (for instance, I have no objection to adding "unrecognized" to the 'micronation' identifier, as has been suggested above). The existing Infobox Country fields already adjust themselves to use language like "area claimed" and "purported currency" that makes clear that the entity described is not a widely recognized polity. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the display of symbols is effectively the only way that most micronations make their claims I don’t think this is the only way micronations make their claims, but I agree it’s one way - and so, ironically, this part of your rationale is a reason why I support option B: because we shouldn’t be in the business of helping them make their claims (when reliable sources don’t give prominence to the regalia). Displaying a company logo is much more neutral - it doesn’t help or hinder them. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think make their claims was supposed to be getting at the sense that micronations are most recognizable through their symbols. A photograph of Sealand doesn't help a reader recognize that they're at the right article; the symbol of Sealand is what they likely have seen before. I'm not sure I understand what makes a company logo more neutral—it's doing the same work of making the entity recognizable as an existing idea/organization. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd actually argue that a company logo is less neutral. A company is in the business of selling things - they want your money. While a few micronations might want your money, most of them don't - and those that do principally just want it in the form of selling you branded merchandise, which is exactly the same as literally thousands of other companies. A small number of micronations would like you to visit - every tourist attraction wants you to visit and we don't regard putting their logos on the article as non-neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to this thread a bit belatedly, but P-Makoto perfectly hits the nail on the head of what I was trying to express. It's not Wikipedia's role to advance a micronation's claims ourselves, but it's still useful to a reader to indicate the methods that the micronation itself uses to advance its claims, so that they can more fully understand its activities. Another useful analogy here might be the fact that Wikipedia displays the visual symbols of political campaigns despite not endorsing any candidate. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 17:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? The flag of Sealand is more recognisable than the picture of the sea tower thing? Where are the reliable sources that give it such prominence? Even Sealand’s own website leads with a big picture of the tower and a tiny picture of the crest. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No way are micronations most recognizable through their symbols... JoelleJay (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "We must treat them with extra deference because they're underdogs in real life" strikes me as an idea that is, um, orthogonal to the idea that we should be neutral and difficult to reconcile with the idea that we shouldn't be a soapbox. I'm not saying your motivation is bad but I believe it's extra-encyclopedic. GR Kraml (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I don't believe that displaying symbols is any kind of endorsement or show of deference – that's what I'd hoped to illustrate with my Enron analogy. Let me try making my point from another angle: where there exists a notable organization or entity, I believe it benefits readers to have a visual representation of how that entity depicts itself. A micronation's flag, like any other flag (or logo, or coat of arms, or other visual symbol of an entity), is a symbol that readers might see in the real world and not necessarily recognize the meaning of. If that symbol has been covered by RS and shown to represent a notable entity, I don't see any reason to conceal that information from readers; instead, identifying the meaning of the image will increase readers' understanding of [an] article's subject matter, just as WP:IMGCONTENT calls for. This underlying principle holds just as true whether the "entity" being described is Sealand, Microsoft, or the United States. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 23:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. The structure and content of the default nation infobox contains a lot of things, and has a lot of emphasis and focus, that implies that something is a genuine country; it also is structured with the assumption that many of the things mentioned (symbols, mottos, etc.) are well-established, internationally-recognized, and not something someone made up on a whim. Symbols like flags and coats of arms are widely-recognized as significant for real nations but are not at all treated with the same respect or significance when it comes to micronations - they are marginal trivia at best, generally with barely enough WP:SECONDARY coverage to justify even mentioning in the article's text, let alone given a place of prominence in an infobox where we can't provide any context. According this regalia of a micronation the same significance that we would an actual nation carries a subtle bias towards the narrative of the people who claim to "govern" the micronation, which is a problem when that narrative is unambiguously WP:FRINGE. The digression about company logos above is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but even then, most companies worth writing Wikipedia articles on have enough recognition as companies that their logo lacks the same implications. Presenting the logo for Microsoft lets people know that Microsoft is a company, which is widely-accepted fact; presenting the regilia for Sealand in the way we would present the regilia for a nation implies that Sealand is an actual nation, which is a WP:FRINGE perspective and one that we should avoid. --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B AndyTheGrump said it well. Infoboxes are very bad at explaining contentious details, and Wikipedia shouldn't be implying that micronations are sovereign states. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too concerned about infoboxes, as long as they don't imply that a micronation is a real country, but I'm more concerned with the number of articles that we have about micronations. Is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day not a guideline? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, if it was up to me we'd delete at least four fifths of them. They clearly fail the general notability guideline unless you lean very heavily into the presumption of notability and unless you judge significance of coverage exclusively by word count. Maybe there should be a purpose-built specialised notability guideline for micronations the way there is for other common vanity projects.
    What bothers me even more is the micronation navigation template. It lists a random assortment of things that have nothing in common except the fact that they technically fit the definition of "micronation", a dubious neologism that Wikipedia has uncritically accepted as useful and apposite. Freetown Christiania and the M11 link road protest were real, sincere and significant expressions of political opinion that randomly happened to involve facetious declarations of independence at some point of other. The Fredonian Rebellion was a sincere attempt at independence that was not entirely guaranteed to fail under the circumstances. The Kingdom of Elleore is an innocent private joke that was never meant to receive coverage. The Kingdom of L'Anse Saint Jean was a marketing gimmick. The Glacier Republic was an awareness campaign. Most of the others are one-person performance art projects on the part of unemployed narcissists with too much time on their hands. What is the point of pretending there is an encyclopedically useful ontological category that all of these naturally fit into? Seriously? How is this defensible? How was this allowed to happen?
    I've always hated Wikipedia's tendency to clutter up every article with as many cutesy little infoboxes and glorified webring shit and assorted other distractions as possible, like there is a LAW somewhere that says we're REQUIRED to aim for Daily Mail levels of angry fruit salad, but the micronations litterbox is definitely adding semiotic insult to the ocular injury. GR Kraml (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the point of pretending there is an encyclopedically useful ontological category that all of these naturally fit into? Seriously? How is this defensible?
    Although Micronations are a very confusing category indeed, calling an entire category of articles built by wikipedians for over nearly two decades 'insult to the ocular injury' and denying a slew of reliable sources acknowledging its existence as an independent category seems a bit too far. 2001:4430:4145:26D3:0:0:1BDD:50A4 (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Built by Wikipedians" is the problem. Given that is such a confusing category, it would be quite reasonable to minimally enforce WP:V by requiring that reliable sources describe something as a micronation before we do ourselves. Many of the articles categorized as micronations and listed in the micronation template do not currently contain any such source, and have instead been added to the class by WP:OR.--Trystan (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    built by wikipedians for over nearly two decades Yeah, this place has always had weird epistemic excursions that were allowed to go on for staggering amounts of time. The German language version wasn't made to overcome its resistance to inline citations for five or six years. The Scots version was filled to capacity with script-produced rubbish for seven. In this here English version, large numbers of articles on European constitutional history have been horrifically stupid and wrong for a literal generation because Wikipedians (including European ones) stubbornly insist on Wikipedian (i.e. American) ways of conceptualizing these things. Wikipedia is delightfully thorough and conscientious, which of course means it can be delightfully slow. GR Kraml (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “How is this defensible? How was this allowed to happen?” Because Wikipedians are people who are obsessed with oddly specific topics like radio stations or Indonesian politicians, and apparently none of those people care about micronations. Which is odd since as this discussion (and your comment in particular) demonstrates most Wikipedians also think simple informational and navigational templates are VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS. Dronebogus (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You gave me an idea! I'm going to write a book in which I coin the term bluefolk, which I'm going to define as people whose social identities involve a cultural practice the discourse around which references the colour blue. Armed with my book as a WP:RS, I will then create a bluefolk navigation template that will list blues musicians, bluegrass bands, Italian football players, German expressionists, and the Virgin Mary. Nobody else because cohesion is important. It's the only way to beat "micronation" as Wikipedia's most realestmost ontological leaf clade. GR Kraml (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn’t even disagreeing with you, I was just making a humorous observation. But if you passionately hate this so much go and do something about the template instead of making up elaborate hypothetical situations to express your distaste Dronebogus (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't disagreeing with you either; I thought it was obvious I was joking. My apologies. GR Kraml (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The navigation template is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I think everybody can agree that whichever infobox we choose, it should only appear on articles that are about micronations. If there are articles that are ostensibly about micronations, but that description is not verifiable then that's a WP:V issue with the article that needs to be fixed, but it's completely independent of what infobox it does or does not have. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite so. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B as these choices are configured currently. My chief objection to A is that it does not make it apparent to a casual observer that by definition mirconations are unrecognized, and I do not think that wikilinking the topic as in A is sufficient to do so. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B This sets out very clearly that all of the information are simply claims rather than reality. However, I would not be opposed to increasing the number of parameters to include some of the things that supports of option A say are missing. Number 57 17:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B with aspects of A I think it should be mostly B with the flag, motto, anthem and coat of arms included since nobody really debates these are “real” aspects of the micronation any more than a private organization or a political movement having its own flag. However “kayfabe” details like “currencies” and “governments” shouldn’t be included in the infobox because they don’t meet the functional definition of those things (you can’t exchange MicroNationBucks for American dollars at the claimed exchange rate, for example). Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A because option B excludes a ton of information. Micronations are, by definition, unrecognized. Both of these considerations lead us to option A. JM (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B per Levivich. I agree completely with WhatamIdoing above as well that the name of the template doesn't matter. Rather I think option B is a more clear and focused summary of a micronation article's major points than option A. Ajpolino (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B with no additional information per JoelleJay and GR Kraml. Additional graphics like the flag and coat of arms are most likely generally not DUE, perhaps barring those of a few more well-known micronations like Sealand. Even then, they don't have the same relevance as a proper national flag so it is no big deal to omit them to service the more common scenario. ― novov (t c) 04:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B Agree with the gist of multiple comments above, B more readily informs the general reader, which is rather the purpose of an at-a-glance feature. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how B more readily informs than A, which contains the same information and more? Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Infobox A, you see, has a lot in common with the comment you just posted.
    On the totally abstract factual-claims level, it's probably mostly true: I believe you when you say you "don't understand" the B side, even though I think you would if you tried. Pragmatically, it's misdirection: you absolutely do know why we think B is more informative; we've made the case multiple times and you've read every word of every reply. Your "question" adds nothing useful; it invites nothing but repetitiveness; its main effect is making the important bits harder to find.
    This debate could have been over weeks ago. We had all stated our theses and typed out our arguments by day 3 or so. Much of the rest of the "debate" is the A side accosting everybody who sticks their head out with faux-innocent demands for the fiftieth laborious restatement of this point or that.
    I know people in Wikipedia debates used to do this sort of thing strategically – muddy the waters; make it look like there is protracted substantive argument when there isn't; make it easy for admins to give up and retreat behind procedural default. I hope this is not what's happening here, and if it is, I hope the strategy has finally stopped working in the years I wasn't editing. GR Kraml (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's check ourselves a little and remember to regard each other as good faith interlocutors, rather than imply someone is strategically – muddy[ing] the waters. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understanding how clearer, streamlined information more readily informs is no mystery, though, especially after the long forgoing discussion. Perhaps, understanding sometimes takes wanting to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, in line with several above; what i'm not sure about, however, is what it the result of this RfC? Do we add to the MOS? Is there a Law of Consensus laid down which will allow the successful infobox to be added to every micronation? Is it enforced by Project:Nations (i have no idea if such a thing exists)? I'm not fussed, just the statement of the RfC doesn't seem to clearly define the consequences of a result. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 15:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be in the MOS. We don’t need projects making up their own rules. Every time that happens, it’s bad. Dronebogus (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don’t need a “rule” for everything. Once this RFC is closed, those who want to conform the relevant pages can simply do so. If questioned they can point to the closure (which will be saved in the archives of this page). Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. Per SMcCandlish and others, the difference between a micronation and a microstate -- one is recognized and the other is not -- is not obvious to laypeople. Jessintime (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. I read the above discussion with some confusion and bafflement. I realize that here on Wikipedia we like to think of ourselves as being engaged in highly serious business, but I really don't buy the line of reasoning that we have an editorial obligation to punish/reward people and organizations by giving them visually distinct infoboxes based on how important or serious they are. I think it is dumb to adopt a formal stance that the visual length of an infobox should be determined by how serious or important or deserving a subject is. For example: the Valley of the Drums (a couple of dozen acres in Kentucky where some guy illegally dumped some barrels of toxic waste in 1979) currently has a longer infobox than the Holocaust. Is this state of affairs offensive? Does it need to have a shorter infobox? Do we need to have a policy where every article about a tragedy or a crime has an infobox length strictly determined by how bad it was? If this is dumb (which it is), why should it be any different for countries? Carpatho-Ukraine existed for four months; do we consider it an offensive disgrace to the legacy of the Eternal City that it has a longer infobox than the Roman Empire? What about Vatican City, which -- I love it and all but it is not a real country, it does not engage with the international community in any meaningful way commensurate with being a country, it has a population of 900 -- it doesn't even meet the population requirement to be called a city in many states (e.g. Florida requires a minimum of 1,500). But it has a longer infobox than the continent-spanning Parthian Empire, which stood proud for about five hundred years. Is this unjust? No: it's just a box on the side of a web page. We do not need to stick it to the man Sealand by castrating its infobox. jp×g🗯️ 09:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Did you read a different discussion or something? JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks like a pretty accurate summary of this discussion to me. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you would, you're both arguing against the same irrelevant strawman! JoelleJay (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply disagreeing with your non-neutral point of view does not make our arguments either irrelevant or strawmen. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's no surprise that the above is filled with strawmen and irrelevant other stuff exists, as not only does it seem oddly emotional, but is admittedly based in confusion and bafflement. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly have no idea why someone thought this was a big enough deal to start such a massive discussion but we all know infoboxes are VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS Dronebogus (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's infoboxes as such (on this occasion, unlike with e.g. classical music), but micronations - some people seem to think that neutral coverage of them is somehow extremely problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Serious what? Come on. The only thing this conversation is for is whether we should have another tailored infobox for a subset of articles. If some people are attached to just having one infobox that ship sailed long ago. It's hardly very serious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s hyperbole. But yes it’s “serious businessing” to argue over whether micronations “deserve” three or eight different parameters. This mostly seems like a proxy debate on whether to delete a bunch of micronation articles +/- “let’s talk about how stupid and illegitimate these inherently stupid and illegitimate fantasy countries are”. Dronebogus (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't disagree that many discussions on Wikipedia involve about ten times the amount of verbiage needed to constructively explore and resolve the issue, this one included. But consideration of how to concisely identify and convey key facts for the reader is a fundementally important issue, and one that could probably use more attention and thought in general.--Trystan (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the purpose of maintaining a collegial environment, I tend to use language that gets the point across with a minimum of insult towards my interlocutors, but if you insist I clarify, the literal meaning of the words in the sentences people typed in the above discussion were not the part of it that baffled and confused me.

    I don't know what is supposed to be "filled with strawmen" (my post or Thryduulf's post or what). If it is my post, I'd be happy to go through the conversation and find some of the instances where people said the things that I disagree with in my comment, but I would appreciate a specific thing you disbelieve, rather than just saying "filled with strawmen" (which strawmen?) jp×g🗯️ 09:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the one asserting the unsupported, non-neutral opinion that micronations are inherently comparable enough to recognized nations that a substantial proportion of infobox country parameters will be DUE in articles for a substantial proportion of all micronations. JoelleJay (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've been over this multiple times already and my explaining everything yet again will not convince you that reality is not the way you would like it to be, so I will not attempt to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reality is that the vast majority of micronations fall under Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and the articles only exist on Wikipedia because of a few silly season press articles. Most of them should be moved to Fandom, which seems to specialize in such trivia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear, hear! Zaathras (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about MicroWiki? There are quite a lot of made-up-one-day micronations on there. Arcorann (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reality does not treat micronations as if they were just some "type" of nation. RS treat them as websites, companies, art projects, scams, etc. and we should follow suit. JoelleJay (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B Per the excellent "silly season" observation above. That they exist and are covered by high-level sources justifies an article, but to actually go along with their claims of sovereignty is WP:OR. Zaathras (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to reconsider how compatible that comment is with WP:NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My Self-Claimed Nation on a Spit of Land is not actually a nation. Presenting it as such is an WP:NPOV violation. Zaathras (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the extensive discussion above about how whether something is or is not a nation is not something for Wikipedians to determine, about how use of an infobox that reports the existence of verifiable claims does not promote or otherwise present those claims in a non-neutral manner, and about how there is no single simple definition of what is and is not a "proper" country. Thryduulf (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I see the discussion above, and your extensive contributions. I do not share your conclusion on the matter, as it most certainly is for us to determine. We do it every day when discarding fringe p.o.v.'s. Good day. Zaathras (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When dealing with notable fringe points of view, we neutrally report what that point of view is in context without attempt to editorialise or denigrate the POV - i.e we do what existing micronation infoboxes do in the manner that they do it. Thryduulf (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not neutral to give prominence (weight) to aspects of a subject that exceeds the prominence that reliable sources give those aspects. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but given the existing infoboxes don't do that, and nobody is proposing to do that, that's not a rebuttal to anything I've said. Unfortunately some people are proposing to give significantly less prominence to aspects of the subject than reliable sources do, which is also not neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is the good-faith, policy-based core of the discussion: Which version of the infobox best reflects key aspects, as determined by the proportional weight in the body of reliable, published sources? It is perfectly reasonable for editors to have differing views on that question.--Trystan (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No article is required to have an infobox, having or not having an infobox does not make a page less neutral, and having a smaller infobox does not make a page less neutral (while having a larger one can).
    Given that a) the infobox guidelines recommend the number of options in an infobox--not the size of the infobox on a given page, but the number of parameters in the template--be limited to those that are likely to be applicable to many or most of the affected subjects; b) it is extremely unlikely that most of the subjects in the category "micronations" have DUE IRS coverage of most infobox country parameters (meaning actual secondary coverage, not simply reprinting images of flags/coats of arms without prose discussion); c) micronations are virtually never grouped alongside recognized countries in RS that are about countries in general, while RS almost always do make clear distinctions between them and recognized countries; d) the micronation designation varies wildly within our category, with attestation ranging from routine to a mention in a single source to "random editor thinks it belongs in category"; e) many micronations are promotional outfits that materially benefit from legitimization on WP, so per policy (Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts) we must be careful that our coverage does not unduly emphasize aspects that are only reported by primary/non-independent sources; and f) most readers will not be familiar with the term "micronation" and so may be misled by option A. JoelleJay (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B For those readers who don't immediately recognize the niche meaning of "micronation", presenting all the trappings of a recognized nation-state is misleading. In most infobox applications, the addition of "Unrecognised" is not an undue burden on the width. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A: Gets the job done, is descriptive, to the point and has been used for years without incident. Wikipedia AFC is good enough to prevent any fictious 'hobby nations' from escaping Microwiki confinement. Otherwise, when I'm looking at an article regarding, for example, Sealand, and I would like a brief summary before moving on, Option A's infobox does so. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And when I say 'summary' I mean a summary of what a micronation claims/aspires to be, not necessarily what it actually controls/does. I didn't look at the Sealand page 5 years ago and think 'No way! Why have I never heard of this country?', I looked at it and recognised it obviously didnt function as a state. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B: I personally find option A confusing, in approximately the same way I find it confusing when articles about, say, German citizens born in the latter half of the 20th century who have infobox:nobility: if it's possible to come away from a quick glance at the Sealand infobox with the impression that Sealand is a country in the same way that Luxembourg is, something is very wrong. --JBL (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A mostly per JPG. There's no reason the infobox for micronations should include less information than the infobox on countries: micronations do in fact have flags (etc etc) and saying what those flags are does not imply that we are endorsing the micronation's claims. The information to be included is largely the same in both cases. I don't find the WP:FRINGE argument very compellling because the recognition of a micronation is not related to whether the micronation has a flag. When it comes to other partially recognized or unrecognized states, like Taiwan, SADR and Rojava, we always use the country infobox, so why cut out a special exception here? Loki (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Also @Chipmunkdavis) Should we provide coverage of micronational flags in our articles when there is zero independent coverage discussing or describing the flag? The sources below simply briefly mention in passing that the respective micronations created such symbols (Its government granted visas and driver’s licenses, issued passports and currency, produced its own stamps, flew its own flag and The principality has its own constitution, flag, national anthem, and even issues its own passports and stamps), there's no indication that these are even particularly BALASP in our article at all, let alone the most key information about the subject. Does it matter if only a tiny fraction of subjects in the micronations category have any independent sourcing on these symbols whatsoever (many are only tenuously notable in general)? What about the various neighborhoods or websites or scams or art projects that have proclaimed themselves to be sovereign states; does a single news source calling them a "micronation" justify choosing the country infobox over other applicable infoboxes and essentially announcing in wikivoice that that's what they are most known for? Is Taiwan or Rojava really inherently comparable, due to only being "partially" recognized, to thousands of online-only micronations and art projects and money laundering schemes? Note that micronations are definitionally united solely by being unrecognized aspirant entities; there's no legal understanding of the term beyond that, which means a banking fraud group described as a "micronation" in one source and described as a "virtual country", as a "ruse", and as a "phony country" in many others is just as legitimate in having this designation as Sealand or Liberland. JoelleJay (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All the issues you're bringing up are solved on an article-by-article basis and are already covered by RS, among other policies. Using those issues as reasons to come up with some special policy for micronations as a whole (when there are clearly myriad other topics/categories of topics that are in firmly in the realm of fiction that apparently don't fit this bill) is clearly a straw man. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, it certainly does not solve the issue that our P&Gs for infoboxes explicitly discourage having options for parameters that are not summary information that is important to many of the articles that will use the infobox. These articles are only related to each other by their meeting the single criterion of "unrecognized aspirant state"; if that criterion is enough to qualify something as "a type of country"--and especially when numerous sources specifically call these subjects fake countries, and no other category-defining sources actually meaningfully group micronations with real nations--for which the country infobox is the most relevant infobox, then it absolutely should predict wide applicability of many of the infobox parameters to most of the set. JoelleJay (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seem to address anything I brought up. Almost all the summary information that is important to "real" nations is also applicable to micronations. The question is not about you or me (or anyone, for that matter) deciding what's important information for a nation and what's not (it's not even WP's place to do so); it's about whether it's verifiable or not. Insofar as there's not enough or satisfactory sourcing on certain pieces of information regarding micronations, that information can be left out. That's a decision to be made on a per-article basis, which is already covered by RS. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all the summary information that is important to "real" nations is also applicable to micronations. According to what evidence?? Where are the independent RS demonstrating that flags etc. are, as a rule, key features of micronations specifically? Some micronations simply verifiably having a flag does not mean that independent secondary coverage of micronations affords it comparable cultural/political importance to that of real countries. Even if every micronation actually verifiably did consider its symbols integral parts of its identity, if independent RS do not regularly emphasize those features for either individuals or for the topic as a whole (e.g. with extensive SIGCOV of micronational flags as a topic), then they are not sufficiently integral enough to understanding a micronation to be in a infobox. Our guidelines say infobox parameters shouldn't exist--not just that they shouldn't be filled in if they aren't relevant for a particular page, but that they shouldn't be options in that infobox for any page--if they don't apply to many of the members of a group. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Showing an image of a flag in the infobox is a similar level of coverage to that of many sources. The flags presumably shouldn't have their own articles per the lack of coverage you note, but notability isn't a limit to the use of images. A single news source likely indicated a micronation shouldn't be covered with an article, but that is also a notability question rather than an infobox question. If there are enough sources that the topic is notable, covering the symbols used is helpful. CMD (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Virtually every single recognized sovereign country has an article on its flag, and of those I briefly spot-checked all of them were sourced to several secondary/tertiary, independent sources, supporting the assumption made by our MOS on infoboxes that parameters must represent real-world importance to many of the affected subjects. This is patently not the case for any(?) of the micronations with articles, let alone micronations in general.
    Additionally, I am very skeptical that commentary-less reproductions of symbols are ever acceptable as sources of BALASP coverage. It's one thing to illustrate an article with relevant images; it's another to assert that this image is such a key feature of the subject that it is discussed significantly later in the body or is at least a core fact as established by appearance in most RS on the topic.
    And what I mean by "single news source" is "notable subjects whose designation as a "micronation" is attested by only a single news source", which I'd estimate is actually more than what the average page in that category has. JoelleJay (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you think I'm objecting to articles on notable flags, as we should have articles on notable topics. Conversely, we should probably have very few subtopic articles for micronations, be that on flags or any other topic, as the subtopics are unlikely to be independently notable. Nonetheless, information that is not notable by itself can and should be used on articles, and any infobox on micronations will contain plenty of information which doesn't have its own article. I am not sure what you mean in the last paragraph, if a subject is notable but not called a micronation outside of a single source, we probably wouldn't call it a micronation in our article would we? CMD (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm trying to say is that flags are demonstrably very important aspects of all recognized countries and subnational entities, which is why there is a parameter for it in the country infobox. However, no such relevance, as demonstrated through independent RS, has been established for micronations. The vast majority of our articles will only be able to source an image of a micronation's flag to primary, non-independent, unreliable sources, which means that material is likely not DUE in the article at all, let alone in its infobox. The same can be said for almost every other infobox country parameter when it comes to micronations. So I am arguing that we cannot assume, based on the relevance these symbols have to real nations, that they represent comparably fundamental enough features of micronations to justify designating them inherently encyclopedic for that class. There is also the important fact that micronations are essentially never treated as just another "type" of country in RS; they do not, as a rule, appear in general lists of countries (even when those lists do include partially-recognized states, non-sovereign subnational polities, and de facto governed breakaway regions), and this is in no small part due to their being considered, by definition, completely distinct from every category of "nation" and "government" that is meaningful. Wikipedia should not be assigning novel membership criteria to classification schemes that already have well-defined bounds and expectations in real-world RS, but this is exactly what using the same set of infobox parameters for both recognized states and micronations does.
    Re: the last paragraph: a large proportion of our articles categorized and treated as micronations either have no mention of "micronation" in their text, or their designation as a "micronation" is unsupported by any source. Many of the remainders are only described as such by one or two RS. Few micronation articles have comprehensive coverage calling their subjects "micronations", but even those that do do not usually emphasize their symbology. JoelleJay (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We aren’t implying legitimacy by using a commonly recognized symbol of an entity to represent that entity. Political parties have flags, companies have flags, clubs have flags, and the same goes for coats of arms— you don’t need to be a country to use them. The images are almost certainly going to be included in such an article anyway, so why bother specifically excluding them from the most obvious place? Dronebogus (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And there is ample secondary independent coverage in RS demonstrating the importance of flags in political parties, companies, sports clubs, and real countries/subnational governments. Where is the evidence the same is true for micronations as a group? It's not like IRS widely group them in with recognized states when discussing "countries", so they don't just get to inherit the presumption that certain aspects are important that we afford to other infobox country topics. And it's also certainly not the case that IRS cover individual micronations' flags to the extent that they are even worth mentioning in our articles at all, much less in the most visible spot of the page. If they are to be included in an article at all, they should appear adjacent to the text that discusses them. JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mention of the symbols of state made to imitate real states are common coverage of micronations as a group. It's part of the topic, like mascots to sports. Flags are an ubiquitous symbol, see for example how often they are mentioned in Micronations: A lacuna in the law (2021) as one of the items used to define each micronation, along with currencies, athems, etc. One of that paper's authors also wrote in Cyber Micronations and Digital Sovereignty "most micronationalists invent and rewrite histories and national narratives; they design flags, medals of honour, passports, and currency...It is through the performative utterance of ‘I claim this land’ or ‘I secede from Canada’ (Austin, 1962), coupled with the sustained repetition of these mimetic acts (raising flags, singing anthems, pledging allegiance, etc.) that micronations declare their sovereignty and sustain their existence." On the overall approach, that real country articles have X and Y does not seem to be a reason to include/exclude X and Y from other types of articles. These are individual articles, not groupings. They are certainly not included on any of our country lists. CMD (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean towards A reading the discussion above. The symbols etc. are a common part of RS coverage (eg. [7][8]), their inclusion/lack of does not imply legitimacy. That the infoboxes sometimes bloat is a way that provides undue weight to this and that is a common issue with infoboxes, not something related to micronations. Also odd to discuss potential misleadingness and use "unrecognized micronation", which heavily implies there is a category of reccognized micronations out there, providing far more legitimacy to the concept than the previous infobox. CMD (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a quick definition of the term 'micronation' and said lack of recognition by sovereign states can be included in the infobox itself, if the original draft of A causes confusion for potential readers. 211.251.171.197 (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B, for the reasons above which have been (re)stated ad nauseam at this point. Theknightwho (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the outcome let's make sure we have a notice and link to this conversation so this template doesn't get merged again..... mergerist love this kind of thing.Moxy🍁 02:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Because I couldn't work out how to make Option B the same width as Option A)
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.

Seeking closure for the micronation infobox RfC?

Discussion seems to have drawn down; the last new post to the RfC was some days ago. There being significantly more support for option B and against option A seems pretty apparent, but an uninvolved editor is required for closure. Is the next step to post this at WP:CR? (and would it go in the RfC section?) P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait until the RFC tag has expired, but then yes list it at WP:CR in the RFC section. It definitely needs a closer to assess because (as someone pointed out) the comments indicate that not everybody supporting option B is supporting the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted a closure request.--Trystan (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given attempted canvassing on the 'Liberland' Reddit subforum [9], the closer might well consider it appropriate to take a sceptical view of edits from IPs, though I doubt they will influence the decision significantly anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk)

AI-generated images

This may sound a little dystopian, but since AI-generated images aren't copyrightable, they would technically be preferred under our policy to non-free, fair-use images. Theoretically, AI could also generate images "superior" to those available on Commons, which may tempt editors to use those instead of human-produced photographs. I don't know if it is legally possibly to alter the "no free equivalent" criterion at WP:NFCCP, but there should be at least some guidance to prefer human-made images to AI-generated ones (both for ethical and encyclopedic reasons). I'm surprised to see that WP:IUP currently has no mention of "artificial intelligence". InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"AI-generated images aren't copyrightable" Is that true enough? Also, I think I saw a discussion somewhere on a picture made with some app, and the app-terms said something like "you can not release pics made with this app under a commercial free license." I don't know how common that is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about these diffusion engines or about copyright law to answer the question, which I share. I will point out that the Commons upload process currently has toggles for saying I generated this work using an AI tool prompting a dialogue box that asks, Enter the name of the AI engine used. If someone else’s original work was used to generate this work, list them as well.—so I guess that's sort of the "guidance" that exists, not that that's supposed to be a guidance, it's just supposed to be an upload portal, but in the absence of other information... what does an editor learn from that?
I agree with InfiniteNexus's sense that there should at least be guidance to prefer human-made images over images created by diffusion engine-type programs. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I started this discussion awhile back: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#WP:USERG_portraits Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to @SMcCandlish if you have an opinion to share on the topic of discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of the copyright question is that it's unclear. Copyright laws (unsurprisingly) do not address the question and, to my knowledge, it has never been tested in court. I believe the possible options are
  1. The images are uncopyrightable, in which case they are probably legally OK to use here as a Free image (but see also below)
  2. Copyright belongs to the copyright holders of the training data. Copyright status of the output image would thus depend on the copyright status of the training data used for a model:
    • Exclusively on public domain works then the output images should be public domain too
    • Exclusively on freely-licensed works that don't require attribution (or a combination of these and public domain works). The output images would be free if a license compatible with all the licenses used on the training data is used
    • Exclusively on freely-licensed (and public domain) works. As above, but only if attribution is given to all the relevant copyright holders - I'd be surprised if this was possible in practical terms.
  3. Copyright belongs to the developer of the AI, in which case they can choose what license(s) the output may be used under.
  4. Copyright belongs to the person who gave the AI the prompt, in which case it would be identical to a human-created image from a copyright perspective.
    • It is not impossible that this will depend on the nature of the prompt, e.g. "flowers in a field" may not be eligible for copyright but "red and blue flowers, grassy upland meadow with Friesian cows, summer day with overcast sky, Alpine mountain background, style of Vincent van Gogh" might be.
  5. Copyright is shared between two or more of the above parties. If it's shared between the developers and the prompter, then its possible (at least in theory) for some AI-generated images to be Free. Any other combination would require the training data and its copyright status to be known, and the bullets under option 2 would seem to apply in addition to license used by the other party/parties.
Whether terms like you can not release pics made with this app under a commercial free license. are enforceable (and relevant) has also, afaik, never been determined. If the developers of an AI image generator have any copyright stake in the works then almost certainly they can impose non-commercial or other restrictions as they choose. If they have no claim on the copyright of the image, then I see three possibilities:
  1. They are deemed similar to restrictions claimed by art galleries on digitised public domain works (which vary in scope and validity by jurisdiction) and they would not be relevant for our purposes (which doesn't guarantee they would be free of course).
  2. They are treated as valid terms of service independent of copyright, in which case whether we regard such terms as relevant to us is for us to decide, either
    • We would treat it like we do restrictions on photography at events - i.e. it's a contractual matter between the prompter and the AI service provider that we are not party to and which does not impact copyright.
    • We would regard such restrictions as binding on whether the image was free or not.
  3. They are deemed invalid and thus unenforceable, in which case they are completely irrelevant to the nature of the work.
It is of course possible (in fact almost certain) that different jurisdictions will have different answers to the relevant questions!
Any modifications done by a human to an AI generated image will affect copyright in the same way that the same modifications would impact the copyright of a human-generated image. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good overview. I'll add that IIRC it has been demonstrated that image AIs are able to spit out exact or near-exact replicas of images in their training corpus, a twist on your first #2. This isn't realistically detectable by either us or the (human) prompter (we'd have to be familiar with the entire training corpus to recognise the similarity). Would recommend we stay away from them until they become more established - DFlhb (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appending an article on this. Quote: "any memorization that exists in the model is small, rare, and very difficult to accidentally extract". The Commons essay linked by InfiniteNexus (c:Template:PD-algorithm) mentions the same issue and frames it as something to be tackled when discovered, i.e. the same way we would treat normal uploads like photographs, rather than preemptively banning a whole technology to address this risk. More reasonable than my suggestion just above. DFlhb (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree with the broader caution, at least for the short term. Also agree with Thryduulf's excellent summary, which neatly ecapsulates the legal arguments out there so far, or at least agrees with that I've been reading on the issue).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AI-generated images aren't images aren't real images, because they have no true subject. They can contain errors that may be misleading. We cannot use them in articles without wholly compromising any claim to reliability. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they have no true subject. They can contain errors that may be misleading Some AI generated images have no true subject, others do; some AI images contain errors, others don't; some AI images are misleading, others aren't. The same statements are equally true about human generated images. These are reasons to carefully evaluate individual images, of whatever authorship, before using them in an article - especially because pretty much every image can be perfectly appropriate in one context and completely inappropriate in a different context. It is also completely irrelevant to copyright. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving copyright to one side (it's an important issue, but I don't think we can comment reasonably on it until there is a body of case law or changes to statutes in major jurisdictions), what is better about original drawings and diagrams produced by a human using computer tools than those produced by AI? And what is so different about an AI-produced image from an image taken on a camera where a human chooses the lighting, the shutter speed, the focus and many other variables? There are many questions relevant to Wikipedia that we could be working on until the copyright issue is resolved. I am not trying to answer any of them yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A difference is that the human's intent is likely to be closer to what we seek than what the computer's intent is. A human painting a portrait of Baron von Vonvontilherdaddytakesthetbirdaway is presumably primarily to capture the likeness of the Baron, although they may have added intent (to make the Baron look handsomer than he was, or an evil countenance, whatever). To the degree that an AI engine has an intent, it would be to create something that would not be at odds with that descriptor, which is different. And the human can indicate to us beyond the images what limitations it had -- that it had to be drawn from memory, that the Baron asked her to make the hair fluffier, whatever. I've yet to see an AI output include process concerns in its output; if it has no reference images of the Baron, it's going to produce some kind of picture of a human and not tell us of its limitations in process. (Having said that, I don't have much AI experience, and for all I know, that may be an extant feature of some engines for all I know.) This does not mean that AI could not produce something that is sufficiently verifiable by a human-- if we ask AI to create a graph based on data set X, the creator can then verify the data on the graph before uploading it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An issue yet resolved by courts is that even if AI images can't be copyrighted nor be considered as derivative works of the training material, is whether various AI generation systems violate copyrights by unauthorized use of material in their training sets which I know are claims still alive in a couple early cases. For us, while that is a level past the AI art, are we going to be comfortable in using AI images that knowing misused copyright (assuming those charges are found true in court). Until we have a clear picture on the full nature of copyright of AI art, we should tear far clear in using it save for examples of AI art on pages directly about creation of AI art. Masem (t) 00:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue with using AI images is that there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus among authorities on whether they are copyrightable - and if so by who. And some of them might be derivative works of other copyrighted works, without it being obvious that they are derivative. Human drawn vs AI on the other hand seems more like an aesthetic preference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most images are in Wikipedia because they purport to be an image of a particular thing or person. This inherently does not exist for AI generated images. Most are also photographs which are in because they are a photographic record. Again, this does not exist for AI generated images. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the thing depicted is what is claimed to be depicted is something that can only be determined at the level of the individual image. Whether we prefer a photograph or other image (and there are lots of non-photogrpahic images) is again something that can only be determined in the context of the intended use. As just one example, the Mars habitat article contains multiple artworks depicting what a human settlement on Mars might look like, and I see no reason why an AI-generated image would necessarily be inappropriate for such uses just because they are AI-generated (there may be other reasons to prefer human images, or specific human images over specific AI-generated images). In addition to "artist's impression" scenarios, it is certainly possible to create an AI image that objectively depicts particular types of thing (e.g. if we're illustrating a tin opener we're illustrating the concept of a tin opener not a specific tin opener, which is different to illustrating say Tim Berners-Lee). Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all true and good points. I did not intend to indicate otherwise when I made my points above about "most" Wikipedia images. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A human-rendered version of the Mars habitat is far better than an AI because the human (likely a NASA employed person) is going to be able to use other knowledge not limited to imagery to establish how the base will be placed, and because these are generated by NASA, while they might look nothing like the final image, their release would implicitly be confirmation this is what NASA thinks it will be, and which may not be explained in other material published by NASA. An AI generated image may use all that art but cannot be able to connect other info to that and thus may generate something that looks like the habitat, but completely in an unfeasible location. For that reason alone, I cannot see any case where an AI image would be preferable to a human-rendered one. Masem (t) 01:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated art is not copyrightable under U.S. law and belong in the public domain. A federal judge ruled this six months ago [10] [11] [12] [13]. This was a pretty big deal, so I assumed this was common knowledge; apparently not. See also [14]. I don't know what the copyright status is in other countries, but the WMF is headquartered in San Francisco and Wikipedia is thus bound by U.S. copyright law (WP:NUSC). Commons already has a c:Template:PD-algorithm. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Few things "settled" by a district judge are actually considered settled or remain so for long. This is apt to turn into a circuit decision (for or against the district's ruling) and eventually one at the Supreme Court, though this could take years. And that'll just be one (albeit major/influential) national juridiction.

Anyway, from my PoV, "art" ceated by "AI" isn't art at all, it's pixels arranged in a way to attempt to suit the expectations of a textual prompt. It has no (and cannot presently have any intent beyond that. Such output is notriously inaccurate as a general matter (even about really basic things, like how many fingers humans have, what facial muscles do to produce expressions like smiles, etc.), even if a few individual images from that sector might accidentally turn out not to be badly hosed. As such output is not an image (a captured photo, or an intentional attempt to represent in the case of a painting) of the subject, just an attempt to generate CGI that suits a text prompt that mentions the subject, there is no real rationale to use any such image on WP, except perhaps to illustrate an article about "AI" "art" in and of itself. An LLM image illustrating "Margaret Thatcher" or "Botswana" should be removed as pseudo-depiction, or simply falsification to put it more bluntly. Perhaps some kind of argument can be made that LLM image s could be appropriate for depicting things that can't be photographed but which can be mathematically modeled (i.e. with predicable results than can be compared acrossed models), like black holes, and molecular bond arrangements between atoms in complex polymers at the fine microscopic level. But I would expect concerns and caution in this area because of the very, very frequent accuracy problems (even about basic matters) exhibited by LLMs. Such an image would need to be reviewed by subject-matter experts. Another concern is that WP generally doesn't want human editors' own artworks (graphs and maps are often exceptions), even for bio subjects for whom we have no good-quality free-use images if any at all. There is no reason for us to reject those yet accept editors' LLM-generated output, which involves even less human judgement.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out, Wikipedia is based in San Francisco, which is in federal district 9, while the ruling you're pointing to is in the DC district. To the best of my not-a-lawyerly understanding, the DC district cannot make binding precedent on the ninth, nor vice vera. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Copyright Office has repeatedly refused to register works generated by AI. One of the applicants sued, which led us to the ruling where the district court affirmed the Copyright Office's decision. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Commons has more about this at c:Commons:AI-generated media#Can AI-generated media be lawfully hosted on Commons?: In the United States and most other jurisdictions, only works by human authors qualify for copyright protection. In 2022 and 2023, the US Copyright Office repeatedly confirmed that this means that AI-created artworks that lack human authorship are ineligible for copyright. The Commons community has rejected deletion requests that relied on such copyright claims, and tagged images generated by models such as DALL-E as {{PD-algorithm}}. Our policies are based on the current understanding and interpretation of the law, which could of course change in the future, but the current consensus within the U.S. government and court system is that AI-generated art is ineligible for copyright. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus in the court system or government. The DC District Court's ruling does not constitute the current consensus of anyone. It's not even binding in DC, nevermind the rest of the country. District Courts are trial courts and trial courts do not create binding precedent. The District Court's rulings are limited to the single case the court was ruling on and those particular parties. (Barring an injunction, which is not at issue here.)
SCOTUS declining to hear a copyright appeal also is not an endorsement of the copyright office's decision.
There won't be any binding legal precedent on this issue until appeals courts and/or the Supreme Court issues a decision. The appeals court decisions will only be binding within their circuits. Any District Court decisions only apply to their individual cases and will have no binding precedential effect.
The copyright office's interpretations are binding on applicants until/unless they're overturned by a court, but don't reflect the consensus of the entire government, just the copyright office. At most that's one branch of the three branches.
The copyright of AI is a very open question currently being addressed by multiple US courts. No binding or consensus answer yet. Levivich (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also two different questions. I don't see the general ruling that computer generated art is not copyrightable necessarily changing, since it's long established that copyright requires human authorship. My sense is the bigger question is copyrighted material in the training data. SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, it is "currently being addressed" in the sense that courts are currently addressing these cases by dismissing them on the basis that they do not explain how it's physically possible for their claims to be true. Like I said at Commons a few months ago:

If you want a reason why these models don't contain "fragments of source images", I can give one: it is physically impossible. I can't speak to what goes on with closed-source models, but checkpoints for publicly available models are a few billion bytes of neuron weights (e.g. Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 is 6.94 GB). The datasets these models are trained on constitute a few billion entire images (LAION-5B is 5.85 billion images). I would like to see someone explain how images -- fragment or otherwise -- are being compressed to a size of one byte. It is basic arithmetic.

One byte is eight bits: it is a number between 0 and 255. The binary representation of the number 255 by itself takes one full byte (11111111).

A single colored pixel (i.e. yellow-green, #9ACD32) is a triplet of three bytes (10011010, 11001101, 00110010).

The smallest file on Wikimedia Commons, a GIF consisting of a single transparent pixel, is 26 bytes. The comment you're reading right now (check the revision history for the actual number) is 2080 bytes (minus my signature). This 186 x 200 photograph of an avocado (as a JPEG -- a highly optimized, lossily compressed file format) is eleven thousand bytes. Even if we disregard the well-documented literature concerning neural networks (and the subset of generative models that create images like these) actually work, it is not mathematically possible to achieve the compression ratios necessary to simply store training images inside the model. jp×g🗯️ 18:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So ... is there support for some wording on WP:IUP to prefer human-created images to AI-generated ones, if not to ban them entirely (which would require a formal RfC)? If editors believe these images aren't in the public domain, they should voice their concerns to the Commons community, but until they regard AI-generated images as copyrighted, Wikipedia is not going to either. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose banning them. If the copyright or other restrictions turn out to be problematic down the road we can deal with it then, especially as we could use such images under fair use if they can't be hosted on Commons (assuming they meet the NFCC, which can only be determined at the level of the individual image). We should always prefer the best image, and I see no reason to prohibit using an AI image if that is the best image for a particular usage (unless you want to make the encyclopaedia worse to prove a point or something?). At the current level of the technology, an AI image is pretty much guaranteed not to be inferior to a human image when representing a specific person or thing (and in many other cases too), so banning the AI image would be pointless in the same way that we don't need to ban potato paintings. The only question that arises is whether we want to prefer a human image over an AI image when all other factors (quality, relevance, license, aesthetics, etc, are equal). I don't have a reason to oppose doing that, but equally I don't have a reason to support doing that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support creating wording on WP:IUP to prefer human-created images over ones generated from diffusion engine-type programming ("AI"). As much as it's the case that there are ways human-created images introduce certain degrees of artificiality (choice of lighting in a photograph, choice of pose in a video, emphasizing or de-emphasizing certain attributes in a portrait, etc.), we are in a much better position to examine and critically consider these human made choices than the inscrutable, at times even 'black box'-esque generation process of diffusion engine-esque programs. As for a ban, for now I would tentatively support that.
And, while this is not the major thrust of my reasoning, the possibility of Wikimedia Commons becoming some kind of repository of images generated using programs that can and do, sometimes by being given such an input and sometimes just doing so without such, imitate and ape the oeuvres of living human artists, troubles me. In valuing accessibility as a project, it hasn't been our goal and it needn't become our practice to tread on the rights of others. Even now Commons' upload process asks the uploader to make sure the photograph doesn't non-incidentally include material that is the protected intellectual property of others. I find myself comparing images generated from diffusion engine-esque programs, and the way they crib from the copyrighted works of artists, kind of like photos that non-incidentally include the intellectual property of others. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should consider a hands-off approach, let people argue for inclusion case-by-case and give the community a chance to experiment rather than being risk-averse. Copyright issues are unlikely given the court decisions so far. Masem's argument (which boils down to educational/encyclopedic value) is a lot more interesting to me than the copyright angle, but it's one that would justify giving people leeway to experiment and see if they can find encyclopedic value in it.
And as a point of order - we're just talking about policy on what to transclude from Commons, right? Since AI pics go to Commons. So I'm not sure how copyright is relevant to us. If it's a problem it's for them to deal with. DFlhb (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no yet a worldwide agreement on copyrights on AI, we only have affirmation that the US will not grant AI images copyright. So no, they should not go to commons. We probably should made a new image for PD-US-AI, reflecting the copyright office's stance.
Once there's broad worldwide agreement AI images can't be copyrighted, then commons can take them. — Masem (t) 04:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright aside, I am having a hard time imagining a situation in which an AI-generated image being added to a Wikipedia article complies with WP:NOR. But I suppose in theory an AI generator could be used to create some kind of chart or something that is backed up by RS. Except I don't think AI image generators are good enough to do that yet, like they don't handle text well for example. But from a Wikipedia policy perspective, I'm not concerned about the copyright aspect -- if and when the law catches up, Wikipedia will comply with whatever that law is. Until then, I'd just apply our ordinary policies. If an editor uses AI as a tool to create an image that otherwise complies with policy (i.e., it's not OR), then I don't see why it matters what tool the editor used to create the policy-compliant image, whether it's MS Paint, Photoshop, or some AI image tool. BTW for those who are not familiar, be aware that "AI image tool" is a broad category, covering everything from an AI image generator that creates an entire image, to AI tools that alter images (e.g. by removing something from the image or adding something to it), to AI tools that restore/filter images, and so on. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't most photographs and other images in articles fall foul of WP:NOR even if AI has been nowhere near them? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photographs don't as long as they don't "reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." So if I take a picture of Buckingham Palace and my picture shows Buckingham Palace in the same way that RSes show Buckingham Palace then it's fine. Other images like charts, graphs, maps, tables, infographics, etc., may or may not fall afoul of NOR depending on their content and whether the content is novel or is just summarizing RSes. Levivich (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very well for ultra-notable things like Buckingham Palace, but most photographs on Wikipedia are of things or people that have no published (elsewhere) photographs, or, if they do, they are not in reliable sources. And people are encouraged to take such photographs. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are in reliable sources, just a primary source: the thing itself. Imagine I take a picture of a document, like the US Constitution, and imagine I'm the first person to ever take a picture of this document. The document is a source for what the document looks like, a primary source, but a source nonetheless. Anyone could, in theory, verify that my photograph of the document accurately depicted the document by comparing my photograph to the document itself. Same goes with a building, or any other object one can photograph. One way of looking at "OR" is that "OR" is anything that can't be verified in the WP:V sense. A photograph can be verified, therefore it's not necessarily OR or not always OR. Levivich (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible for a human-generated photo or other image to violate NOR, but that depends on the image and how it is being used, and to a certain extent how strictly one interprets NOR. WP:NPOV is another policy that is easier to violate with an image (choice of lighting, angle, etC), however these not things that can be determined without examining the individual image. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger, see Wikipedia:No original research#Original images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On preliminary thought, assuming copyright issues are worked out: 1) Ban all images of persons, and events in the past century (within the life of anyone alive). We are not here to make, or make-up, modern history or stories about people. 2) I would require any other images to state in detail what sources were relied on to create the image. 3) The rule would be, we would have to disclose, the image is AI; and 4) We always prefer traditional photographs or paintings, such that we have a no use policy if such comparables exist (some kind of NFCC - like policy) (that's at least to start). I think there might be more issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? 1) If the images are not reliable depictions of whatever they purport to depict then we shouldn't be using them regardless of whether they are AI generated or not. If they are reliable then I don't understand why we would want to ban them? Why would the subject being more or less than ~100 years old make any difference to the reliability or otherwise of an image? 2) This is a combination of copyright issues (attribution) and point 1: we just need enough information to know whether it is reliable or not - sometimes that might mean a list of all (major) sources, sometimes it will just be the AI engine and prompt. 3) Yes, but again that's a copyright thing. 4) Why would we prefer an inferior image just because it's human-generated (if it is superior there is no reason to ban alternatives)? Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are fictions is why. Welcome to reality. In no way should we have the product of, 'Computer: draw a picture of the Palestinian hospital being bombed', anywhere in our encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's absolutely terrible reasoning. If you want to make a valid argument, find an example where "Non-famous human: draw a picture of X" would be something we should have while "Computer: draw a picture of X" (and the AI generates good output, no copping out by pointing to "but AI sometimes makes errors like wrong numbers of fingers") would not be, based on reasoning other than "oh noes AI is bad".
    Re "we always prefer traditional photographs or paintings", anyone want to prepare an RFC calling for digital photographs to be banned in favor of traditional photographs or paintings, if that's what we prefer? We have about a month. 😀 Anomie 06:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, LOL, how droll. Your comment is the one with absolutely terrible reasoning. "Non-famous human: draw a picture of yesterday's bombing" is not what we want on our pedia, either, nor is a digital photograph not traditional photography in 2024. Most people need no rfc or dumb emojis to know to know what digital photography is in 2024. As for April Fools Day in a month, there is no reason for you to start early with such nonsense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said "Non-famous human: draw a picture of yesterday's bombing" was something we'd want, nor does anyone I've seen in this discussion. Which is exactly why I called out your comment using that as an example of an AI image we wouldn't want as bogus. Similarly, my attempt at humor was to point out that your appeal to "traditional" photography was similarly irrelevant. I'm sad to see you entirely missed both points and instead resorted to ad hominem attacks. Anomie 07:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, we don't want that computer drawn picture, just I said. So not only was that good reasoning, I was correct. The only point that's being missed is by you, your not making any cogent statement in favor AI, when you agree we don't want that AI picture. Indeed, you are conceding my overarching point, controls are what's needed. And now your not making any cogent argument when you resort to false claims of ad hominem, in defense of your poor humor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't want bad pictures, regardless of source. If AI pictures are always as bad as you claim then there is no point in banning them, just like we don't ban bad drawings by humans. We do want good pictures. My argument is that we want good pictures regardless of source, your argument seems to be we only want good pictures produced by humans but you have not given any explanation why (ad hominems and straw men are not explanations). Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Come, now. I explained in my first post why we don't want some AI Pictures, and your not making much of any real point when you say you don't want bad pictures. Your hand-waving. That's not any standard editors can abide by, when they actually address pictures. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except the only reasons you gave are (paraphrased) "AI images are bad" and "We always prefer traditional photographs or paintings". The first is not relevant because, even if all AI images are bad (and that can be debated, and in any case may change as technology develops) there is no reason to ban bad images. The second is a statement of personal preference that is not backed up by any reasoning (other than "AI images are bad").
    I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your final sentence - when selecting images editors should (hopefully obviously) always choose the best image, with "best" depending on multiple factors relating to the specific usage. If we want to change that to "editors should always choose the best image, unless the best image is AI generated when you must use an inferior one" then we need a reason why. And nobody has yet articulated any reason for doing so (assuming we can legally use the images) Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not read what I wrote. Your paraphrase is ludicrous. I addressed the dangers of made up history and information about living people. I addressed that we need sources, for the reasons we always need sources, so others can check, and I addressed the standard preference for types of image making that is already well known and already used to convey reality. And I addressed being upfront with the reader that the image is AI, because we should always be upfront with the reader. Your imagining of some better AI picture, is just imagining and practically meaningless - better than reality, is not reality. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    nobody has yet articulated any reason for doing so (assuming we can legally use the images) Without weighing in on Alanscottwalker's reasons, I would point out that in this overall thread, there have been articulations of reasons. For example, the possibility of Wikimedia Commons becoming some kind of repository of images generated using programs that can and do, sometimes by being given such an input and sometimes just doing so without such, imitate and ape the oeuvres of living human artists, troubles me. There are ethical dimensions to the use and creation of diffusion engine-generated images, beyond strict copyrightability. To the extent that Wikipedia exists in the world, and in the social context of humanity, wanting our project and community to be ethically responsible isn't a non-reason. It's a reason, that one can agree with or disagree with (whether on its premise, on its execution, on some other aspect of it, etc.). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue regardless of what happens here there should be some exceptions. Fox example, assuming there is not a change in copyright status the image used in Artificial intelligence art shouldn’t be removed due to being AI generated since that wouldn’t make any sense. I believe this should also apply to notable programs such as DALL-E where I see it making sense that the article shows images that it created and is clearly identified as AI art.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of interest to this discussion may be one that was had a few months ago at the NOR noticeboard, Cartoon portraits. It was primarily about some very ugly and amateurish caricatures being used to adorn BLP articles, but also touches upon AI generated art and the questionable output of a project called "Wiki Unseen". Zaathras (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was primarily about some very ugly and amateurish caricatures Zarathas, you were called out in that discussion, multiple times, for that completely inappropriate characterisation of the images being discussed. It is still inappropriate now. The conduct of several editors in that discussion, including you, means that reading most of it was a complete waste of time - if you import that sort of behaviour to this discussion expect a swift trip to ANI. In as much as there was consensus for anything it was that "some illustrations are original research, others aren't" and "there are instances when illustrations are appropriate in an article, and instances when they are not" with individual images needing individual discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the one in which one of the opponents kept struggling to tell the difference between an amateur and a professional artist? The working definition of "amateur" in the discussion I'm remembering was indistinguishable "produces artwork in a style that I don't personally care for" (Picasso would have been "an amateur", as well as the whole Expressionism art movement). Or was there another depressing discussion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, good lord, enough with the sanctimoniousness. First the micronation debate above and now this. One of the primary movers of that debate turned out to be a now-blocked sockpuppet, and their edits reversed. My position was squarely in the right. Zaathras (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which "position" you are referring to, but the NOR debate certainly did not come to the consensus that the view you were espousing was the sole correct one. The micronation discussion is completely irrelevant here, regardless of whether you needlessly personify discussions or not. Thryduulf (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
regardless of whether you needlessly personify discussions or not. Pot, meet kettle. Now, stick to the topic at hand, please. Zaathras (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me of the kind of technical drawings used for anatomy classes. Even though the word has millions of photographs of various body parts, Gray's Anatomy and similar works are still valued. They're valued precisely because they're not specific photographs of individual – and therefore unique – specimens. They're valued because they show "typical" or "average" in a way that is more typical and average than any individual's body will ever be. Once you learn "average", it's easy to adjust to the "specific". In this area, a "made-up" drawing is a lot more valuable than a "real" photograph.
I suspect that there are instances in which AI-generated images would be useful and non-misleading. I could image, e.g., someone saying "Computer, please look at the images in c:Category:Apples. Now make me a few images that show a dozen different kinds of apples on a plain white background." You'd look at the resulting images and decide which, if any of them, had the Pertinence and encyclopedic nature that you were looking for. The fact that you used AI instead of Photoshop would be immaterial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet my sense is that photographs of actual apples would be consistently more pertinent and encyclopedic. Even granting the varieties of apple kinds, and the variegations of lighting, etc., it can at least be agreed more consistently that the human-generated image of an apple does depict, and is intended to depict, an apple. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AI-generated image from the prompt "apple"
Human-generated photograph of an apple
Human-generated drawing of an apple
human-generated picture of an apple
it can at least be agreed more consistently that the human-generated image of an apple does depict, and is intended to depict, an apple I'm not sure that is true. If I showed you 100 images that were generated by AI tools with the prompt "apple", all of them will be intended to depict an apple. If I showed you 100 images generated by humans of things that look to me like apples, I cannot say that all of them were intended to depict an apple - some may have been intended as representations of a quince, pear, cake, or something completely different. Whether something does depict what it is intended to depict, and if so whether it is better or worse (by whatever metric you choose) than some other depiction of that same thing is something that cannot be judged based on whether a human or AI generated either image. In the example photos the top image is more suitable as a lead image for the "Apple" article than any of the human-generated ones. Obviously we have no shortage of images of apples, but this is not necessarily going to be the case for every subject. Thryduulf (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rather would have preferred you hadn't, to try to prove a point to me, uploaded an image of an apple generated using a program trained on copyrighted works and which may itself contain major copyrightable elements of works. I don't think we as a community do right by ourselves or others by propagating material that doesn't respect the copyrightable works of others. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disliking AI and/or it's methods for those reasons is not an unreasonable point of view. However, as Wikipedians we are in the business of dealing with the neutral point of view and so our personal feelings are not relevant to whether AI images are or are not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV doesn't on its own mean reducing serious ethical considerations to mere "personal feelings". And Wikipedia is no stranger to ethical considerations. For example, a policy like WP:BLP provides guidelines around propagating claims about living subjects in ways that prioritize ethics beyond what other policies would consider flatly neutral, verifiable, etc. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. Human artists learn from studying and copying other artwork. A very typical assignment in university-level art classes is to look at all of the paintings by a great master, and then make their own versions. One of the main points is to have the students mimic the original style.
Is it ethical? AIUI scholars say it's generally ethical, within some broad limits (e.g., you don't want students producing copies so exact that they could pass for the original).
Conclusion: If humans can look at artwork and produce a new version (modulo forgeries, copyvios, etc.), it's ethical.
But: If a machine "looks" at artwork and produces a new version, even within tthe same limits, it's automatically, inherently, unreservedly, obviously not ethical?
Maybe it's not so clear cut as that. Maybe it should be okay for a machine to do what's okay for a human to do.
See also Tribute act. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are abandoning the legal issue, or the factual dimension of whether or not it's possible to copyright the idea that an apple is red (?) and dealing entirely with issues of ethics:
    Prior to the last hundred years (give or take), the human race spent somewhere around a hundred thousand years without anything resembling modern copyright law. Even when such laws were introduced, the original terms of these protections were closer to reasonable (i.e. 14 years in the US, 14-21 years in the UK).
    Here is a scenario for you: Bonzo's Montreux is a drum solo recorded by John Bonham 48 years ago. John Bonham died 44 years ago. My dad listened to Led Zeppelin a lot when I was a kid. Nonetheless, its copyright is owned by Atlantic Records, a corporation which Led Zeppelin (of whom John Bonham was a member) signed a contract with some time in the 1960s, which means it is illegal for me to make a movie that includes me hitting a trash can with a stick if it has the same rhythm as this, unless I give a large amount of money to this corporation. It will continue to be illegal until the year 2060. How is it illegal? Laws are generally enforced by agencies that are funded with taxpayer money, so this is being paid for by everyone.
    Is it ethical for taxpayer money (i.e. the same pool of money we use to feed the hungry, clothe the sick, put out fires, and the like) to be used to enforce laws prohibiting me from humming the melodies of songs I heard as a young boy? What proportion of our childhood memories are illegal to reproduce without paying up to a million dollars? For a century?
    Of course, these things aren't really relevant to Wikipedia policy, but if you want to talk about ethics per se, I think copyright law is close to the single most morally odious institution in modern society. It seems sub-optimal to defend amoral bazillion-dollar conglomerates on the basis that their interests are aligned in a vaguely separate direction to different amoral bazillion-dollar conglomerates.
    As the esteemed Doctorow says in a voice more eloquent than my own: "Under these conditions, giving a creator more copyright is like giving a bullied schoolkid extra lunch money. It doesn't matter how much lunch money you give that kid – the bullies will take it all, and the kid will still go hungry (that's still true even if the bullies spend some of that stolen lunch money on a PR campaign urging us all to think of the hungry children and give them even more lunch money)". jp×g🗯️ 18:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're talking purely ethically, I do think copyright terms should be substantially shorter and shouldn't be able to be held by non-human incorporated entities for so long. But I don't think rolling over to diffusion engine-powered corporate interests at the expense of independent artists is the best way to stick it to Disney et al. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P-Makoto, I don't think it matters if the image actually depicts the subject (Is It Cake?). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTJKosHxYtM looks like an apple.
The requirement is that illustrations in an article look like they depict the subject. Thryduulf's AI-generated image "looks like" a bit more Candy apple to me, so I wouldn't use it in Apple. This isn't because it's AI-generated; it's because it doesn't look like an ordinary apple. Even if it were real and came with a certificate of authenticity, I wouldn't use that image in Apple.
My point was that, depending on the needs of the article, I might prefer a drawing like File:PSM V05 D153 Section of an apple.jpg over a photo of a particular apple, or an AI-generated simulation of such a photo. Being "real" is not inherently an advantage.
(The intention is completely irrelevant; we crop images to show objects that were only incidentally present in the image all the time, and nobody minds in the least that these objects weren't intended to be in the photographs.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's no different than saying that is a terrible portrait of an apple, why because it does not look like an an apple, what's the reason for that, because of how it was produced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How it was produced is completely irrelevant - either something is the best illustration for a given bit of encyclopaedic content or it isn't. A "terrible portrait" is terrible regardless of whether it was produced by an AI, a three-year-old human or a professional artist. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, it looks terrible because of how it was produced. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to that opinion, but that still doesn't make it relevant to this discussion. There are exactly three things that matter for English Wikipedia's purposes:
  1. Can we use it the encyclopaedia? (i.e. is it freely licensed or meet the NFCC)
  2. If so, does it illustrate what we want to illustrate?
  3. If so, is it the best illustration for what we want to illustrate?
If the answer to any of those questions is "no" we do not use it. Why the answer is "no" is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Why the answer is no (or yes) is always relevant, it's how editors actually reason through and explain the decisions they make. (Also, how something is produced is invariably significant to how it appears, so no use in quibbling that.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some disagreement between us then, because I think it'd be misleading to knowingly, for example, replace the images in apple with images of cakes that merely look like apples. Yes, they look like apples to you or I, and perhaps the images created using diffusion engines do too, but it also seems possible that someone who knows more about apples—or more about a biographical subject, of class of topics, etc.—would be able to notice differences and errors that slip past you or I, errors that now we begin to accept as simply part of how these apples, or people, or places, or whatever is being depicted, look. A more natural image would still be more educational. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be supportive of a full ban on AI-generated images outside of contexts where AI is the subject of the article. It has already become difficult to get Google to give you a real image of something because of all the AI-generated crap polluting search results. Wikipedia should be a place you can come to to get a real image of a thing that actually exists, not what a computer thinks something looks like. Just because an AI-generated image qualitatively looks accurate does not mean it actually is, and we should not be introducing factual errors to our articles just because an editor thinks one image looks nicer than another one. We run into OR issues if we're then trusting editors to make judgements about whether an AI-generated image is accurate or not. Sam Walton (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried to generate an actually good image yet?


green granny smith apple on a brown tablecloth, hasselblad still life photograph --v 6.0 --style raw

Probably we could cut out a lot of the confusion if we stopped saying "AI" images are good, or bad, or whatever; this can refer to any number of hundreds of models with output ranging from random splotches of color to genuine photorealism. Some models always create slop, and some do not. Here is one from MidJourney v6, with prompt included. jp×g🗯️ 19:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably we could cut out a lot of the confusion if we stopped saying "AI" images are good, or bad, or whatever this has been my point. Some AI images are bad. Some AI images are good. We should always use whatever the best image is, regardless of whether it's AI or human-generated. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I getting flashbacks to all the pseudoscience arguments about biotechnology and genetically modified foods, where anti-science proponents consistently tried to claim that biotech methods were relevant (and somehow harmful) in the resulting organism and needed to be explicitly noted, despite that not actually changing the resulting phenotypic or, often, genotypic resultant organism? In a similar manner, the source of the images here should be irrelevant (so long as we don't have legal copyright issues involved, which includes the human-made images), since it's the outcome that matters. I.e. what the resulting image is and whether it is visually representative of the subject it is intended to be used for. SilverserenC 19:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem with AI images, though. Sure, let's say they're fine on copyright, I agree that isn't a major concern. It's the outcome that matters, and AI images simply aren't guaranteed to be representative or accurate. The fact that AI images are often close makes the problem worse, not better - it means that it's easy for problems to slip through undetected, especially to an untrained eye. Suppose we use an AI to create an image of a specific cultivar of apple that doesn't have an image currently. The AI spits out something apple-looking. Is this usable? Is it representative of this cultivar you prompted it for? How would you tell? A photograph, or a painting prepared by experts (e.g. Winter Banana (apple)'s picture from the Department of Agriculture), won't have such surprises (assuming the photographer hasn't misidentified what they're taking a picture of, of course). Even if we charitably assume that 90% of our pictures of specific apple cultivars are perfect, the damage from the 10% that aren't are not worth the minor advantage from using the AI pictures in the other cases. Just... get real pictures, instead. SnowFire (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this quasi-demand for blind faith in what it produces is the opposite of a scientific approach, one that can be verified and if one needs to replicate it to check, how is that done. (Besides one can't imagine the scientific mind would not be interested in what and why produces the best result.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the exactly wrong usecase for AI images. The two places they are potentially useful is generic images (e.g. "Apple" rather than a specific cultivar of apple) and situations where artists' impressions are currently useful. If say SpaceX released am image of a proposed Lunar settlement then whether we used that image or not would depend on exactly the same considerations (copyright, notability, whether it illustrates our article in a useful way) regardless of whether that image was generated by a human or an AI. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so there are definable areas of no use. You should have begun with that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "definable areas of no use" just areas where, with the current state of the technology, AI images are always going to be inferior to human images (it's not impossible that will change in the future, but it wont in the current generation of models). As I've repeatedly said, there is no point in banning the use of AI images where they are (currently) inferior to human images for the same reason we don't ban MS Paint drawings from illustrating BLPs (although if Jim'll Paint It ever draws a freely-licensed self-portrait we might use it on that article). Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just said the opposite. "Wrong usecase", your words, absolutely means it is definable no use. As does, "The two places they are potentially useful is generic images (e.g. "Apple" rather than a specific cultivar of apple) and situations where artists' impressions are currently useful.") as that means they are not useful in other places. You're in bad faith.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that I am acting in good faith, but if you do not believe that then discussion is pointless as you will not listen to arguments different to your own, regardless of merit. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I listen. I just listened to you say two things that are directly contradictory, demonstrating bad faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are neither contradictory (as explained) nor bad faith. Please stop making accusations and start engaging with the arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that you are saying directly contradictory things and that is evidence of bad faith is engaging with the substance of your arguments, it demonstrates the lack of substance in your arguments. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained how they are not contradictory: Noting that there are areas where AI images are currently always inferior to human artists is not the same thing as asserting that there are defined or definable areas where we need to ban the use of AI. You can disagree with either or both portions, but that doesn't make them contradictory nor is it evidence of bad faith. Now, please either provide actual evidence of bad faith contribution or stop casting aspersions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are just further demonstrating your bad faith, saying they are always inferior means no use, no use is all ban means. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are either not reading, not comprehending or acting in bad faith. Regardless of which it is further engagement is a waste of everybody's time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I read, you described large categories of AI as being no use ("wrong usecase") meaning they are functionally banned, indeed you identify only two narrow categories as usable, meaning again the rest are functionally banned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thryduulf on the use cases where AI images could be useful. There are many abstract concepts where an illustration is the best option. In situations where current AI images are categorically inferior to human-created images, there's still no use in a ban, since the decision is often between an AI image and no image at all. I would not feel comfortable using one until the copyright issue is more settled, but I would not support a ban. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you yet have another way to say AI use is limited. It is thus bizarre not to write it down clearly.
And even to begin with your limitation
1) How do you know its AI your dealing with how do you find out so you can live within your limitation. (is there a rule on disclosure)
2) What makes you think anyone agrees with your limitation for use, which is a very narrow one, abstract concepts? (Or is that abstract like, we don´t have a picture of yesterday's event but surely AI can abstract it from the news) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, due to the reasons discussed above, they are rarely useful/appropriate for a Wikipedia article. But "seldom useful" doesn't mean ban. Perhaps we need a couple paragraphs saying this and describing the issues which were discussed above. North8000 (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the last time we tried to put together an actual policy proposal for generative AI (WP:LLM) it took over a year and went nowhere beyond producing an essay. My reading of what happened back then was that the policy (which was already extremely restrictive, as it should have been) was shot down by people who believed it was still too permissive and who wanted basically a total ban; I feel this position was obviously self-defeating, since they weren't able to get a consensus for the ban they wanted and shooting it down resulted in no overarching LLM-specific policies or restrictions whatsoever, even though there were plenty of restrictions almost everyone agreed on. Discussion over it as it relates to images is likely to go down the same course - just glancing at the discussions above makes it clear there's no consensus for a total ban; but there's also enough people who won't accept anything short of a total ban that we're likely to end up with nothing at all. --Aquillion (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own thoughts:

  • It's important to make a distinction between AI-generated images that are used in WP:RSes (to illustrate the subject or as a topic of conversation) and AI images "generated for Wikipedia." The reality is that many promo shots of celebrities are going to be touched up using AI, for instance, and that doesn't prevent them from being used here; it would obviously be completely unacceptable for any editor to touch them up themselves, and the fact that an official image was clearly touched up might be a valid argument to raise against it when selecting it, but it shouldn't fall under the purview of the restrictions we're discussing here.
  • Similarly, it's extremely likely that in the near future there will be a scandal surrounding some deepfake AI-generated image of a celebrity; if that image is widely-published, we would have the option to include it for illustrative purposes on an article discussing the scandal. Other aspects of BLP might bar us from using it, and whether we should us it would depend on many other factors, such as the nature of the image, the decisions of high-quality RSes to publish it, the risk of harm to the subject, and so on; but it wouldn't be automatically barred just because it's AI-generated at that point provided it's well-labeled as such and just used in that context.

That said, as an absolute most basic starting point, we 100% need to bar images of WP:BLPs that were "generated for Wikipedia" or otherwise lack the extenuating circumstances in the previous points. That much is just common sense, surely? Other situations are a bit lower-priority but this one ought to be nailed down. Even if an image seems completely innocuous, the risk of reputational harm that could arise from even tiny subtle aspects of the image mean that this needs a firm bar. Whether it's acceptable to use slightly derpy pictures of apple to illustrate Apple can wait; copyright concerns will work their way through the courts eventually. Whereas the possibility of someone generating what they consider a "good" or "representative" picture of a BLP and slapping it in their article needs to be shot down now. --Aquillion (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as an issue of AI vs not-AI. If the image is an accurate representation then (assuming copyright, etc. is OK) whether we use it or not should be a matter of editorial judgement at the article concerned. If the image is not an accurate representation then we obviously should not use it, but only because it's not an accurate representation not because it's AI generated. Thryduulf (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, any reasonable policy would ban them from BLP's and in recreating recent human and natural events. Indeed it is asserted above that the "two places they are potentially useful is generic images (e.g. "Apple" rather than a specific cultivar of apple) and situations where artists' impressions are currently useful", so obviously that's the place to start and we should narrow it more, as need be. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be pragmatic here. If machine-generated images are the best available illustrations, use them. If human-generated images are the best available illustrations, use them. If none of the available images are suitable, don't use any. If people try to add images that aren't suitable, revert and explain why they're not suitable. My view here is the same as my view on the proposed LLM policy – the issues raised are all already covered by existing policies, guidelines and common sense. – Teratix 09:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • While we prefer photographs, we DO allow paintings/drawings (even user generated paintings/drawings) of our subjects when a free licensed photograph is not available. Sometimes we even have to choose between several paintings/drawings, based on which is most realistic and accurate.
We can do the same with AI generated images. We can compare the image to non-free photographs, (and to hand made paintings/drawings) to decide whether it is accurate enough for our needs… replacing it with a photograph (or a more accurate painted/drawn image) if one becomes available.
In other words… there is no need to change policy… Continue to prefer photographic images, but also continue to allow other forms of imagery (including AI) when no photo is available. Go case by case, choosing the most accurate image available, and be willing to change images if something better becomes available. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only did you just suggest a restriction: 'only where non-free content comparisons can be made by all editors and readers, presumably on a lay basis', but there is no way to have such a restriction without putting it in our policy or guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? They literally said to do what we currently do. That means either no change to policies/guidelines are required to do this with AI or we need to change the policies/guidelines to allow it to be done for non-AI images. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They literally described a restrictive process one with the ability to check the AI image, so it would be Kafkaesque to not write the rule down (its not a secret process). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When someone says there is no need to change policy and that we should continue to allow other forms of imagery (including AI), we should take them at their word – they're not proposing alterations to existing practices. – Teratix 16:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their word was to describe a restrictive process for checking AI images, the suggestion of not, or resistance to, writing it down is Kafkaesque. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a ridiculous and tendentious way to interpret their point. – Teratix 17:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be absurd, "compare the image to non-free photographs" is as plain as day process as there is.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that we already do this with human created images (paintings and drawings)… so there is no need to change the policy to extend this to AI created images. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? Having chosen many images for articles, it NOT in the least usual to try to compare photographs with paintings and drawings to pick out illustrations. Moreover to even do the unusual and very specific process you describe, you already 1) state a preference for photographs which would need to be written into policy and 2) require that comparable photographs already exist. None of these issues can be assumed as you do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been in discussions about user drawn images as well… and it isn’t at all unusual to compare these images to photographs to see which looks more accurate. That is part of the give and take we do to reach consensus over which images to use. We don’t need rules to say it is OK to do this… we just DO it. I wasn’t outlining a process (indeed, I don’t think we NEED a process). Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly did outline a process. And your now odd claim we don´t need one is a complete non-sequitur.

The process you outlined is:
1) Preference for photographs (when some people above say there is no such preference);
2) We have to know that we are dealing with an AI drawing, which means it has to be disclosed (when some above say it does not have to be disclosed);
3) the drawing can only depict something that can be photographed (otherwise there is nothing to compare).
4) Photographs of that exact subject have to exist. (when some above suggest, AI is ONLY useful when you CANNOT picture it)
5) the comparison has to be made (and you have a standard for your comparison, otherwise there is no discussion)

There is no way that is not a process with very specific requirements. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed with Blueboar, worth mentioning this use case but a change isn't needed. – SJ + 17:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh… my comments were not intended to be a "process”. The only “process” is to hold a discussion on the article talk page and reach a consensus on whether to use the image in question.
There are many things that can influence this consensus, including (but not limited to) “does the image realistically depict the subject?”… and a great way to determine that is to compare it to photos. Call it a consideration rather than a process.
In any case… none of this needs to be spelled out in policy. An AI generated image is simply another form of art… one drawn by a computer rather than by a human. We would judge the appropriateness of using it in exactly the same way we would an artistic image created by a human. Whether you want to call that judgement a “process” or simply “things to consider while reaching consensus”… we already do this so there is no need to change the policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not even said how you are to know you are dealing with AI art to begin with. So, no you are not speaking for collective consideration, you are dealing in the beginning of a mystery (and not the fun kind, the kind we know can and have been used to be actively harmful), which then extends to what is the basis for the image, if it is AI. Collective consideration, at the least, means being up-front and answering questions, and it remains Kafkaesque to not write down the collective considerations. Alanscottwalker (talk) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images, Labeling, restrictions and concerns for living people and events

Youtube has just come forward with rules about AI, especially in labeling, and with a special concern for representations of living people and events.[15] There are concerns whether Youtube goes far enough (interestingly with a comparison to handling copyright). [16] As I suggested awhile ago, the least we should do is be upfront with readers about it, and have special concern for living people and event depiction. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis statistics

(here). As this was my suggestion to bring the conversation over here regarding Tennis statistics used on wikipedia. With the conversation breaking down into various personal attacks and becoming unconstructive, I am seeking to bring this discussion over here to avoid the current line of dialogue and open us up to more opinions regarding the value of the tables being discussed.

The topic has previously been discussed in the project, but I believe specifically "Records against top 10 players" to be mostly WP:OR and cannot be properly sourced. I am very interested to hear a wider point of view and hopefully some improvements can be made to the current articles. @User:Fyunck(click) @User:Sashona @User:Qwerty284651 @User:Tvx1 @User:Unnamelessness @User:BundesBerti YellowStahh (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Things we need Village Pump specific help with:
  1. Record Against Top 10 players. We had decided by consensus to remove this chart per original research and trivial. A few now feel it's a good chart worthy of inclusion. Note that these players were not necessarily in the top 10 when they actually played each other, just at some point in their careers. Do we bring this chart back?
  2. Wins over top 10 players and Wins/Losses over top 10 players. These have been deemed ok by Tennis Project since they show only players in the top 10 when the two met. Each individual match should be sourced but have not been in this example. We are having trouble deciding what is a better choice without too much detail for an encyclopedia. There is some debate about whether "wins only" is consensus here.
  3. Looking at an article that has most things, like Novak Djokovic Career Statistics, starting about ATP ranking and downward, is there any advice others can give about what charts could be trivial or original research? We don't want to keep coming back here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to point 2, claiming that the project consumers these ok is a bit of an oversimplification. There are people in the discussion questioning those too. You can include myself in that group too as notability has not been demonstrated. Tvx1 01:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could be true, but both wins and win/losses have had discussions where they both came out as ok. Swiatek's and a couple other articles came out out as win/loss at the time, and the project was latest at only win at the time. So I hated to say either was the majority choice. This is a village pump on "policy" only (as the title says) and No. 2 is a content issue so I doubt anyone will say anything about that here. I just wanted editors here to know that Tennis project isnt clear on whether to use one or the other all of the time or in specific instances. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular sports editor, but not tennis, are these particular groupings even directly avaliable on stats sites, or require queries and procuring? Is the grouping regular discussed in prose in muliple independent reliable sources, with some mention of other members as well? That would go a ways towards ruling out WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They probably are on stats sites, but Wikipedia isn’t such site. They certainly aren’t regularly discussed in prose in independent reliable sources.Tvx1 09:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether information is typically found in sources is helpful to know so that we can decide whether we think that information should appear in Wikipedia. For example, if tennis were famous for having a "Top 5" system, then we'd almost certainly not want a "Top 10" here. If "Top 10" is normal, then we have to consider other factors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its an undeveloped part of Wikipedia, but I feel your more likely to hear about competitive eras such as the Big Four/Big Three, Four Musketeers and rivalries such as Evert–Navratilova or Lendl–McEnroe than you are about Top 5s or 10s in a given era. But otherwise you'll have articles like this "Stat of the Day: Stan Wawrinka records 60th Top 10 win" from Tennis.com and it does list "Most Career Top 10 wins" for all players in the Open era, but it's hardly a comprehensive source for all players. YellowStahh (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source with a "Most Career Top 10 wins" list is quite different than having a per opponent breakdown of even more niche stats. —Bagumba (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of what I was getting at, an achievement would also be winning after losing the first two sets. it's certainly talked about, but it's maybe best left to a statement in his own article rather than an explanatory table. YellowStahh (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you may see is the simple stat of 62-43 against top 10 players, and nothing more. That is very common on most stats websites including on the WTA and ATP governing bodies websites. Finding an actual chart that lists each of those wins and losses would be very rare, even at stat websites. However there is one sports site that puts the win-loss chart out, Tennis Abstract with Elena Rybakina as an example. I don't know if any others do, certainly not any tennis magazines or places like ESPN. I think it was the formation of the Tennis Abstract website that started the frenzy of including these many charts on the Wikipedia articles. I have never seen any site (stat or prose) even discuss the old "record against top 10 players" chart (#1 above). update In searching I found one other site that gives the exact same top 10 (at the time the match was played) match-by-match breakdown (so #2 above), but it only does the men, not women. So these are stats only websites. The sites are probably as reliable as you're going to find for modern players. As far as prose like magazines or news, I don't think you would find a single player ever discussed in that detail. I'd be surprised if a book on Federer shows a match by match vs top 10. However you will find some prose that says a player has a 62-43 record vs the top 10. Probably need to be fairly well-known players though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be creating metrics that haven't already been discussed in RS. If sources don't have a detailed breakdown on X games against top X players, neither should we. JoelleJay (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: As I said and linked above, we have one reliable source that does a detailed top 10 win/loss chart for men and women (at the time the match was played). We have one other reliable source that only does the men. I assume that is how these tennis charts are made... from those two sources. We have no reliable sources that have charts for every player that was ever in the top 10. None that we could find. That is why that chart was removed, but some editors keep adding it back, and is mainly why we are here. To make sure we got it right in removing them. The wins and/or wins-losses top 10 (at the time) charts we also wanted advice as to whether they are appropriate. They are not original research since one reliable source has them (two if it's the men). But there could be some other reason not to include them that you could give advise on? Are they too trivial with only two sources that print them? Would wins only be better? Would none be better? Are they 100% breaking some wikipedia rule we don't know of? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's against the spirit of WP:UNDUE, presenting a set of stats in a manner not commonly seen in secondary reliable sources. It's a kind of WP:OR to come up with the bulk of this from stats databases.—Bagumba (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, @Bagumba We can see all head-to-heads vs Top 10 players readily available at live-tennis [17] and [18]

Records against top 10 players are discussed on official sites like WTATennis.com [19] or Tennis.com [20]. Sashona (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stats databases dont establish notability of the list topic. WTATennis is not an independent source, so should not count towards notability. The Tennis.com list is a list of players w/ most top-10 wins, which can count towards establishing a list of that type per WP:LISTN, but not for a list with a detailed per opponent breakdown. —Bagumba (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WTATennis.com and ATPTour.com are the websites of the Tennis Governing bodies, the ATP and WTA which maintain all the tennis match data and records. Those are definitely primary reliable sources. Sashona (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyones denying their reliability, it's the fact that they are primary sources. WP:PSTS is whats being applied here as Wikipedia should be based on reliable secondary and to some extent tertiary sources. YellowStahh (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is true... they are reliable sources. But they don't show the chart in full for all these players and that's an issue here. So they are reliable for the actual record of 32-22. They don't show the chart with all the details we have, except in a few instances. I do disagree with editor "Bagumba" about the WTA or ATP not counting towards notability. They do count... certainly not as heavily as a secondary source, but they are a valuable notable source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WTA and ATP are governing sports orgs and so are not independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's an iffy term. We can use sources from a player's autobiography but that is not an independent source either by that definition. Secondary sources are best, but not exclusive. The Olympics put out all kinds of details that we use, and that simply gets parroted by the news verbatim. We use tertiary sources as well... they simply are not the best source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can use non-independent and non-secondary sources in articles, they just absolutely do not contribute to notability, per GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not personally consider "independent sources" an iffy term as we have our definitions to work with (WP:IS). However I would ask the difference between this list and say listing every single match a person ever played, and this goes for all players and I understand Federer has articles for all of the seasons he played, but those matches receive more coverage than any breakdown of wins against the Top 10. YellowStahh (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is "iffy" is what is considered independent. GNG says "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." That does not include the governing bodies of tennis. They do not work for the subject, and they write independent notable articles and stats on many players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are governing bodies not "affiliated with" the members they govern? And anyway we have a guideline that explicitly says "Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players" so there is absolutely no iffiness regarding this topic. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they enforce rules doesn't mean they are affiliated with the player. There is certainly iffiness on that issue, no question about it. But it's probably off topic as we are simply determining original research on point 1... which has been done, and whether there is an issue with charts 2 and 3... no OR but likely trivial since the vast majority of sources don't go into that detail. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question of governing body affiliation/independence is long settled in our P&Gs and is reflected at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, and I see no policy on it. Goodness, a newspaper writer who is a member of the democratic party wouldn't be able to print on politics and have it sourced here with that narrow of view. And the wording of GNG doesn't agree with you either. We take all of these sources together to come up with whether something is notable. Not one thing only, and we don't throw others out because they are rule-makers of independent tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've quoted NSPORT guideline two times in this thread: Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability. This has been affirmed multiple times. Sources that have a vested interest in the subject are not independent, so governing bodies/teams/tournaments do not count towards GNG. And a source has to be all of independent, secondary, and SIGCOV to count towards GNG, as should be evident from thousands of AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is an independent source like a newspaper alone enough to establish notability. That's what I said. It requires multiple instances to prove notability.... but you don't throw it away like a used napkin. It's part of the whole. We do not exclude it, we use it with other sources to show notability. You are reading into the "guideline" something that was never intended. Secondary sources are the best, but we also use tertiary and other sources to come to an agreement as editors as to whether something is notable. I have no idea how we even got on the tangent of a roller coaster. We aren't even talking about notability but rather OR and trivia. They have nothing to do with one another. Your quote is specifically used for showing notability of a person and whether an article should be created.... not on content. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do throw away sources that are non-independent, non-secondary, or non-SIGCOV when evaluating GNG. Those sources contribute nothing to notability. There's no other way to interpret multiple published[3] non-trivial[4] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[5] and independent of the subject than "multiple sources, each of which is non-trivial, secondary, reliable, and independent". JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your NSPORT quote does not say to throw them away by any stretch of reading it. You do not throw it away. But again it does not matter at all here since we are not talking about notability of a person but rather the content of a notable person's article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You throw it away when it comes to determining notability. That's the whole point those sentences are in the guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have to agree to disagree with what the wording says, but it's a non sequitur in this discussion anyways. We aren't talking about a person's notability here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the part about governing body non-independence, after two well-attended discussions at NSPORT arrived at a near-unanimous consensus that such sources are non-independent and therefore do not count towards notability. Does that really need to be spelled out like we do for trivial sources Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability and primary sources Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject? JoelleJay (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all governing bodies are the same.... you can't lump them together. With the NFL and MLB the players are employees, as with many governing bodies. Tennis players are independent contractors simply playing under some set rules. Their contracts aren't owned by the governing bodies. Apples and oranges here. Plus your link to NSPORT says it can't be the only source for notability.... which sounds right. But again it doesn't matter since we aren't talking about notability here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to argue we change our guidelines specifically for tennis player governing bodies then you can do so at NSPORT, but the current guidance prohibits any governing org from contributing to notability of the topics it governs and hopefully you have been following that in your article creations. JoelleJay (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nor does it seem that others do either. All published articles get looked at when it's decided by consensus, like it always has been. Different weight may be given depending on the type of publication, but nothing gets thrown away. And again, this discussion has nothing to do with GNG so it doesn't matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Have you never participated at AfD? Of course non-independent and non-secondary sources are discarded when considering notability. Why do you think assessing source independence and rejecting sources that fail is such a major part of AfD (here's 12,500+ hits, and another 2,500, and 4500+ more) if non-independent sources can contribute?
Not counting governing sports bodies has also been the standard for the last decade, e.g. [21] JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of times in the years I've been here. And consensus always wins regardless of a guideline... since it is a guideline, not a policy. Same with RfC's. You could say the sun is orange all you want and have the sources to prove it, but if consensus says it's blue we use blue in the article. Guidelines can't cover every single instance. You make it sound like guideline, and the way you personally write them, are set in concrete... and that has never ever been the case here at Wikipedia. Again a non sequitur here where the topic heading isn't about notability, it's on original research and trivialities and that's what we should stick to. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about the rare times where consensus to IAR can override a guideline (though I'd like to see any where a source that was determined to be non-independent was still explicitly counted towards notability), which anyway have no impact on the actual guideline per LOCALCON. We're talking about a key principle required for establishing GNG-based notability--something you brought up, which up until now you've been arguing is not supported in our PAGs. Your new argument seems to be that guidelines are irrelevant because they're not policies and you can ignore them whenever you want while still expecting your opinion to be respected in discussions. That stance is anti-consensus and is not borne out empirically. JoelleJay (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness gracious... like talking to a wall with my words being twisted and stomped on. No thanks to that type of conversation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to GNG-based WP:notability, they simply don't count. You might call this "throwing away" when evaluating wp:notabiltiy, but that's not a metaphor I would use. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sports-specific notability guideline provides guidance about when a sports figure is likely to meet English Wikipedia's standard for having an article. What is included in an article does not have to meet this standard, though. As Bagumba stated, it's a question of whether or not including this information gives it appropriate due weight. There are a lot of generated stats that some people have discussed somewhere. Articles can't cover all of them, so editors need to weigh which ones are most suitable, based on what has been given the most prominence in appropriate sources. isaacl (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which was why, I assume, this was brought here. One, to determine if #1 was OR (as the project had determined earlier). That was pretty much confirmed. Then, on #2 & #3, though it is essentially a content/due weight/trivia issue, whether they were breaking any other policy or guideline rules. In reading the responses it looks like no rules are being broken on #2/#3 but due weight and trivia are likely being infringed upon given that only a couple super data sites carry the charts. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that chart has turned into WP:FORUM. Editors who were working on charts defend it as something like "tennis fans need it". While I appreciate their efforts, but that is just purely WP:ILIKEIT. The charts are poorly sourced or even unsourced, and I am also struggling to find WP:RS that could cover it. So, WP:OR. If we really be strict with it, WP:NOTSTAT is where it ends. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petition to amend ARBPOL making it clear they have jurisdiction over crats

As has been noted in the WP:AN#Nihonjoe and COI thread, it's not clear what the process is to remove a bureaucrat. In practice, it seems to be accepted that arbcom has the authority to decrat somebody, just like they have the authority to desysop somebody. By way of examples:

  • In Special:Permalink/296240244#Nichalp (2009), arbcom voted to remove Nichalp's crat tools by motion (it's not clear to me if there was ever a formal case page for this).
  • In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan (2018), arbcom overwhelmingly voted to accept a case to remove crat tools. The decision itself was rendered moot by a resignation under a cloud.
  • In the current case request, there's no outcome yet, but the 7/0/1 vote so far to accept the case makes it clear that arbcom considers removal of crat tools within their purview.

The problem is that the current WP:ARBPOL#Scope and responsibilities only talks about "requests ... for removal of administrative tools". I think it's uncontroversial that the intent was that this would include crat tools, and that's certainly been actual practice as demonstrated by the above three cases, but we should make it official. So, in accordance with WP:ARBPOL#Ratification and amendment ("Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification ... having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing"). I hereby propose that WP:ARBPOL#Scope and responsibilities, item 3, be amended to read:

To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrator or bureaucrat tools;[note 2]

Note: this shouldn't have any bearing on the current case, but it should be clarified for the future. I'll publicize this on WT:AC; please feel free to list it elsewhere if there's other places it should be.

RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signatories

  1. As proposer RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed, but perhaps "rights" is better than "tools". Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hopefully this is to all intents and purposes a codification, but it's good to have a belt and braces approach. There have been a couple of recent examples of the committee using—or almost using—this authority, noted by Roy, so whether they should have abrogated this right to themselves is moot: the community has clearly accepted that they already do. ——Serial 17:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I suppose it's a yes, but is this needed? Has anyone seriously questioned ARBCOM's right to so this? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'd prefer it just to say that Arbcom has jurisdiction to remove any advanced permission granted by the community, but failing that, this is also okay.—S Marshall T/C 19:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I have no strong feelings over the current contreversey, and agree that ArbCom can already do this, but I still see this as worth supporting. Mach61 02:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I don't agree that bureaucrat tools are administrative tools; there is no requirement to be an admin to become a bureaucrat, for instance, and I think one of the bureaucrats removed their own administrator rights for a while. So I wouldn't assume that bureaucrat functions are subsumed under administrator ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. starship.paint (RUN) 14:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I agree generally with the moot camp and Risker in the comments: "administrative" in ordinary English is no synonym for "administrator" -- so ARBPOL already covers this; WP:CRAT#Removal of permissions also covers it; and the committee's power to "bind" any user, covers it thrice over, but as a sitting Arb seems rather confused, touching off this petition, I'll go along, as a show of you really should not be confused about it, already (although yes, it should be permissions (all advanced permissions), if implemented by the committee). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. One more for "all advanced permissions" per Alanscottwalker et al.--GRuban (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. There shouldn't be uncertainty at present, but it is best to rule out any remaining uncertainty. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I agree with the spirit but would recommend a slight change to the verbiage. Perhaps we could replace administrative tools with en-wiki advanced permissions. This would also cover CU/OS permissions, even though Stewards actually activate/deactivate those bits. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support rewording to en-wiki advanced permissions per Jkudlick. Pinguinn 🐧 10:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Whilst I think the committee already has this power, there is no disbenefit in codifying it. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The way this proposal is worded, there is disbenefit as explained below. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I will support as crat rights can only be removed by stewards on request from the Committee (in addition to self or emergency cases). Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 22:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, but maybe just change it to “any (local) user right” or “any (local) editing privileges” to fully remove any ambiguity. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Obviously. Support codifying for clarity to the casual reader. -Fastily 20:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point

  1. Creating a new section as I don't support or oppose this because, as far as I'm concerned, ArbCom already have this authority; it's merely rarely used because bureaucrat numbers are vastly lower than the administrator count. If I or any other bureaucrat engaged in misconduct worthy of desysopping an admin, then I'd expect the committee to remove our bureaucrat permissions, too. Acalamari 18:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "adminstrative tools" coverts cratship. Galobtter (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 This. "Administrative tools" refers to any advanced permissions typically only given to administrators like CheckUser, Oversight, and yes Bureaucrat. Awesome Aasim 23:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Administrative tools" includes filemover, rollbacker as well as any local advanced administrative tools that Arb decides should be removed, via a case or motion. Not just sysop, crat, OS and CU bits. I'm not getting how there could be confusion here. Dennis Brown - 06:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per everyone above me in this section and Risker in the section below. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC) moved to oppose. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Administrative tools is not the same thing as administrator tools. Checkuser and oversight are not administrator tools, but they are administrative tools. The same is true of bureaucrat tools. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. They already do. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Queen of Hearts she/theytalk/stalk 20:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (ARBPOL petition)

  1. My opinion lines with Risker's below. I'd go further, though. "Administrative" clearly includes any advanced rights. Including additional categories makes the list seem like an enumerated list of userrights, which it should not be. There are other administrative user rights (BAG, EFM) that don't have a strong precedent for removal discussions by the community, although I see no reason why the community by consensus could not remove them. But in some unlikely future where the community thinks it cannot act in these cases (or any other future userrights), then I think that clearly falls under ArbCom. Otherwise we'd end up in a scenario where no body is able to remove the rights. So in summary: my view is that the provision caters for the removal of all administrative userrights which the community, by consensus, believes it cannot revoke. I think trying to enumerate specific technical userrights in the policy, rather than using a descriptive phrase like "administrative tools", is a mistake. I also think this proposal isn't useful, because it doesn't resolve any real controversy. There's no dispute that ArbCom can remove 'crat rights.
    Obviously, I know opposes don't mean anything in this petition, but the section header was created so here's my opinion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments below and ProcrastinatingReader above. First this is not needed, as ArbCom already can remove 'crat tools - by precedent, by clear community consensus and also by policy as they are covered by "administrative tools", but that's not on it's own a reason to oppose. The reason to oppose is the change from "administrative" to "administrator", which reduces the scope of the committee's possible actions by removing their ability to remove rights that are not part of the admin toolkit, for example rollback and edit filter manager - these can (or might be) removed by the community but there is no reason why the committee shouldn't (also) be able to remove them (there is precedent for removing EFM). Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is no serious doubt that ArbCom already has this authority, so the amendment is not necessary, and therefore this is not a good use of the community's time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my above comment. Dennis Brown - 03:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Adminstrative" tools is a wider power grant than "administrator and bureaucrat"; for instance the committee would be (and has) within their power to prohibit someone from using rollback, or from using edit filter manager abilities, etc. No one is seriously questioning the ability of Arbcom to de-crat if they decide it necessary, after all, but with this passed the question of "could Arbcom order EFM removed" becomes an open question, and right now it is really not -- yes, they can. Courcelles (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Thryduulf, this proposed amendment appears to reduce ArbCom's authority in an attempt to further codify a power it has already wielded. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 06:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "Administrative tools" is not equivalent to "sysop user group"; it covers any tools used for back room work on the project. ArbCom could (and should) yank pagemover if someone is found to be misusing it, things usually just don't get to that point because ArbCom's jurisdiction to remove pagemover overlaps with sysops'. More realistically, take Edit Filter Manager. This isn't granted automatically to sysops, you don't have to be a sysop to hold it, and removal generally requires a discussion. If an admin grants themselves EFM and is desysoped, would ArbCom let them keep EFM? Currently they could yank EFM along with sysop (both being "administrative tools"), but under the proposal ArbCom would be prohibited from removing EFM (being neither "adminitrator or bureacrat tools"). Obviously someone would IAR and revoke EFM, but why should we even create that situation in the first place when the current text already handles the situation effectively? The proposal significantly narrows the jurisdictional scope of the committee while weakening the Committee's ability to respond to diverse kinds of disruption. Wug·a·po·des 21:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (ARBPOL petition)

  • Nichalp's permissions were removed under Level II procedures due to a failure to respond to the Committee's concerns over socking and UPE, and in theory a case could have been requested but was not the account had also been inactive for some time. Andrevan isn't the only case where resignation ended a case; in the aftermath of the infamous VfD deletion mess, the case against Ed Poor was also dropped following his resignation of the 'crat bit even though he retained the sysop flag long enough ago that some might not consider it relevant. During the WMF/Fram mess it was also implicitly assumed the committee could review 'crat actions and potentially remove the flag, though that entire situation was such a gross outlier all interpretations should be cautious. The current policy also says that 'crats can request stewards remove the right as a result of a ruling by the committee, though that wording is recent [22]. Finally, the Committee unquestionably has the power to ban someone which would result in the flag being removed eventually simply through inactivity. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few notes. First, the correct term is "permissions", not "rights" or "tools". Second, if it is going to be amended, it should be "remove any advanced permission" rather than focusing just on 'crat tools. Third, there are several other aspects of the policy that could use updating, and doing it piecemeal is a really, really poor use of community time.
    Finally, on Wikipedia, policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is the expectation that the things mentioned in the policy will be done, but it does not restrict other things from being done as well. There's no reason to think that removing the bureaucrat tool is outside of the scope of Arbcom; the policy actually says "administrative tools", not "administrator tools", so the interpretation has always been "tools that are administrative in nature". The very name of the permission "bureaucrat" points directly to an administrative nature to the tools. Propose closing this, as there's no real doubt that Arbcom can remove 'crat tools. Risker (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should they be managing Stewards or Researchers, though? Surely it should be any advanced permission granted by the en.wiki community.—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would think it is implied that the enwiki ArbCom only has jurisdiction over enwiki matters. Giraffer (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 to everything you said. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction covers the permissions outside of enwiki/granted by the WMF. Galobtter (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Risker on all points. I don't think there's any question that reviewing bureaucrat permissions are within Arbcom's scope. This goes all the way back to the first Ed Poor case in 2005: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor. True, Ed resigned before it came to that, but there was no sense at the time that Arbcom couldn't have done it. Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've made the points that I would have. I'd only add as counterpoint that people do microparse policy sometimes. In addition, one current arbitrator has stated this to be "a grey area policywise", so maybe policy should do a better job of describing things if said description doesn't match the historical reality. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the "oppose" section, as it is meaningless at this stage. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification and amendment, the petition needs one hundred signatures to move to ratification vote, regardless of how many people oppose the change. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I renamed support to "signatories". Galobtter (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several people in the signatories section are supporting substantively different wordings to that proposed - I don't think we can assume that everyone supporting changing "removal of administrative tools" to "removal of administrator or bureaucrat tools" necessarily supports a change to "all advanced permissions" (or similar) unless over 100 editors explicitly support that in their vote ("tools" vs "rights" is probably not significant enough to have an impact). WP:ARBPOL#Ratification and amendment suggests that would require either a new petition by the community before ratification or a different (possibly competing) proposed amendment supported by a majority of the Committee. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking a bit more, I would probably oppose this as worded now because changing "administrative tools" to "administrator tools" runs the risk of ARBCOM not being able to remove any tools not part of (or unbundled from) the admin toolkit - for example rollback and edit filter manager (the latter was done in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man). Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add a couple of comments based on the responses above. The biggest objection here seems to be that "it's obvious that arbcom can do that". As Alanscottwalker pointed out, we've got a sitting arb who's not sure about that, but that's not actually what got me going on this. In the WP:AN thread I cited above, it came up several times that there wasn't a process to remove an arb a bureaucrat. Nobody jumped up (that I'm aware of) and said, "Of course there is, that's arbcom's job", let alone a link to a policy statement that says it is. So I don't think it's as obvious as people seem to think. On the topic of additional modifications such as changing "tools" to (for example) "rights", I don't disagree that those would be improvements. But I deliberately proposed the smallest possible change, in the hopes that it would be non-controversial. In retrospect, it was silly of me to think "non controversial" could apply to anything on enwiki :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...it came up several times that there wasn't a process to remove an arb. And yet, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 51#Suspension of Beeblebrox. There are precedents, if not a policy. Donald Albury 16:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donald Albury: Ugh, I wrote "arb" but meant to write "bureaucrat". My apologies for the confusion. RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All that is required to remove a bureaucrat is a request at m:Steward requests/Permissions#Removal of access that includes a link to a discussion demonstrating community consensus, a brief explanation of the reason, and summary of the results of the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf I pinged a local friendly steward to ask about this. The gist of their response was that a steward would need to see not just a link to the discussion but also a link to the local policy that says that's how it works on enwiki. RoySmith (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a policy: WP:ARBPOL#Conduct of arbitrators Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of all arbitrators. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me we can fix this with much less, ahem, bureaucracy by amending WP:Bureaucrats to say that any bureaucrat that loses sysop permissions for any reason should lose bureaucrat as well. —Cryptic 17:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is theoretically possible for a non-admin to be elected as a crat. It's also possible for a 'crat to resign adminship but not 'cratship . A amendment would need to deal with those scenarios, but that's hardly a blocker. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah for me I think it's entirely possible to imagine a scenario where a crat loses their trust as a crat - it requires more trust than admin for a reason - but not so much trust so as to require loss of adminship. The most likely scenario for this would be some kind of poor judgement with the crat tools. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point that "administrative tools" includes bureaucrats is a valid one. Perhaps, then, it might be helpful to instead just explicitly determine (via consensus) that bureaucrats are included in that definition, rather than amending the text. Frostly (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to WP:CENT. I'm not familiar with past practice concerning amendments so if this goes against best/common practice, feel free to revert. Also a bit clunky, so please reword if possible. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 17:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the above discussion (and the point that other groups like checkusers are also potentially subject to this power), I feel like perhaps something like "advanced user rights, including administrative tools" might be a bit clearer than either the existing or proposed language. -- Visviva (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we purge all transport articles of service information?

For a long time there's been a consensus against including service information on pages about airports and airlines. But I can't see any policy-based reason why such a policy shouldn't be applied to articles about other transport. Now don't get me wrong - this would mean losing a lot of valuable information that has no obvious place to go, and I would be strongly against such an action. But I can't actually see a policy argument for keeping it. Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONSENSE is not policy, it underpins all policy, it's the earth from which policy grows. You made a common sense based argument: "losing a lot of valuable information that has no obvious place to go, and I would be strongly against such an action". If no one is arguing to remove it, and it is basically common sense to have it, that's all you need. There is also WP:PRESERVE policy. -- GreenC 23:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#IINFO, WP is not a indiscrimination collection of information. That includes not being a travel guide under WP:NOTHOW. — Masem (t) 01:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eldomtom2, could you give an example of "service information" that is excluded from airports, but is included for, say, trains? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See, for instance Avanti West Coast/Services and Euston railway station/National Rail services. My general impression is that while many airport and airline articles have similar sections, when such sections have been challenged and the attention of the wider Wikipedia community brought to them the consensus has been for removal.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with those myself, and there's not really consensus around things like airline destination tables. Bus routes yes. SportingFlyer T·C 14:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with that either. Yes, the section for very major stations such as Euston do appear somewhat excessive. But given that railway lines are fixed, it is useful (and not trivial) to have information about which services run through there and what the previous and next stations are. It's effectively geographical data. This differs from airports; a plane can fly anywhere (subject to fuel, obviously) from an airport, and airline schedules change very quickly. Conversely the fact that "Station X is served by Service 123, the previous and next stations are Y and Z" is pretty much fixed for most cases. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't geographical data. It is not listing the physical lines from Euston but rather the services which operate on them, which can and do change at least every year or so.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the timetables change twice yearly, the routes are much longer-lasting than that with most tending to change only on the order of decades (although there are obviously some exceptions to that), and precise stopping patterns are between the extremes, the information as a whole is sufficiently static that there are no reliability concerns. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems discriminate enough to me. jp×g🗯️ 10:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTTRAVEL is one of if not the most mis-applied of the WP:NOTs, though. And listing airlines and destinations are currently fine on airport articles. Travel guides do not include information on which railways stop at which stations, or which airlines fly to which airports. If anything we need WP:NOTTIMETABLE to define exactly what is okay and what's not okay. For airports, it's airlines and destinations tables, for now at least - this argument is evergreen, and stupid (it's clearly encyclopaedic.) For trains, it's either a list of stations served by the line, or a list of lines served by the station. I think even including trains per hour is probably fine. Ports may be able to list current or former destinations. Buses are harder because bus lines are more fly by night. But at the end of the day, I'm not really sure what information the OP suggests to remove here... SportingFlyer T·C 10:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting we remove anything. I'm bringing up a potential issue I see and asking what other people think. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Er, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles, we just had this to say that that airlines and destinations are not appropriate unless DUE (backed by third-party sourcing) Masem (t) 13:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was an incredibly contentious discussion, with no consensus on whether it was correctly decided after a review. SportingFlyer T·C 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen no one challenging the close, so that RFC stands. Masem (t) 14:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive359#Closure review request for the RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles found "no consensus to overturn" with the closer (theleekycauldron) stating the arguments for and against were roughly equal in number and strength, so it stands but the consensus is a lot weaker than just reading the bold words in the close would imply. Whether you have personally seen someone challenging the close is always irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: While we are not a travel guide (we are an encyclopedia), service patterns at a station are very encyclopedic. What I would be fine with is removing those pseudo-tables on station layout as they are an HTML mess to navigate, etc. and replacing them with SVGs. For example, the New York City Subway has several main service patterns: Weekdays, rush-hour, weekends, nighttime, etc. BART is not much different: daily service between 6am-9pm, and daily service 9pm-12am. Awesome Aasim 20:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If by pseudo-tables on station layout you mean those showing the physical layout of the station platforms, then there have been multiple consensuses at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains to remove them. I'll hunt down some links if that is what you are talking about (and would find them useful). Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oppose routes and next stations are really useful (to me anyway)Secretlondon (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI and the evolution of Wikipedia

Anyone here feel like we're moving towards a time where we require all users to post a WP:COI statement on their userpages? Like, I feel a little peer pressure to write one right now even as it would potentially make some of the IDing stuff a little more annoying. Does anyone else see this sort of trend happening?

This is pure VP speculation. I'm just taking the temperature of the community. jps (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It would be an utterly unnecessary invasion of privacy for folks to declare every possible conflict they would have if they were to edit every article. We only require a conflict statement when one is involved in conflicted editing, and that is best placed in association with the edit and the page, not the user. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with NatGertler, you should only disclose a COI if you edit or intend to edit the associated topic. The best practice as I understand it is when in doubt to avoid the topic, there are after all more pages on wikipedia than one could edit in a lifetime outside of one's significant COIs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have wondered recently how strictly COI will be interpreted. I have declared (informally) when I have edited articles about people related to me (my first wife and a first cousin, once removed). But, should I have declared a COI when I edited articles about the high school I attended, the high school my son attended, the high school where my wife worked, the professor who was my advisor when I was a sophomore (and who later published an article I wrote in a journal he edited), the base where I was stationed when I was in the Army, the places I have lived, or the places I have visited? Donald Albury 23:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would see those as potential biases rather than conflicts of interest, and whether to disclose would basically come down to your judgement on whether they arise to actual biases. – Teratix 03:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to all but the last two, in my opinion. Levivich (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given how much we struggle to recruit and retain new editors, I’m deeply concerned about well-intentioned policies having broad chilling effects. This website is intimidating enough! Ghosts of Europa (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You reminded me of this thread: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_38#conflict_of_interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing one of the recent acrimonious discussions (with opaque history due to large amounts of oversighting for "potential outing"), I'm feeling like Donald Albury and what Gråbergs Gråa Sång linked on this one. Although my feeling is more "if someone takes a disliking to you and they can dredge up any tenuous connection to use COI as a bludgeon..." Anomie 13:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, its not difficult to not write about your employer, etc. but if you do, the world deserves your disclosure (read carefully the guideline's sections on regulations/laws surrounding keeping your reader in the dark on your COI -- at least give the reader a chance to know, its only fair). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove requirement for consistent inline citation style in WP:Citing_sources#Short_and_full_citations, WP:Inline citation, WP:CITEVAR, and other related pages

We have two inline citation styles: short and full. Looking at the examples in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_and_full_citations:

Current policies say we should be consistent in inline citation format. However, it might be more optimal to use both. For example, for book sources that get cited multiple times in an article with different page numbers, it's better to use the short format. It's better for verifiability to make it easier that different page numbers are added for lengthy sources. Using the above example:

  • Better: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.<ref>Miller 2005, p. 23.</ref> Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.<ref>Miller 2005, p. 39.</ref>
  • Worse: No page numbers, or repeating full citation with different page numbers. Page numbers for full inline citation without repeating them, such as in the example here Help:References_and_page_numbers#Inline_page_numbers, do not look good. They look too lengthy.

For sources that get cited only once in an article, like a newspaper article, it's easier to use the full format and be done with it. For articles that use both formats, it could be tedious for editors to switch citations formats (unless there is a bot for this) Bogazicili (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below. I should have asked this in a talk page first Bogazicili (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Support as nominator Bogazicili (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I don't like it, for example, when we have to redo a news source used once, to use sfn/harv format. I can't see any reason not to have more than one citation style on a page if that works and doesn't confuse. Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't required and the suggested changes below would cause a lot of issues unrelated to this specific question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Practical/procedural question: aren't these kind of proposals usually discussed on the relevant talkpage? Peter Isotalo 15:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do they? I already posted links to this discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources and Wikipedia talk:Inline citation btw. Bogazicili (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC) also now mentioned in Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria Bogazicili (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I supposed that depends on which of the guidelines that should be changed. I'm not sure, which is why I asked.
But I think Nikki is making a good point below: help the discussion to move along quicker by specifying what changes you think might be necessary. Peter Isotalo 15:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what your actual proposal is here? What language do you disagree with at CITE and what would you replace it with? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal: mixed inline citations (both short and long format) should be allowed.
Note that there already seems to be an Arbitration decision (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan#Preferred_styles). However, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates seem subject to footnote consistency [23]
There are multiple references to this in multiple policies. Some examples:
  • 1) Remove this sentence in the lead of Wikipedia:Citing_sources: "If an article already has citations, preserve consistency by using that method or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it (the principle is reviewed at § Variation in citation methods)."
  • 2) Update wording here as necessary: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Variation_in_citation_methods
  • 3) Remove this sentence in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_and_full_citations: "(Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style.)"
  • 4) Remove this sentence in Wikipedia:Inline_citation: 'presented by "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes"'
  • 5) Update 2c here Wikipedia:Featured article criteria
  • And other such references in relevant policies. This can be replaced with something like "both short and long format inline citations are allowed". You do not need to change existing citation format of existing citations, but there shouldn't be a requirement to only use the existing format, or to just use one format. Bogazicili (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed short and long citations are already allowed. The WIAFA requirement that formatting be consistent is satisfied as long as there is a consistent approach to doing that, rather than a random mix. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Nikkimaria is saying. As far as I'm aware, there's no rule against having some short citations and some long. All of the rules mentioned here touch on some other aspect of citation style. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Bogazicili, this table shows three common approaches. Which one(s) of these are you trying to get accepted?

Short and long mixed Short and long separated Re-used
The Sun is big.[1] The Sun is really big.[2]
References
  1. ^ Miller, Edward (2005). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 23.
  2. ^ Miller 2005, p. 23.
The Sun is big.[1] The Sun is really big.[1]
Notes
  1. ^ a b Miller 2005, p. 23.
References
  • Miller, Edward (2005). The Sun. Academic Press.
The Sun is big.[1] The Sun is really big.[1]
References
  1. ^ a b Miller, Edward (2005). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 23.

Also, did someone tell you that one of these are not allowed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: First column is what I mean by "Short and long mixed":
Short and long mixed This doesn't look good
The Sun is big.[1] The Sun is really big.[2] Don't look at sun with naked eyes.[3] The sun is really big and this is coming from a big book.[4]
References
.
  1. ^ Miller 2005, p. 45.
  2. ^ Miller 2005, p. 23.
  3. ^ Last, First (2024). "Newspaper article you only cite once". Retrieved 2024-03-17.
  4. ^ Miller 2005, pp. 107–110.
Sources
  • Miller, Edward (2005). The Sun. Academic Press.
The Sun is big.[1]: 45  The Sun is really big.[1]: 23  Don't look at sun with naked eyes.[2] The sun is really big and this is coming from a big book.[1]: 107–110 
References
  1. ^ a b c Miller, Edward (2005). The Sun. Academic Press.
  2. ^ Last, First (2024). "Newspaper article you only cite once". Retrieved 2024-03-17.
Is the first column allowed and is it considered "consistent"? Bogazicili (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them are. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili, anything that is used throughout the article (=that one article) is considered consistent and is permitted. For example, your first style with "Miller 2005" and "Last, First" is consistent because all the books (e.g., Miller 2005) have short cites in the ==References== section and long cites in the ==Sources== section, and all the newspapers (e.g., Last, First's article) have long cites in the ==References== section. Since "all" (of that type) are in the same place, it's consistent. (Whether it looks good is irrelevant to the question of consistency, but it's a good question for editors to consider in terms of what we agree to do in this particular article.)
If you put "Miller 2005, p.45" in ==Notes== but "Miller 2005, p. 23" in ==References==, that would be considered inconsistent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria and WhatamIdoing, thank you! I was confused after the convo here Talk:Causes_of_climate_change#Reference_style. This proposal is then redundant. But maybe we can use a table example like this so what is meant by "consistent" is clear. Bogazicili (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that article has a lot of referencing issues caused by this edit[24], which copied short form references from another article without including the required cites. With so many errors making the style consistent while correcting thre errors would be allowable. If you can't see the error messages that's because they are off by default, details of how to see them can be found here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, now that you guys here, what do you think about deprecating page number usage in the second column? It looks too long and distracting to me? Bogazicili (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the English Wikipedia has only twice deprecated any citation style. The first was Wikipedia:Bare URLs and the second was Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. It is extremely unlikely that we will deprecate any basically functional system for identifying page numbers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citation style at that article is inconsistent, but not because it mixes short and long citations - rather because it does so randomly (apparently because some content was copied from elsewhere?). If editors there arrived at a consensus to do what you propose in your first column here, that would be fine; it looks like they've arrived at an alternative which is also fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, everything is much more clear with the table examples above. That's why I suggested adding another table example to the policy. "Consistency" can be understood as only using long inline citations for example. Or maybe it was just me that got confused lol Bogazicili (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I believe that article's style is inconsistent at the moment because they're partway through converting the style.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are allowed (at least from my understanding), they only need to be consistent and any mass change should be discussed first. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused by what they meant by "consistent". Also got confused by "(Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style.)" in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_and_full_citations. Bogazicili (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That parenthetical is not related to what you're asking about above - both short and long citations can be done with or without templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that a little history will help here. Back when these rules were created, almost no articles used Wikipedia:Citation templates like {{cite web}}. Templates like {{sfn}} didn't even exist. A substantial fraction of articles were 100% unsourced. It wasn't until June 2007 that even Wikipedia:Featured articles were required to have consistently formatted citations. Before then, FAs were encouraged to follow the "suggestions" at Wikipedia:Citing sources. This is what the FA for that day looked like at the time it was promoted (the red error messages aren't their fault; we've changed the templates since then).
At the time, the biggest citation fights were over whether we should prefer the style guide for "my" academic field. The historians said we need to follow The Chicago Manual of Style. The psychologists wanted all the articles to follow APA style. The editors in scientists wanted us to follow Council of Science Editors, and so forth. The most obvious difference was around ref tags.
You see, when Wikipedia started, we didn't even have talk pages, much less fancy things like templates and ref tags. So if you wanted to indicate that a particular fact came from a particular source, your only realistic options were:
  • The Sun is really big.[25]
  • The Sun is really big (Alice 1994).
Then we built ref tags, and editors started converting these into little blue clicky numbers. People who didn't want to learn the newfangled thing complained, and we ultimately agreed that the rule was you could do anything you wanted, so long as the whole article did the same thing. Specifically, we said you couldn't mix the traditional parenthetical citations with the newfangled little blue clicky numbers. Each article could choose, but only use one. You could not have (Alice 1994) next to [1]; you had to pick one or the other, by consensus on that article's talk page.
After that, we had the same fight all over again, except about whether these complicated new citation templates should be permitted, and especially whether someone else can force those contraptions onto my article. This led to another rule in favor of in-article consistency and what, in 2011, I turned into the modern version of WP:CITEVAR.
The main point behind all of these rules was to avoid the massive fight that would be required to set a single house style that must be used consistently across all articles, while also reducing the fights over each individual article. We might someday impose a single style, just like we are slowly creeping towards a day in which infoboxes are gently recommended in many articles rather than the guideline being scrupulously neutral. (Join the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes if you care about that issue.)
You should never worry that we're breaking some rule that requires this article to match something else. We have a rule saying an article can have any ref style you want, so long as the whole article uses that style. The citation style used through an entire article can't be "wrong"; it can at most be "unusual".
And: Per WP:CITEVAR, consensus is the path to changing the style at a given article. If you set up a style with citation templates and little blue clicky numbers, and the talk page unexpectedly forms a consensus to use emojis instead of little blue clicky numbers, then that's ...well, it'd be unusual, but it'd be "legal". What matters is that editors have a shared agreement about what they want to do. It does not matter whether any other article does the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second all this strongly. There are always more important things to be doing than arguing of which style of referencing is best. As long as they allow verification they're good. The only time to be worrying about such things is if you are writing / rewriting an article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And third. Even a well-meaning attempt to force an article over to a "better" citation method can be a huge time sink that alienates experienced editors. It would probably make things smoother if we had a standard citation method, but as long as a reader can verify the content, then citation has done its job. Rjjiii (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth. I would support a choice of maybe 2-3 standard citation formats, but then I would expect the community to also develop a superior technical solution for them.
What we have currently requires way too much tech-savvy tinkering from users, even with the Visual Editor. Some sets of templates, like the harvnb and harvnc aren't fully compatible with each other and requires a lot of tedious manual work. Peter Isotalo 16:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bot would also be useful. For example something that would convert all {{cite book}} ones into long or short versions. Although not sure if that would be a priority. Or maybe a bot that would auto populate when short inline citations are copied from another Wiki page (and you just need to specify which page you copied from). Bogazicili (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bots we already have do enough damage repetitively adding minor polish to citations, which when done once is usually good but when done many times to the same citation tends to eventually introduce errors and then amplify the errors to the point where they take over the whole citation. Having bots go changing citation formats wholesale would make this worse. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, bots should be governed by Primum non nocere, first do no harm. Mass changes need a sanity check. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even when bots and script-wielding wikignomes are doing something that is helpful, the benefit is often minimal, and we end up with a lot of time being spent on something other than writing articles. A few months ago, I found an article in my watchlist that had been edited about 25 times in 25 months. Not a single sentence was added or removed. It was all unimportant tweaking. I felt (and still feel) very discouraged by this, and it made me wonder whether we're putting so much effort into mindless tweaking that we've forgotten how to write articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between automatic bots that are active all the time and bots activated (and supervised) by the editor to do a single task (like convert all citation types with a single click). I think the latter type would allow editors to concentrate more on writing the articles. Bogazicili (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might, but it might also encourage them to think that since they're "doing something", they're doing something that's equally worthwhile. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The goal should be to automate repetitive processes so editors can focus more on content. Bogazicili (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Reliable Source

Hello friends, I am writing a very detailed and in-depth article over “People’s Publishing House (India)”.

I will quote many sources, including famous authors, newspapers, journals and others. But for a two line part of my intro, I need to quote the interview of the Manager of PPH Connaught Place Showroom. I took this audio based interview in the early days of March 2024.

i know, self published work is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. But I need to quote the part of his interview where he is saying that they used to distribute books on Mobile Distribution Vans in many parts of India.

The interview is in Hindi, and I published it on YouTube.

Please suggest whether to quote Manager of PPH from this interview or not? Pallav.journo (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may get a faster and more comprehensive response by inquiring at WP:RS/N, if you'll forgive the alphabet soup. Good luck. Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIASED might cover this if its written in a certain way or WP:SELFSOURCE might cover this as well, but once again it would depend on how it's written. "PPH, has revolutionised the way India reads" I would suggest a statement like this might need to be sourced as well. YellowStahh (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While not all self-published sources are banned for all uses, if the manager is still living, then use of this source is prohibited, per WP:BLPSPS. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nat, I'm not sure that's true. I think this might fall into the category of "living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases" – or interviews. RSN's the right place to ask, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petition to amend ARBPOL to add options for U4C

Should ARBPOL be amended to add appealability and submission of questions to U4C? signed, SpringProof talk 04:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am hereby petitioning the following two changes to the Arbitration Policy:

A: The following sentence shall be added to WP:ARBPOL#Appeal of decisions:

Questions strictly concerning the Universal Code of Conduct may be severed and appealed to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee, which shall decide to hear it or not.

B: The following sentences shall be added to WP:ARBPOL#Policy and precedent:

Prior to publishing a decision, the Committee may refer questions of policy solely regarding the Universal Code of Conduct to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee, which shall be required to answer, unanimously or by majority, in a reasonable timeframe.

I am petitioning these amendments in preparation for the upcoming U4C elections, which will establish the U4C. Part of their charter includes the option for projects to submit appeals concerning the UCoC, so I thought that might be helpful to add to ARBPOL.

These amendments are severable and may be adopted by themselves, so I have separated them into A and B.

signed, SpringProof talk 04:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I am currently a candidate for the U4C.

Signatories for A

  1. Petitioner, signed, SpringProof talk 04:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signatories for B

  1. Petitioner, signed, SpringProof talk 04:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree Slacker13 (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments (ARBPOL U4C petition)

These proposals misunderstand what the U4C was created to do, and I hope they'll be withdrawn. The charter is very clear that the U4C doesn't generally have jurisdiction "when a NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists", and on en-wiki that's ArbCom. ArbCom should be interpreting the UCOC on its own (if necessary, which it rarely is), and the UCOC couldn't even hear appeals from those decisions if it wanted to except in extraordinary cases of "systemic failure". Anything else would be at odds with both the charter and this project's independence. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: I understand that the U4C doesn't already constitutionally have jurisdiction over appeals. If there already was, this petitioned amendment would be moot (see above). I think the UCoC involves more disputes than it's chalked up to be. For example, the only open case right now is centered around a UCoC issue (What constitutes paid editing?). Love your name, by the way. :) signed, SpringProof talk 07:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding the U4C's jurisdiction is even more problematic, I think. Even if it could be done without amending the U4C charter (which I doubt), giving the U4C additional authority over ArbCom would be a serious blow to this project's self-governance, and I think it's very unlikely that you'll find 100 editors who'll support doing so. (Paid editing is a Terms of Use issue, not a UCOC issue, by the way.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: You're right, I apologize. Nevertheless, the case also includes an issue of alleged doxing, which is further part of the UCoC. signed, SpringProof talk 05:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal misses the entire point of the UCOC, which is to provide a method of dispute resolution on projects that don't already have methods; in particular, smaller and newer projects. I fully expect to see medium- to large-sized projects without an arbitration committee creating one so that they don't have to deal with the U4C. Keep in mind that the UCoC itself is largely adapted from English Wikipedia policies and their corollaries on other large projects. This seems like massive overreach. Risker (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I would like the UCoC to be. However, UCoC is more ambitious about its scope. Its main page claims that it may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by ... local policies of any Wikimedia project. It dictates that all who participate in Wikimedia projects and spaces will: [list of demands] and that it applies equally to all Wikimedians without any exceptions. Of course, any attempt to enact such arrogance may see significant numbers of us advise the WMF where to stick its encyclopedia, but those who wrote that text don't seem to be here to play second fiddle to ArbCom. Certes (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this per others above: this is just more WMF stuff encroaching on enWP's jurisdiction. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose. UCoC may claim precedence over ArbCom, the laws of physics and all major deities, but U4C doesn't and shouldn't. Let us continue to answer to locally elected representatives rather than our new global overlords who have parachuted in uninvited. Certes (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't useful. For (A) if something is within the scope of UCOC review it doesn't require a local policy to make it as such. For (B) local polices can't make global bodies act. — xaosflux Talk 14:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be suggesting that ArbCom defer to the U4C, which I suppose ArbCom could do if it wished, but it certainly isn't obliged to and I'd rather it didn't. Certes (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I've understood correctly, then (A) would allow users to appeal some arbcom decisions to the U4C, whether to do so would not be a decision arbcom could make. If so then this is pointless as the UCOC and U4C determine whether the latter can hear appeals of ArbCom decisions, not local policy. It also attempts to mandate the U4C making a decision on whether to hear a specific appeal or not - legalistically it can't do that, but in practice the only other option is to ignore the request which I would sincerely hope they wouldn't do.
    (B) is really in two parts. The first part allows (but doesn't require) ArbCom to refer UCOC policy questions to the U4C if they want to. I don't have a problem with this in principle, but whether answering such questions is a function of the U4C is a matter for the UCOC and U4C to decide not en.wp policy, and I also don't think it is something that needs a policy amendment to allow given that ARBPOL doesn't restrict who the committee can consult. The second part attempts to require the U4C to answer arbcom's questions and to answer them in a "reasonable timeframe". English Wikipedia policy has no more ability to do this than it has to require the US Congress to answer arbcom's questions.
    Together that makes this whole thing a mixture of pointless and moot. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's credibly claimed above that in practice, our ArbCom disapplies the UCOC to en.wiki. If so, then we should make a clear declaration of this in a prominent place.—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @S Marshall what doesn't apply to English Wikipedia is the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). The community has never been given a chance to ratify the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) itself. This has always struck me as a mistake, though the WMF Board does seem to have the power to make it policy anyway. Either way, the UCoC is a set of minimums and it is my firm judgement that enwiki policies often go far above those minimums and in no place are our policies less than the UCoC. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the basis of your last sentence, I modify my previous position to: "On en.wiki, our governance and policies make the UCOC nugatory." If that's right, it's rather important, and I do think we should say so.—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of national games

Hello, I wanted to know that the number of national games should only be counted by the number of games played by the player in Fifadi or all the games outside and inside Fifadi are considered for Wikipedia. Ab10sport (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

answered on your talk page. Nthep (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: clarify that they may be on a linked page

I wish to seek to change the wikipedia policy WP:SOURCE. Currently this states "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." in the section Responsibility for providing citations. I propose amending this with the additional sentence "Sources may be contained in a linked article."

RATIONAL FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE

I believe that requiring sources on every page brings a number of problems: 1) it is onerous and inefficient and discourages linking relevant articles to pages, especially for new editors: 2) the relevant article may include more sources, mentions of the article might only include one, so anyone looking for useful information might not see it; 3) in a rapidly moving field sources may be updated in an article but that might be missed on linked pages. In any case it is easy for anyone to click on the link to see the article with all relevant sources. Hewer7 (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this suggestion. If the same information is sourced in a different article, it's much less onerous for the editor to copy the source to the new article than to expect readers to go to other articles to verify the information. And we can't rely on other articles being properly sourced because, too often, they're not. Schazjmd (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It has been long established that we cannot cite other Wikipedia pages to support content in a Wikipedia article. It may be fruitful to review sources cited in other articles, but Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden states, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. That means that an editor who is using a citation to a source found in another article must have verified that the source does indeed support the content being added. You cannot change just the one policy point you targeting, other points in other policies and guidelines would all have to be changed. Donald Albury 14:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing that wikipedia be used as a source. My proposal is that sources may be contained in a linked article. Hewer7 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you rely on another linked article to have the cited sources to support content, you are indeed using that other article as a source for that content. Donald Albury 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An example of why we don't use WP articles as sources (or rely on sources cited in other articles without verifying their suitability): An article I'm drafting (User:Donald Albury/Trail Ridge) refers to the geological Hawthorn Formation. I found that our article on the Hawthorn Formation was a stub, saying it is a stratigraphic unit in South Carolina. On the other hand, our article on the Hawthorn Group said it was a stratigraphic unit in north Florida. In fact, the Hawthorn Group, formerly called the Hawthorn Formation, is a stratigraphic unit stretching from southeastern South Carolina through coastal Georgia and down the Florida Peninsula. I had to find new sources and cite them to correct that mess. You can only decide that a Wikipedia article is correct if you check out the cited sources, and search for and check out other sources (in case the cited sources are incomplete), and if you do that, you should just go ahead and cite those sources in the article you are working on. Donald Albury 18:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very simple reason why we require citations to be repeated in every article where information appears… articles can change. The “linked” article may currently contain a citation that supports the information at the article you are working on… but there is no guarantee that this will be the case in the future. The other article might, at some point in the future, be completely rewritten - and in the process the citation that supports what is in your article might be removed. You have to repeat the citation in your article to ensure that the information will always be supported, no matter what may happen at the other one. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to that (not that that isn't enough, mind you), there's the fact that while most of us most of the time experience Wikipedia online, it's not the only way it can be used. A printed copy of an article that contains proper referencing has those references listed at the bottom of the article. If we switch to relying on the mere fact that there are references on some other page, those references may not accessible to the person using the printed version. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose this change in policy. Besides the other issues mentioned above, this would make it much more onerous and error-prone for a reader to verify content. Suppose there is a sentence containing links to 5 other Wikipedia articles, with no citation. If the reader wants to verify this statement, they would need to click on each of those 5 links, scrutinize the linked article to try to find a similar statement and see if there is a source there. If they can't find such a source after spending 10 minutes or whatever in this process, they still don't know if they have just overlooked the source or if the original statement was simply unsourced. Having the source for a statement at the point where the statement is made is essential.
The OP says that the current process is onerous for editors. That's fine; if there is a part of the process that is onerous, it should be onerous for editors, not for readers. CodeTalker (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, absolutely not. This would invite all sorts of problems. The most obvious one is that it would become easier for a source's meaning to drift via a game-of-telephone; a slight mistake or paraphrase on one article that isn't a problem there could become something drastically divergent from the source on another article that relies on the first one's citation. And worse, it makes it harder to verify - what source in the linked page, exactly, and on what page, do I look at if I'm not sure it's summarized correctly on the second page? Finally, on top of all this, what if the relevant section is edited or removed and the source replaced or removed itself? Someone making that edit may not even know the page that relied on that source existed, so it would quietly become unsourced with nobody realizing that it had happened. We already have a problem with "source drift", especially in uncited lead sections, where text starts out reasonably summarizing the source and yet repeated edits for WP:TONE or perceived NPOV issues or the like, each one a reasonable rewording of the phrasing immediately prior to them, collectively cause the text to drift further and further away from what the source actually says. This would make the problem far worse. --Aquillion (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 I strongly oppose this idea, but Aquillion said it far better than I could. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would go against verification, Wikipedia is never a reliable source for verification and there is nothing to say that the details on the other page are reliable or will even stay in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should PRODding secondary schools be allowed?

When the 2017 RfC ending the presumption of notability for verifiable secondary schools was closed, the four joint closers made the following comments:

Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. If a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search. It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special. We would expect an RFC asking "Should artists whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" would be closed quickly and with snowballs. The fact that this was not the case for schools is telling. [emphases mine in all cases]

Furthermore, WP:PROD states: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. While this language is ambiguous, I don’t believe it endorses And while many if not most PROD nominations are fine, there is a consistent minority of articles which either would pass AfD, or would be contested at AfD, and I tend to view the use of PROD for such articles, particularly when the nom only looks at the tags without actively searching for sources, as disruptive or even abusive of process. Another very common practice is to say “oh well it doesn’t pass WP:NXYZ” even when GNG itself turns out to be satisfied.

While I am by no means an inclusionist, I am tired of checking CAT:ALLPROD, doing a web search, finding GNG to be clearly met by the first page of results, and having to object to a nomination that never should have been made.

In particular, secondary schools, per the RfC close, would benefit greatly from the greater scrutiny of a proper deletion discussion, rather than the say-so of a single editor on random patrol who often is not sitting down and searching for sources as prescribed by policies and guidelines.

Therefore, I believe at a minimum it would be appropriate to prohibit secondary schools from being nominated for PROD, and instead mandate that AfD (or speedy) be used. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be honest, I would always send secondary schools to AfD rather than PROD anyway. But there is no reason why clearly non-notable secondary schools could possibly exist. After all, I could found a free school in the UK tomorrow, and I can guarantee all the coverage it would have would be minor, routine, local news. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As "secondary school" is a rather broad topic area and includes many fairly small businesses as Black Kite has pointed out, I don't think there should be any specific prohibition to PRODing schools beyond what is already at WP:PROD. In particular there are WP:ATDs for most American high schools making them ineligible for PROD. —Kusma (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AtDs don’t stop some noms… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are people who routinely make PRODs against the rules, how would changing the rules stop them? —Kusma (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then topic bans for those noms are in order, if the issue is behavioral the remedies most likely are too. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but I believe in WikiKarma for some reason. People bear grudges. Making waves always has to be weighed against potential harm. And given WP’s disturbing recent tendencies to eat its own children, too much punitive justice, however deserved, hurts the project. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proding is the most easily reversed deletion nomination....I see no reason to rule that particular one out. On another note, I'm a bit biased towards school articles because they border on ngeo or can be ngeo which is much more lenient. That said, I see very few that clearly meet GNG, and so I'm somewhat skeptical of that part of your post and related criticism of the nominators. More typically they have some "1/3 GNG" sources and when kept or passed it's usually due to being "almost GNG" maybe combined with leniency from being a bit NGeo. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly my mental samples are heavily skewed because I ignore anything I assume to be a valid prod when I’m patrolling, but I’m not sure what you mean by not passing GNG. Maybe we have different standards for WP:SIGCOV? Local news is perfectly valid for GNG so long as it’s WP:INDY.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the nom only looks at the tags without actively searching for sources should disbar any PROD. I don't see why secondary schools (the term has very different meanings in different parts of the world) should be a special case. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well to be honest, I’m salami slicing CCP style because I don’t feel ready to take on a possible deletionist cabal about behavior at prod (and I agree >85% of nominations are fine but it’s the rest that concerns me).
    See my forthcoming reply to Horse Eye’s Back.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that any article could be categorically immune to prodding simply because of its subject strikes me as absurd. I'm particularly concerned with the argument based on PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected - if I understand you right, you are arguing that there are people who will have automatic, knee-jerk opposition to absolutely any attempt to delete a page about any secondary school, without exception. I don't think that that sort of objection can be called good-faith, but even beyond that, allowing that sort of sweeping categorical objection to stand would break Wikipedia's entire structure - most individual edits are unopposed; we require procedures like WP:PROD to operate on that principle because otherwise vast amounts of time and effort by editors would be wasted in unnecessary AFDs, RFCs, and so on. By default, anyone can create an article at any time, with no need to obtain consensus in advance or perform a search; in order for that to work, it's vital that, by default, anyone be able to prod or nominate articles for deletion in the same manner, allowing WP:BRD to decide what happens. I also generally disagree with attempts to shift the burden of searching for sources onto people who want to remove material; WP:BURDEN is clear that it is always ultimately on the people who wish to add or retain material. I can understand that PRODs where sources are easily found are sometimes frustrating, but your ire should be directed at the people who created the article without such sources and who wandered off without responding to challenges themselves; ultimately, it was their sole responsibility to do that search and to find those sources. People who propose or nominate article for deletion have no responsibility - none - to make even the slightest effort to search for sources; some pages advise it, but none require it, because otherwise we would end up in a situation where someone could mass-create large numbers of articles without putting any effort into them, then demand that anyone who wants to nominate them for deletion do an exhaustive source search for each one. This isn't a hypothetical - it has happened, with editors mass-creating articles in an automated or semi-automated fashion and others then misinterpreting the suggestion in WP:BEFORE to consider such a search as a hard requirement in a way that made it impractical to keep up with their additions. --Aquillion (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point about mass-creation is already addressed by bulk AfD discussions. For example on multiple occasions something around a thousand lugstubs have been deleted each time after a single concise discussion.
    Apart from that:
    • Bad-faith prod objections are technically allowed.
    • I don’t believe the add/removal process has to be perfectly symmetrical. WP is an accumulation of information — useful, verifiable, ordered and sorted information, but without people writing articles there can be no encyclopedia to begin with.
    • Besides, it’s easier to PROD a page than to write even a stub. And often PRODders seem to be intentionally hunting for targets based on categories of cleanup tags.
    • Furthermore, your linking of PROD to BRD is strange because AfD is the one that involves a discussion phase.
    • And even so, most articles are created by people who aren’t permanently reachable thru WP. Most PRODs are by experienced editors.
    I’m not at all an inclusionist, as demonstrated by my AfD noms and votes; but I believe PROD is so easily abused that its rules must be strictly adhered to. If not for the thin blue streak tipped with steely mouse cursors of editors who take the time to patrol PROD, a fair diligent number of clearly notable articles would have been lost. And the loss of one notable topic would hurt The Encyclopedia much more than a dozen orphaned Lugstubs.
    • I’m not sure that WP:BURDEN applies in as broad a context as you stated it does.
    • Your assertion that People who propose or nominate article [sic] for deletion have no responsibility - none - to make even the slightest effort to search for sources is not supported by the sum total of relevant info in project space and is exactly what I am most concerned about. Prodding or nominating without looking for sources is really quite similar to WP:DRIVEBY tagging or any other action taken without sufficient checks.
    • I don’t believe my ire should be directed at hapless novice editors who create what they feel is a missing page without fully comprehending WP’s content and sourcing requirements. Experienced editors can reasonably be expected to understand that:
    • The requirement that a PROD be non-controversial implies that the nom should have done a little bit of work to ensure that there are no obvious grounds for objection.
    Lastly, thank you for expanding my horizons. I don’t agree with most of what you wrote, but it was very valuable to see just how much another reasonable individual’s interpretation of the guidelines and the deletion policy might diverge from my own.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, one more thing: The idea that any article could be categorically immune to prodding simply because of its subject strikes me as absurd — does the idea that any article could be categorically allowed to be renominated ad infinitum also strike you as absurd? Well, that’s exactly how WP:BLPPROD currently works.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the loss of one notable topic would hurt The Encyclopedia much more than a dozen orphaned Lugstubs - I disagree with this in the strongest possible terms. Articles about vital topics (ones whose deletion would be mean immediate irreparable harm to Wikipedia as a whole) have significant numbers of eyes on them and are at no risk of ever being successfully PRODed or even AFDed. Even if something is deleted that shouldn't have been, deleted articles can be restored or recreated; lost work can be redone, especially in areas like this that are rife with stubs containing nothing but information pulled from raw databases. PRODs may not always be fun, and may sometimes annoy editors or cause work to be wasted, but they are ultimately safe. And the reverse is not true; "orphaned lugstubs", as you put them, are not safe - they have the potential to do actually serious damage. All it takes is one article with something sufficiently wrong or problematic in it to slip through and attract the wrong attention at the wrong time to cause serious real-world harm to individuals or to irreparably damage Wikipedia's reputation. Think back to the incident that led to the creation of WP:BLP in the first place - all it took was one article (among our innumerable stubs and unwatched articles and other things) calling someone a Nazi without a source to do serious real-world harm to both them and to Wikipedia as a whole. There is no value in these stubs that could outweigh the risk of another incident like that. And every article that lacks people watching it - especially in sensitive areas, like BLPs; but the problem can occur anywhere, on any article - is a ticking time-bomb to repeat that sort of issue. A mere dozen? If nobody has an eye on them, I would accept the deletion of a thousand unwatched, potentially-notable orphaned stubs - ten-thousand! - if I thought that doing so would delete a single article that would otherwise have caused another incident like that. Our primary obligation as an encyclopedia isn't to indiscriminately catalogue as much as possible beyond our capability to maintain it; our primary obligation is to maintain our base quality in the form of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Every article that fails to do this, even the most obscure of stubs, ultimately erodes our ability to serve our core mission. And maintaining that quality requires that every article have at least a few eyes on it - there is a bare minimum level of attention and maintenance that is necessary for an article to exist, especially when it comes to WP:BLPs. Articles that don't have that level of attention are serious risks to the project as a whole. So, yes, obviously I believe that unsourced BLPs should be BLPPRODable over and over and over until / unless the problem is actually solved - the actual, demonstrable risk of serious harm to real people and to Wikipedia's reputation is an overriding concern. --Aquillion (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal seems to assume PROD is only used on the basis of notability. There are other reasons to suggest an article be deleted. In any case, no category of article should be exempt from the normal process, per Aquillion RudolfRed (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prodding is massively misused in any case. It is indeed intended for uncontroversial deletion, but often seems to be used as a way of getting an article whose deletion is clearly not uncontroversial deleted without getting the publicity that an AfD will give it. I can only assume this gives deletionists some sort of perverse satisfaction. I usually check prodded articles every week and the vast majority of articles I deprod as not uncontroversial are kept if they are later taken to AfD. Which just proves the point. I usually deprod western secondary schools as not uncontroversial, and almost invariably they are then kept at AfD, but it has to be said that Indian and African schools are usually deleted at AfD so unless they clearly meet GNG I've given up deprodding them as a waste of time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A secondary school should not be PRODed unless it is obviously unlikely to notable. Further to what Necrothesp said, this might depend on factors such as the geographical area the school is in, the newspapers that exist in that area, the size of the school, whether the school is an historically or architecturally important building, and perhaps whether the school is state owned or state regulated (and not some kind of scam), and so. James500 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes. That would apply to any article (apart from BLPs), not just secondary schools. "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I said above, we already have a special exemption in the rules for PRODs, so why not some restrictive categories to promote compliance with the applicable policies and guidelines? A significant minority of PRODs are already noncompliant and perhaps a tightening if the rules is just what’s needed.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, their is nothing in the rulebook that prevents a PROD. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people who think that every school is notable, no matter what. So while allowed, they will always attract objections. Straight to AfD is the more practical way. The Banner talk 00:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could settle on a brief recommendation or ”best practice” to add to one or more of the relevant project-space pages.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing photos

Hi, I'm wondering what the policy is regarding editing photos; especially historical photographs.

This image specifically [26] I feel is too bright / overexposed, so I was wondering if I could edit it to correct that.

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS In this case probably, since the image is pd anyway. And edited already. However, there's probably do:s and don't:s, try asking for guidance at Commons:Help desk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to encyclopedic use of photos, the overall general principle is that we should try to capture reality as closely as possible. Things like correcting an exposure help with that and are fine, I'd say. Something like boosting saturation to artificially make a photo seem more colorful than it actually was would not be OK. In between those poles, I'd say it's alright to use colorized images, but only if the caption clearly notes that the image has been modified. (A related task suggestion: Someone could compile a list of articles that use photos in commons:Category:Colorized photographs or subcats and add disclosures to the captions where needed.) Sdkbtalk 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I figured that as long as no substantial changes were made it would be fine. I fixed the exposure and improved the definition. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can be seen here [27]
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: image won't be removed or edited I fell it should

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phakomatosis

I was looking up my condition and found this page. When i went down to types to me it had a very horrid picture which should of been edited to hide areas

Now i tried to report it but admins said it cant be censored as its a using the WPP policy

Now i said it fell it should be censored due to it type of picture but they said to go here and discuss it under policy i fell the picture should be censored in areas

This is because the picture i fell is very incident and does need removing of possible 2A02:6B66:5430:0:A199:5B1C:6E44:34BE (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, you want to change Wikipedia's longstanding policy that we don't censor images? Oppose, per all the reasons already listed there. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only images like the one under that article. It should in my view have a black circle in intermate areas thats all 2A02:6B66:5430:0:A199:5B1C:6E44:34BE (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't looked at the article yet. What's the problem with the images? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a naked child thats the problem 2A02:6B66:5430:0:A199:5B1C:6E44:34BE (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to the IP, although Wikipedia is not censored, per WP:GRATUITOUS this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive and Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. This isn't to weigh one way or another in this particular case so much as to say we can rightly weigh this more carefully than immediately rejecting any call for sensitivity about an image. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 00:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an obligatory proper non-mobile wikilink to the Phakomatosis article. Graham87 (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two images that show naked children, but both are in the context of medical diagnosis and are sourced to reputable medical sources (like the Mayo Clinic). Sadly there are times where medically informative images need to go that direction due to the nature of the medical issue (this article appearing to be about conditions occurring in youth). Is it possible there are equivalent images that don't show as much? Maybe - the Mayo clinic's image is the worst offender here and it is because the larger image doesn't seem to identify any features of the symptoms with the one larger image. It would be helpful for editors to see if there are better images that avoid the issue of showing full nudity here, but removal just because they do show naked children in medical context is not really appropriate. Masem (t) 12:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical

Haitian Creole infobox problem

w:ht:Circle (Alaska) has a red link instead of an image. I think that w:ht:Template:Infobox kolektivite tèritoryal is meant to pull an image from d:Q974350, but even setting it locally doesn't work, and I can't figure out how to suppress the redlink.

I ran across this while trying to remove articles from the maintenance category at w:ht:Kategori:Paj ak lyen fichye kase. Does anyone have any ideas about what's gone wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked around the problem, but it seems like ht:Diskisyon_Modèl:Infobox_kolektivite_tèritoryal would be a good place to start instead of the English Wikipedia VPT. It looks like that template uses Template:Wikidata, which appears to be a copy of the French template, so fr:Discussion_modèle:Wikidata could also be a good place to ask for help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only editor who has ever replied on that page hasn't edited for three years now. The Haitian Creole community is basically two and a half people. (I'm the half.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previewing {{kolektivite tèritoryal}} without parameters produced an image below the infobox heading on ht:Circle, Montana but a broken file link on ht:Circle (Alaska). The cause was that Circle (Q974350) (Alaska) had two images which both had normal rank. I changed one to preferred rank [28] and it works now. The infobox might be recoded to just pick one image if there is no preferred rank but I'm not trying that. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently added the second image to the Wikidata entry, and the bug was happening before I did that. (I agree that both that I should have specified a preferred rank and that the infobox template needs work.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I have changed the preferred rank to the original image as a test [29] and {{kolektivite tèritoryal}} now fails. I guess the problem wasn't having two images but one of the Wikidata fields in the original image. It has three more fields than the new image, and a more complicated name with periods and commas. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signature error

I have had my signature for a long time, but it is now showing "Your signature contains invalid or deprecated HTML syntax". This must have happened fairly recently. The specific error is Lint errors/night-mode-unaware-background-color. Since I'm not sure how to fix this, can someone help? Ianmacm (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a false positive for this new error, which is supposed to be hidden and not affect signatures, according to WMF staff. I have filed T360797 with a simplified version of your signature illustrating the problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ianmacm, the short answer is that they want you to specify color:inherit in your signature code wherever you use "background" without a color:
'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c;color:inherit">Ma<span style="background:#aad;color:inherit">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>'''''
You'll also have to remove a few characters from your signature to make it fit. czar 17:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is all a bit beyond me, could you suggest a new version of the signature that would work?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it seems to have displayed correctly here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The developers deployed a patch to prevent this new Linter rule from applying to signatures (for now). If you want to future-proof your signature and keep it under 256 characters, this may work:
    '''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c;color:#cff">Ma<span style="background:#aad;color:#cff">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>'''''
    
    Jonesey95 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"As Session Musician" section for Ry Cooder article is invisible in Safari

I can see it in Firefox. But in Safari, the article ends with that section heading. And if I search for "Hiatt" on the page, it's highlighted in the invisible section, but I still can't see any text. I'm using Safari 17.4 and running Mac OS Sonoma 14.4. I also posted this to the article's Talk page. Peterh6658 (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Why was it visible in Firefox but not Safari? Peterh6658 (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Go (language) programmers

For any of you who are minimally familiar with how Go modules and packages and their paths are organized and fetched, I could use assistance. It's specifically for Wikipedia. I'm currently trying it locally on Windows command line, but will eventually need to use the SSH on Toolforge.

I'm trying to run a COPY of the this code on my machine. I downloaded "main.go" and tried to run that. I did the standard commands like:

% go mod tidy
% go mod init
% go run .

The problem comes from

import (
"yapperbot-frs/src/frslist"
)

or

% go get yapperbot-frs/src/frslist

I have also tried adding the prefix "github.com/mashedkeyboard/".

I get variations of this error:

go: github.com/mashedkeyboard/yapperbot-frs@upgrade (v.0.0.0-20200707114840-05dc9ccea578) requires github/mashedkeyboard/[email protected]: parsing go.mod:
module declares its own path as: yapperbot-frs
but was required as: github.com/mashedkeyboard/yapperbot-frs

Any ideas? Is it a problem with the go.mod on github, or something I should be doing to my local copy to avoid the error? I'm new to Go, but not to programming. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is it, but in the tried and true method of googling the error (which appears to be 'declares its path', no 'own') I found this:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/61311436/how-to-fix-parsing-go-mod-module-declares-its-path-as-x-but-was-required-as-y
The answer mentions a "replace directive", which appears to now be documented here (old link not available). – 2804:F1...19:9747 (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try that. I did find this thread on Google before coming here (to handle a different error report while trying to solve the same problem). Hopefully one of these works. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with a tracking category

Recently GA added "football" and some synonyms as valid GA nomination subtopics. This has apparently caused those articles to show up in Category:Good articles without topic parameter; see User talk:Hilst#Football vs. sports. What causes articles to be put in that category? Is there another location where the list of valid topics needs to be updated? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing Module:Good article topics/data? That module is used in Module:Good article topics, which is in turn used by Template:GA/Topic.
The documentation for GA/Topic says the following: "This template serves as a lookup list for GA topics in templates such as {{Article history}} and {{GA}}."
Note: The table of values in the documentation and in the category will not be updated automatically, that one is in {{GA topics}} – 2804:F1...19:9747 (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; will update as needed and see if that fixes everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like that fixed it; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making the Article Wizard JavaScript

I want to ask if we can consider coding a JavaScript article wizard in a similar manner we have a JavaScript File Upload Wizard? It would allow for stuff like prefilling of draft pages, etc. Awesome Aasim 19:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm spitballing here, but we already have something similar in the form of DYK-helper/wizard, perhaps by using {{subst:Biography}} together with adapted source code from the DYK-helper/wizard interface, something similar to what you're describing could be created. — Mugtheboss (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply script not loading properly?

For few days now I've been having trouble with the reply button: after I reply to one comment, the reply button will disappear and I have to reload the page to see it. Quite annoying when I want to leave multiple comments on the same page. This happens in English and Polish Wikipedia, in differne browsers (Chrome and Edge), and in two accounts I checked (I've an authorized alt). Is this a known problem? I am using the modern Vector skin and I haven't changed anything in my prefs/added new scripts/etc. recently AFAIK. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@piotrus . In this case, I suggest you may have to reset all previous settings in your preference and carefully setup your preference all over again. Secondly, force to stop and clear your browser data and log into your account again. Hopefully this might help. While i don't guarantee that this will work for you, but this steps does solve a lot of browser issues. Goodluck.
Thisasia  (Talk) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I use no skins (duh) and it happens to me too. I wasn't sure if that didn't always happen, but I only noticed it in the past few days as well. – 2804:F1...7E:615D (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do use a skin, everybody does. If you read Wikipedia on a desktop or similar, your skin is Vector 2022; if you read Wikipedia on a mobile device, your skin is Minerva Neue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that more in the "I'm using the default everything because I am an IP" sense, but sure, Vector 2022 then. – 2804:F1...14:BCC4 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing happens to me in Monobook. This is new behaviour; a week or two ago I could use "reply" several times on a page without reloading. —Kusma (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also see this on Vector 2010. I don't believe that I have changed anything relevant. Certes (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus Thanks for reporting this, I filed it as T360863 and it has already been patched, and the fix should be deployed here next Thursday. Matma Rex talk 20:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matma Rex Thank you! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile site: Clarify "bytes" in page history?

Just encountered this Twitter thread where someone looked at a page history on mobile, and thought that the bytes ± indicator was actually part of an upvote/downvote system. This isn't the first time I've seen someone make this mistake. On desktop, the bytes ± number appears right next to the total bytes and lots of other dense information, which I think makes it clearer that it's not a voting system, but on mobile it's more ambiguous. Perhaps it would make sense to add the word "bytes" on the mobile site? Just a letter "B" could work if "bytes" doesn't fit – not everybody would know what it means, but at least they'd be less likely to think it's a voting score. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "hover text" on that explains it is bytes, but it is otherwise absent there. Adding a units label to that would best be done upstream, you may make an enhancement request with the details. — xaosflux Talk 10:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hover text in mobile page histories is MediaWiki:Tooltip-last which says "Difference with preceding revision". In user contributions it is MediaWiki:Rc-change-size-new which says "$1 bytes after change of this size" (I added "of this size" in 2017). Desktop uses MediaWiki:Rc-change-size-new in both page histories and contributions. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you get the "size-new" if you have "advanced mode" enabled in mobile, and the other if you are not in advanced mode. Both are not very useful for the use case of non-hovered viewing. — xaosflux Talk 17:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-13

MediaWiki message delivery 18:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City park missing outline on map

Today, I discovered Shawnee Park in Louisville had incorrect coordinates in its infobox and WikiData, and so I corrected all that and tried to ensure WikiData for Shawnee Park has the data that its sister flagship parks in the same city, Cherokee Park and Iroquois Park, have. Now, I'm wondering why Shawnee Park won't show its boundaries in red on the map like is done for the other ones. Is there a setting somewhere I'm missing? Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 20:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I asking in the wrong place? Is there a spot to do map-related requests? Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 16:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved my question to the Help Desk as I found another park article with an inaccurate boundary, and I'd like to get these fixed. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation given on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#Red boundaries on interactive maps. The Equalizer (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to fix excess reply indentation

Hi, I'm wondering how one can fix excess reply indentation, as seen in this discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{od}}. You can also do something like {{od|::::::::::::::::::::::::}} (copy and paste in) if you want it to line up exactly. LittlePuppers (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does one have to manually add the template and the specific number of outdents (# of :s) to each individiual reply? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS: You do it like this. I took it to a maximum of eight colons, but that's an arbitrary level. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thank you IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this outdenting be done automatically when a certain number is reached? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, becauae sometimes you don't want that to happen. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but very rarely no? Wouldn't it be better to require some sort of coding/template (like <nowiki>) to prevent the automatic outdenting rather than the other way around? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page discussions - including this one - are performed by abusing HTML definition lists. I don't want to discuss the history of why we do it that way, it goes back more than twenty years and is very complicated. Suffice to say that attempts to change the way that discussions are formatted have frequently failed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It goes back more than twenty years and is very complicated." — Yeah, I figured as much. Thanks for the explanation. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted by providing tools or attempted by exhortation? Making it easier for people to do what you want can go a long way towards convincing them to do it. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with a script

I have most certainly installed this script: User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft, but it doesn't work. Any suggestions? Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@14 novembre your script, User:14 novembre/common.js is a mess. Clean up all the invalid javascript in there. — xaosflux Talk 22:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@14 novembre: The problem is these two edits. You need to completely remove those two lines, i.e.
{{tls|iusc|User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js}}
User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
because they are not JavaScript. If you really want the functionality of User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js, you need to follow the directions at User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft#Manual exactly as it says. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@14 novembre Though this none javascript code of yours aren't necessary, but if you wish to ever leave a none javascript code, then you must stringify and wrap them with the (Template string[``]) ending with a (semi colon [;]), so in your case this is the right way to go about it `{{tls|iusc|User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js}}. User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js`;.
Thisasia  (Talk) 03:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to create an anchor for a table row?

Help:Link#Table_row_linking refers to Help:Table#Section_link_or_map_link_to_a_row_anchor but that deeplink is broken. Uwappa (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would {{Anchor}} in the first cell of the row suffice? Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 02:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be a working workaround.
Yet, there seems to be a way to create an anchor for a row. How? Uwappa (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The workaround is the solution here because HTML tables don't provide for jump links within the table structure, as far as I know. A link is an inline object, after all. And cells contain inline objects. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 02:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uwappa: I think "id=" does what you're looking for, e.g. the "2023" row of the table in Oscar Piastri#Complete Formula One results starts with "|id=2023R" and Oscar Piastri#2023R takes you directly to that row of the table. DH85868993 (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly they assign the ID to a table cell rather than a row, from the page source thusly: <td id="2023R"> Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 03:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the link to Help:Tables and locations § Section link or map link to a row anchor.[32] id should be in the row start |- id="section link anchor name". {{Anchor}} can be used in cells but then the link may take you to the first text of a vertically centred cell without displaying the top of the row. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uwappa, StefenTower, and DH85868993: PrimeHunter describes the correct technique here. {{Anchor}} just adds extra complexity, and can only be used inside a cell, whereas the id="..." attribute may be used on any of the following: (i) the {| that begins the table; (ii) the |+ that marks a caption; (iii) the |- that marks a new row; (iv) the ! that begins a header cell; (v) the | that begins a data cell. The main difference between the last two and using {{anchor}} is that the former place the id on the cell itself, whereas {{Anchor}} places the id into a span element somewhere inside the cell, not necesarily at the beginning. Therefore, use id="..." in whichever table element is semantically correct, this aids accessibility. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the information. I guess I haven't worked with with tables enough to know things this sophisticated could be done with them. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 16:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StefenTower: The five places that I described for placing an id= attribute may also be used for class= and style= attributes. These are among the global attributes that are valid on all HTML elements. I suspect that some of the others, such as dir=, lang= and title=, may also be used in the same positions. I should, at some point, look into carrying out proper tests and writing it up, perhaps in Help:HTML in wikitext. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the |- id="section link anchor name" works like a charm for a row. Thanks. Uwappa (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlandic #Babel messages are actually Danish

Hi! Posting here in the hope someone with the right editing permissions can fix this, because I don't have an account on translatewiki.net and the user who initially reported this issue said they found that even creating an account didn't give them sufficient editing rights to edit the pages there: The Wikimedia hashtag-#Babel system's messages for Greenlandic are actually Danish: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, N. Wikipedia's and Wiktionary's native, wiki-internal Babel templates, OTOH, have the relevant Greenlandic text (see wikt:Template:User kl-1, wikt:Template:User kl-2, etc), if someone can copy it over. (I posted about this some years ago and someone fixed kl-0 but not, I now notice, any of the others.) -sche (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the linked messages have a history tab so none of them have been created. That means a fallback language is used per mw:Manual:Language#Fallback languages. For Greenlandic the first fallback language is Danish which makes sense. Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark and Greenland#Languages says: "The majority of the population speak both Danish and West Greenlandic Kalaallisut (the most populous Eskaleut language). They have been used in public affairs since the establishment of home rule in 1979. In practice, Danish is still widely used in administration, academics, and skilled trades and other professions." Many small languages have translated relatively few MediaWiki messages. It's done by volunteers and is always a work in progress since new interface messages are often added. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special:MessageGroupStats&group=mediawiki says Greenlandic has 47,478 untranslated messages out of 48,004 so they have translated 1%. Many languages are worse. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to copy them over to Translatewiki, but I don't know which translations are correct. Even looking at the very first template, they are different on different projects:
If you know the language, or know someone who knows it, I can help copy their translations to the right place. Or they could go to https://translatewiki.net and become a translator themself. Matma Rex talk 14:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reFill & reFill 2 not working?

I have tried to run both of these citation-fixers several times today and every time I try to run them I get a FAILED An error has occurred. So is it me or is it the system... Shearonink (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only seem to have this issue when I attempt to run it on an article I am working on atm - Joseph Yablonski. Shearonink (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello @Shearonink I'm not very clear about your message but do you mean you are having difficulties with the Auto citation when try to add references? If that's the case, then here is a quick tips on how I usually bypass that.
First use a different browser that is not logged in with your wiki account, run the Auto citation again and after when successful, then comeback to your main browser in which your account is logged in and try again ✅
I'm not sure of the cause of this technical problem, but this usually occur to me when I have used the Auto citation several times. Hence the only option is to try with a different browser that is not log in with your account. If this isn't the problem u are talking about please explain further.
Thisasia  (Talk) 01:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some wikilink t(r)ails

Should

be completely wikilinked or are we OK with the status quo? That's $linkTrail in MessagesEn.php. This has become more obvious since the change of wikilink colors. Ponor (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking about possibly changing the linktrail rules in MediaWiki then it's not controlled by the English Wikipedia. phab:T47126 has old discussion. If you are asking whether we should write [[bezant|bezantée]] to produce bezantée instead of bezantée (where ée is not link colored) then it isn't mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking but I would certainly say yes. You can post a suggestion to the talk page if you want a guideline about it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am asking about possibly changing the linktrail rule. Help:Link seems to suggest that the first two examples should be completely wikilinked, and they're not.
There was an attempt to fix this, which was reverted here, but things might have changed with the old dependencies by now (and there are other ways to do it anyway).
Any change to MessagesEn.php needs local consensus, which is why I’m asking here. Ponor (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Link describes Batman's as the right thing, which is a reasonable but debatable opinion. Ignoring WP:OL, Worldschmerz also seems right. as World tells the reader nothing about schmerz (though Weltschmerz does). The others are a bug. The good news is that its ticket's priority was raised to Low ten years ago, so the WMF may find the funding to fix it real soon now. Certes (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes, if [[Batman]]'s produced Batman's at some point, the meaining of "this does the right thing for possessives" might have been different. It, for me, surely looks ugly as Batman's now. Where they mention [[a]]''b'', it's said "this rule also applies", where by "the rule" they mean that the trail should be wikilinked, I believe.
I am not here to discuss the particular examples, I only used the -schmerz example instead of the one generic one in Help:Link. The question is purely technical. Ponor (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it doesn't say what "the right thing" is other then implying it is however the page looked when the text was written. That may well be with the 's also linked. If so then we should be fixing this globally in MediaWiki rather than by editing all the wikitext to work around a bug. Certes (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist feed filtering doesn't work

Wikipedia:Syndication#Watchlist feed with token describes how to use an RSS feed with a watchlist tokem. However, when I try it, the filtering parameters don't seem to work. The documentation for these parameters is at mw:API:Watchlist feed. Here are some tests:

Am I missing something here? — Qwerfjkltalk 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source quality tags

Could we add source tags (independent or not, is it reliable or not, etc) which are starting to be visible in visual editor as an opt in. I think it would help when writing a new draft and doing a self check of its notability, and to assist reviewers in carrying out their reviews (reviewer adds such tags for each source and instructs draft author how to view these tags to aid the new author in understanding which sources are better and which are worse). There could be semi-automated tagger which suggests in edit mode to tag youtube sources as unreliable, for example. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 00:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

RfC: Converting all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure

Should all community discretionary sanctions (DS) be updated to use the new contentious topics procedure? Awesome Aasim Refreshed 01:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC) 05:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

In late 2022/early 2023, the discretionary sanctions procedure was overhauled by ArbCom and converted to "contentious topics". With now two different processes for two different kinds of sanctions there is now a lot of fragmentation and inconsistency in how contentious topics should be handled, with even conflicting wording. The main goal of this RfC is to unify the procedure used for all areas where general sanctions are in effect with the one designated by ArbCom, going forward.

As proposed at this time, there will be the some similarities and differences between community and arbitration contentious topics, including:

  • The imposition of the standard set of restrictions by consensus of administrators in a community designated topic would be at WP:ANI rather than WP:AE.
  • Reconsideration of contentious topic restrictions would be done at WP:AN instead of at WP:AE or WP:ARCA.
  • Awareness of a community contentious topic would include but not be limited to being mentioned in the discussion closing summary regarding that contentious topic, which is the closest there is to a "final decision".

And of course, ArbCom would be able to convert community contentious topics to those designated by the committee, after which all the ArbCom venues would have to be used from that point forward, though existing restrictions would remain appealable to WP:AN until renewed at ArbCom.

Survey (community contentious topics)

  • Support as proposer. It needs to be clear, especially for new editors, what contentious topics are and what the expectations are for editing topics designated as contentious by either ArbCom or the community. A unified procedure will ensure consistency rather than fragmentation and will make editing the list of contentious topics and their restrictions much easier. (I did do a little bit of work in the Module:Sanctions/sandbox adding in support for ArbCom contentious topics, as it would make it so much easier to use the related sanction templates. I also did work in user space to help envision what a unified contentious topics page might look like.) Awesome Aasim 05:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose The current iteration of WP:CTOP is far too tied in to the Arbitration Committee. The available sanctions and procedures are under the jurisdiction of WP:AC/PR can be modified by the Committee by motion at any time, which in this scenario would be binding on decisions made by the community without community consensus. Additionally, many of the General Sanctions areas have a set of restrictions that either exceed what CTOP would allow, or have a more limited subset of them. The community currently has the flexibility to customize sanctions based on the needs of the individual topic area (similar to how Arbcom can impose their own restrictions either alone or on top of the CTOP designation), rather than relying on a "one size fits all" solution. Regarding the possibility of Arbcom choosing to convert community-based CTOP to Arbitration Enforcement, the Committee already has the power to supercede and convert General Sanctions. They've done so before, in cases including WP:ARBCC and WP:ARBTPM. This proposal as written would reduce the community's autonomy and flexibility for the sake of consistency, and I don't see that as a net positive.
    I would, however, support the community adopting a "standard/default" DS language that could be used when customization isn't needed, and reviewing all the existing GS areas to see if they should be abolished or modernized. Updating our own process, templates, info pages etc to completely separate from the Arbcom version would also accomplish this proposal's goal of reducing confusion and would be better than the current system of sometimes linking to CTOP, sometimes linking DS which redirects to CTOP (when they really mean the older version of DS), sometimes a completely different thing with no consistency. Template:Gs/alert is one example of this, where it links to WP:CTOP even when the actual restrictions are unrelated to that designation. Revamping our own procedures would be a better way to reduce fragmentation and confusion than glomming onto what Arbcom chooses to do. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not exactly seeing how this is a dealbreaker. The CT procedure applies only to designated contentious topics; community consensus or arbitration remedies can always add additional sanctions regardless of WP:CTOP like in WP:ARBPIA. Awesome Aasim 22:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The phrase "discretionary sanctions" is not clear and so the phrase "contentious topics" was introduced as an improvement. We should have clear and consistent language for contentious matters so that discussions and actions are comprehensible. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The "sanctions regimes" are too complex as it is, and we need to use consistent terminology to reduce that complexity when possible.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The contentious topics procedure incorporates all of the improvements from the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions procedure. Compared to the discretionary sanctions procedure, the contentious topics procedure is much easier to understand and follow. For example, many editors currently need to be reminded of topic areas under community sanctions every 12 months to be eligible for certain remedies, which led to complaints in the 2021-22 review. Switching from discretionary sanctions to contentious topics would eliminate this requirement: "Editors no longer need to be alerted every 12 months, as they are presumed to remain aware after their first alert." — Newslinger talk 04:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support making the rules clear and consistent to all users. A big part of the problems I've had with DS is that I couldn't tell what was expected of me. No comment on whether this new way of doing things is better or worse than the old one, but it sounds like this isn't that conversation. I 100% support clear and proactive explanations of what Wikipedia does and does not want from its editors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support making the rules clear and consistent for all editors. Let'srun (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support standardization — as is, the current discrepancy is an unintended relic, not a feature. Community-imposed vs Arbcom-imposed sanctions is a clerical, technical distinction, and I cannot think of any good reason not to streamline the two into the same concept, for the sake of simplicity and understanding. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Contentious topics is confusing enough by itself. Two similar but not identical rules is too much. I support any efforts to standardize our sanction systems. Galobtter (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in the abstract – it might require some case-by-casing, but I think in general, having one set of rules for everyone is much cleaner and easier to understand for those trying to follow the road. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (despite abstract support) as ANI has generally been the wrong forum for General Sanctions work. In my mind it should be a pump or AN and ANI should be out of the whole system. I also think it's a missed opportunity to not allow community GS to be heard at AE. There is already the community option for AN but this proposal would have created the option of using AE which is the forum many think about anyway. Outside of these details I'm supportive of the effort (given the fact that amongthe few who have expressed an opinion there seems to be overall support). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ivan (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't have anything to add beyond what Galobtter said - perfectly expressed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (community contentious topics)

Cooperation of ArbCom

I wonder if adding in stuff to the WP:CTOP page and similar would require the petition and referendum process. If so, then I guess the merging of templates would have to hold off until a former petition and request for amendment actually passes. It is possible ArbCom will green light the merge if this RfC passes, but I do not know. Awesome Aasim 05:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the community should work with the arbitration committee to assume responsibility for the contentious topic process, with a pointer to an arbitration-committee specific page where it can customize the process as it feels necessary. This would bring the process under community control, while still allowing the arbitration committee to adapt it to its needs. (There is no change to arbitration policy and so no need to amend it.) isaacl (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that just be the status quo (or perhaps the old GS/DS) status quo? I think Arbcom is more agile than the community in drafting this kimd language given that passing a motion is easier than an RfC and motions can be adjusted mid vote which is nearly impossible to do with an RfC. Truthfully I think the right place to start is with the standardized language for community GS and perhaps to be more intentional about whether it wants its restrictions to be eligible to be heard at AE, though as The Wordsmith points out there are really good reasons for the community to decide not to do that. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The process for authorizing discretionary sanctions was documented by the committee, and then later the community started authorizing discretionary sanctions, with its process pointing to the Arbitration Committee pages and saying, "like that". This resulted in the community's process being coupled to decisions made by the arbitration committee. I'm suggesting the reverse: have the community assume responsibility for the contentious topics process, and then the arbitration committee can point to it and say, "like that, but with our specific customizations". I agree the community can decide on its own on what contentious topic process it wants to create. I think it would be good, though, to check with the committee that it is amenable to adopting the community process as a base, and layering any desired differences on top. isaacl (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That also sounds like a good idea: community authorizes the remedies that are appropriate, ArbCom implements them. If ArbCom were to deviate then they would just need to ask the community whether it is an appropriate deviation or not. Awesome Aasim 17:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The committee doesn't have to be constrained by the community as it is already authorized through the arbitration policy to enact remedies of its devising for matters within its scope. It would be simpler for editors to understand, though, if the arbitration committee version of the process was just a set of differences upon a common process. Differences could include things like additional administrator actions that could be performed, or a specific venue for appeals. isaacl (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you know what I mean :)
WP:ARBECR is already used a lot by both the community and by ArbCom, like in WP:RUSUKR and WP:CT/A-I. What I am saying is if ArbCom feels that a specific sanction that there has never been any precedent for is necessary, they should propose it to the community, where there then can be consensus on the exact wording. Placement, enforcement, and appeals are all going to differ though depending on whether the restriction is placed by the community or ArbCom. Awesome Aasim 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The community can provide feedback on proposed decisions. I disagree that the committee needs to obtain community consensus on new types of remedies. The arbitration committee is empowered to impose a restriction that community consensus has been unable to reach through prior dispute resolution. If you are referring specifically to the standard set of restrictions that can be imposed for designated contentious topics, I still disagree that community consensus should be mandatory. Typically the committee will provide an opportunity for feedback and the last review of discretionary sanctions illustrates that it strives to lighten the load of enforcing administrators. isaacl (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the extended-confirmed restriction, it was initially devised by the committee on its own. After taking some time to evaluate its effectiveness, the community chose to adopt it as an available restriction. isaacl (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with isaacl that ARBPOL and CONEXEMPT explicitly mean that the committee does not have to, with-in its scope, get community consensus.
However, ECR is a example of why I think the committee is better placed at the moment to be a leader when it comes to contentious topics. The committee having to deal with the absolute hardest conflicts means there is going to be more of an incentive to try something new and ~15 people are going to have an easier time getting to yes than what is required to get community consensus for that newness. It's also revealing to me that ArbCom gets more requests for us to assume community imposed sanctions (examples: COVID, Horn of Africa as two that the committee did assume and Russia-Ukraine War as one that committee has twice been asked to assume and haven't). I would really love it if the community could, as it does in so many other ways, demonstrate broader capabilities when it comes to general sanctions than it has in the past. And to that end getting consensus for some standard wording would be a great place to start. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the arbitration committee is better positioned to try new approaches (consensus doesn't scale up well, so getting consensus amongst 15 people is definitely easier). In a similar vein as you expressed, I feel it would be ideal for the community to agree on a base contentious topics process, which the committee could extend in new ways that the community could later choose to incorporate back into the base process. isaacl (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:DS2022, one of the changes made was to allow the community to make use of AE. I think we should do so. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think we should split contentious topics from WP:AELOG. A separate contentious topics log would make restrictions much easier to follow - and, if the restriction is rescinded or converted from community to ArbCom or the other way around - it can be logged as well. Awesome Aasim 21:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request revision to initial question

The statement all community general sanctions (DS) in the initial question is misleading. "General sanctions" is not synonymous with community authorization for discretionary sanctions. I think the intent should be clarified that the proposal only affects discretionary sanctions authorized by the community, and not all general sanctions. isaacl (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaacl Done. Awesome Aasim 20:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tag Refreshed

I refreshed the RfC tag because there is not enough input to gauge consensus. Could this be because this is uncontroversial or what? Awesome Aasim 19:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could well be :) Selfstudier (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because many editors simply don't know what's going on. I didn't know this discussion was taking place. I'm still not sure what the change in policy is, only that, if it has been changed, the system should be clear about it. Are we dissolving Discretionary Sanctions? Is AE not going to be a thing any more? Is it merging with ANI? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkfrog24 The question is really just about making community sanctions use the new contentious topics procedure. Awesome Aasim 23:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. What is the new CT procedure? Do you know how it's different? I just read through one of the links that Newslinger provided above, and I'm having trouble picking out differences. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For full details, see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. It's basically a renamed version of discretionary sanctions, with changes made based on community feedback received during the 2021–22 review of discretionary sanctions. Some highlights: there is a standard set of restrictions that a single administrator can impose on their own discretion. Restrictions outside of these can be imposed by a consensus discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Sanctions are no longer limited to one year, but after a year, sanctions that were imposed by a single adminstrator no longer have to be discussed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard to be modified. Users no longer have to be made aware of each specific topic area. They only have to be notified once using a specific template about the contentious topic system. Striking out inaccurate description. isaacl (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users no longer have to be made aware of each specific topic area. They only have to be notified once using a specific template about the contentious topic system. That would contradict the CTOP regime. Even among the Arbcom sanctions, editors still have to be notified about topic areas individually. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I misspoke. A specific template only has to be used for the first notification about the contentious topic system in general. Subsequently, any form of notification can be used to inform a given user about specific contentious topics. Previously, a specific template had to be used for each affected topic area. isaacl (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not all community sanctions, but community-authorized discretionary sanctions. isaacl (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time for a new design for the main page?

Hi, Wikipedians,

I believe it's time to consider updating the design of the main page. I'm not certain when the current style was implemented, but it seems to date back to 2006 or even earlier. Nowadays, there are numerous modern and colorful box templates available that could give the page a more contemporary look. What are your thoughts on starting this initiative? After all, the main page represents our entire community. I understand that changing a familiar style can be challenging for many users, but it's part of the natural cycle of updates.

Best regards, Riad Salih (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't broke, don't fix it. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 It still looks good on Desktop and even on my phone, in Monobook and Minerva. Everything is in one column and the content is very readable.The WordsmithTalk to me 17:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the main page is good enough (there could be some changes however) mer764KCTV5 (He/Him | tc) 04:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This contradicts the well-established community consensus of “ain’t broke, let’s break it and pretend we might fix it later”. 216.147.126.60 (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, true, and appropriate.
I agree. ProofCreature (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The main page as it is is beautiful. Pksois23 (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to review Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Redesign the Main Page. Anomie 03:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians don't like change (see above), so it's not going to happen without a lot of work, but I do agree that it's time for a redesign. Since the last major attempts a decade ago, responsive design technology has advanced enormously, a new design system has been rolled out across Mediawiki, and we got a new default skin. All of this makes the main page look particularly dated and out of place in 2024. Ideally, we'd proceed by asking Wikimedia's design team to lend us their expertise and create something new – subject to community-agreed goals and constraints but not a crude yes/no vote on using it (which would inevitably fall afoul of the "change is bad" phenomenon). – Joe (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Riad Salih You could probably get consensus for the general idea that the MP should be changed, but the consensus would break down over what specifically to change it to, as everyone has their own idea about that. As noted, this is a constantly made proposal. The best chance of success would probably be to propose incremental changes, one at a time- a wholesale redesign would never gain consensus. Even a small change would take much work to convince others to support and implement. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We don't like change" says the group of people who made over one billion two hundred million changes to a single website. :-) —⁠andrybak (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change for the sake of change!
People can contribute and don't wish for anything they don't change to not change. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One idea that might get approval is moving to a single column. The current layout was well designed when pages used the whole screen, but there are very few words on each line now that we have two thin columns shoehorned into a narrow stripe down the middle of the screen with an acre of empty white space either side. Certes (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The white space is probably from the skin you are using. It looks fine in legacy vector. Easier to change the skin to something that you like rather than change the main page for everyone RudolfRed (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a purely selfish viewpoint (which is allowed, as this is an aesthetic matter), I want the main page to remain unchanged. I use Vector 2010, and everything looks just fine to me. However, the vast majority of readers don't have the luxury of setting that preference, and are stuck with wide blank sidebars. Certes (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I use the full width view of new Vector, but when checking it on the narrow width, it looks fine to me. A little narrow perhaps, but not nearly constrained enough IMO to obviate the advantages of a two-column view. ― novov (t c) 08:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VECTOR2022 should just be reversed. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Joe Roe said, Wikipedians are usually a little less open to change than a cube of iron. But do you have any specific ideas? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot @Anomie @Certes @Cremastra @Joe Roe @Mir Novov @Pppery @RudolfRed @
What do you think, for example, of the design of the main page of the Spanish Wikipedia? Or the Portuguese version or Turkish?
Regards Riad Salih (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of like the Spanish version, but Vector 2022 forces the text to wrap in a weird way because it's so narrow. The Turkish version is pretty similar to en.wiki's, and wouldn't be much of an improvement. I also looked at the Chinese MP (fine, but too white) the French one (I quite like it, actually), and and what I believe is the Slovakian one, which I also quite like. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra Yes, I do agree with that, especially the Slovakian one. However, you know we still need ideas from other contributors, which can be challenging. Nevertheless, I will make an effort to advocate the idea of changing the main page design. Riad Salih (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the gradients in the Slovakian one make it look very dated, like an early-2000s PowerPoint template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 15:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Slovakian one is too dated. I don't see any problems with the Spanish version under vanilla V22. Maybe swap POTD with On this day for slightly longer line lengths for the latter, make Other projects full-width (and maybe unbox it), and of course adapt ITN to our format, but I don't think the Spanish version needs any more changes. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur that it's a good idea. IMO, some of the other Wikipedias have Main Pages that put enWP's one to shame. But as others have stated, good luck finding something that everyone can agree on. ― novov (t c) 08:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something particular you feel is a problem with the current design? – Teratix 09:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it’s probably best to make changes one by one, so that consensus would be more likely. Like one change per discussion. 71.239.86.150 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redesign it, but in a way that removes ITN and DYK. Both are massive investments for very little return, and much of the content they display is low quality. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking excuse me? How the heck are the articles that we've vetted low quality? ITN gives us some global perspective and is one way readers could keep themselves up to date in current events. DYK makes everything a bit more fun for everyone and trivia is fun. Both highlight our utility as an online encyclopedia and good work on our behalf. Removing it would make no sense at all. It has worked, it is working, and it returns. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu: The problem with opening remarks such as Fucking excuse me? is rather that they invite a retort along the lines of, yes, well, "fucking excuse you".
Regarding the gist—How the heck are the articles that we've vetted low quality—I think what Thebiguglyalien might be getting at is that simply undergoing a vetting process is insufficient; it is the quality of the vetting that is important, and so by extension, the quality of those doing the vetting. If, for example, ITN and DYN undergo a lightweight review which is perhaps keener on filling slots and reducing backlogs than ensuring the integrity of the main page, then it would be unsurprising, in some eyes, if these processes came under extra scrutiny, hein. Some might also argue that trivia—however much "fun" it is—is incompatable with an encyclopedia that aspires, where possible, to serious scholarship. HTH! ——Serial 16:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed explanation, though I don't think the vetting that we do is low-quality. At least at ITN we do a pretty big referencing pass.
I also wonder what you mean by "hein". A dictionary search shows that it is 1. surprisingly not German 2. Dutch for death 3. French and Portuguese for "huh?". Is that last one what you meant? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu:, indeed, I know no German or Dutch! But yes, a "huh" because I wasn't speaking for myself on the quality of the vetting, merely that it's a view (among others, of course, as you point out.) Cheers, ——Serial 17:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cremastra/MP looks fine to me. What do you think of the changes here? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the work, but unfortunately I don't like it very much:
  1. I don't know any good ways to fix this, but flushing the Welcome banner's text to the left leaves a lot of blank space in the rest of the box, making it feel weird.
  2. We already have a search box; we don't need another one.
  3. The third column has line lengths that are way too short in the limited width. That makes the excessive space to the right of the descriptions all the more jarring. And that is in my version of V22 enhanced with my private styles. Under the normal limited width all the columns have line lengths that are too short and the sister projects' descriptions run off the page.
  4. Something feels wrong about the concept of giving that much prominence to our sister projects. Wikipedia readers are hardly gonna go there and this introduces a lot of colorful icons that clutter up your attention. Previously it'd only take attention when you scroll/look down and want to dedicate attention to it.
  5. Lots of useless blank space under the third column.
  6. Probably a bug, but Other areas of Wikipedia appears twice.
Aaron Liu (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cremastra/MP: using Galobtter's design for the main portion. I think a large prominent search box on the main page is a good idea, though, as opposed to a redundancy. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does look much better! Combining the search box with the first box seems alright, though maybe I'd use the tagline "Search free knowledge". I'd also recommend making the globe logo stick to the bottom of its box, replacing the whitespace between the first two boxes with a horizontal rule, and maybe put the occasional banner before that rule with a white background. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the search box, but I like the top banner otherwise, especially the logo in the bottom left. Galobtter (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WPAds should be isolated. Maybe it could replace the search box.
Also, any ideas for how to eradicate that awkward gap below the image for the first box? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been consensus to remove portal links, so the "Look through content portals" part should be omitted. ObserveOwl (chit-chatmy doings) 09:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the portal links should be omitted, especially since previous consensus is to do so. Also, I don't think that the Wikipedia Ad should be present, and I'm not sure about how the logo is presented. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR Oh, I just put in the ad for fun. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. Still, the portal links need to go, and I'm not sure why we only display 1/4 of the globe logo. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean about the globe logo. The logo is visible on all pages. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the corner of the globe that you placed next to "Welcome to Wikipedia!" QuicoleJR (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's common across Wikipedias, e.g., see fr:. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks cool Aaron Liu (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we modernize it, I suggest we make it like eswiki's (which happens to be adapted from ruwiki's). It's OOUI, modernized and is in a familiar layout, though I might make the "other projects" part full-width. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I quite like eswiki's, but I would only change the style, and leave how ITN and etc are formatted as is. But, strongly support changing the "Welcome to Wikipedia" header Pksois23 (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the eswik's too, clean and simple Riad Salih (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like it too Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
eswiki looks really good vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 13:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think people will support a new main page design as soon as they're shown a new main page design that they like. I would encourage people who are so inclined to create and share mockups of new main page designs. Eventually someone will make something that enough people like. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW my 2c: make the main page, en.wikipedia.org, look much more like www.wikipedia.org: a minimalist interface, with a prominent search bar, to which I'd add prominent display of TFA and FP. Like maybe FP centered at the top, search bar below that, and TFA below that. But I'm no web designer though so I'm not sure exactly how that should all look. Levivich (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This, but for WikiProjects, which are largely bland and uninviting. This is something I've felt for a long time, but have just now worked up the courage to say... so be nice. heh. (but isn't it obvious?) Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 07:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by a wikiproject redesign? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too complicated to go into here. Probably best for discussion at the WikiProject Council. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 19:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. This is going to be harder than Vector 2022. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane I will quote you :"Ignore all rules and be the change that you want to see" so Idecided to take the initiative to make the first step. Riad Salih (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what would that be? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have, say, the current main page visible to users with the Vector legacy skin, but a main page similar to eswiki's for Vector 2022 users? This way we could keep up the "modern" look for Vector 2022, but keep the "legacy" style for Vector legacy. I just don't know if this is technologically feasible. ‍ Relativity 03:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current main page has no problems to view in Vector 2022. That said, it should be possible with CSS selectors. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am dubious Why? No clear argument for why this would be desirable. Can we be sure it would not lower general accessibility depending on the device being used to access the site? I am not adamantly opposed to sprucing things up a bit. But the oft quoted adage "if it aint broke, don't fix it," definitely comes to mind. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think where previous proposals have failed before is in trying to do many changes at the same time (e.g. changing the emphasis of different parts of the main page while also restyling it). Anyways I have a modest proposal, under the principal that less is more and that the boxes around everything is the most dated part of the main page, at User:Galobtter/sandbox/Main page. It could do more work from someone who actually knows how to design (I like ptwiki's main page header a lot and that could be incorporated), but all I did was basically remove unnecessary (imo) styling. Galobtter (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I like that! Zanahary (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that! It's simpler but clearer. Although something seems a little off with the header box, the lack of border makes it feel poorly-defined to me. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like it, but I think the margins around each section need to be a little more generous if there are no borders. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 15:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also like this. While we're at it, maybe align DYK with On this day Aaron Liu (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's done manually by admins each day since aligning depends on how much content is in each of the sections. Galobtter (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't we add padding to the bottom of TFA, like ptwiki seems to do? Also the manual alignment doesn't seem to be working for me Aaron Liu (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like a lot of that, but (at least on Desktop on MonoBook) the colored section headers only seem to have a thin border on the bottom and nothing on the other 3 sides. Much better than the es.wiki one linked above, which is visually clean but seems to lack any sort of flavor. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the border's supposed to be like the heading's border.
    I believe that whatever we think about the rest of it, we should adopt the first box of the eswiki/ruwiki main page. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    colored section headers only seem to have a thin border on the bottom and nothing on the other 3 sides is intentional - I wanted to have a simple header style rather than having an unnecessary box around the headers. Yeah, I liked ptwiki's a lot more than eswiki's, which is probably technically the "best" in terms of modernization but is too bland. Galobtter (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My proposal would be to change the boxes to a very light gray and then remove the border. 71.239.86.150 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ahecht I added 1px of margin, which was missing since I removed the 1px border. It looks ok to me now, although you might be right that more margin is needed. @User:Cremastra I stole the box shadow from ptwiki - what do you think now?
    I want to avoid doing more with this, since I think that's where previous proposals have failed - people want some of the changes but not others so it ends up a whole mess. And since at least some people seem to like this, I might try to put it up for RfC soon, but want to make sure there aren't small tweaks needed to what I've done. Galobtter (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support it at the RfC stage, but unfortunately I doubt it would pass. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another idea would be to use light gray rounded rectangles, because rounded rectangles are a very common part of modern web design. 71.239.86.150 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes they're common but Wikipedia and mw:Codex, our design language, never use them. That would be completely alien to the rest of the encyclopedia. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a visceral dislike for rounded rectangles, possibly because they are now so prevalent. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably, yes it is time, however the problem is not to change the design, it is how to herd the cats without them canabalizing themselves. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is that graphic metaphor supposed to mean? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you try to get a lot of people to make a decision together, they often spend more time attacking each other than they do collectively moving in any productive direction, if I understood the metaphor correctly. Levivich (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's needed is a brainstorming RfC process like is currently being done for RfA. This gives an opportunity for a variety of ideas to be suggested and we can then see what sticks. For example, I'm most interested in structural change -- amending the section order and content so that the featured picture and ITN swap places so that ITN can expand coverage of its recent death entries. Issues like this can't be resolved by the editors who maintain the individual sections and so an overall mainpage forum is needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think expanding coverage of RD entries is needed much, and the POTD often needs a dedicated row due to its image size.
    We're currently kinda designing some layouts, so a more formal workshopping process should begin when we have more proposals. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you go to one column, you won't have to worry about balance. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be wasting a lot of space. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that would be allowing the text and images to spread across the screen instead of being cramped into tiny corners. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we need all the text and images to spread across the screen? They don't gain anything from being wider. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think that a larger image and prose that isn't chopped into tiny sections that resemble the old "See spot. See Spot run. Run, Spot, run." children's books would be useful?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I don't have a childhood,[Joke] I'm not sure what you're talking about.
    We do not have an overabundance of blurbs, blurb words, recent deaths or DYK hooks. Besides size limitations, there's a reason newspapers separate every single article into columns. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a mobile user, I quite like the one-column design. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The most popular view or Wikipedia is the mobile one and that's already one column. We should therefore be designing and optimising for that as the primary interface. The balance issue is absurd in that it often causes ITN admins to remove news entries -- form rather than function. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remind me what happened the last time a bunch of editors thought Wikipedia was optimizing for the mobile view. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The most popular editing view for Wikipedia is desktop, not mobile. Alienating the site’s most essential users is a serious risk to take. If there had been no way to revert the Vector 2022 and recent line height changes, I would have been strongly alienated from Wiki and contributed way less. Zanahary (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most editors are not allowed to edit the main page and so we have a frozen format which is alienating too. What's needed is a process for making changes which allows the main page to evolve. Perhaps there could be an annual update. During the year, there would be a beta test version to trial proposals and then a confirmation and release process at the end of each annual cycle. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we'd need to change the main page every year. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Maybe changing every 3 years would be a better idea. 71.239.86.150 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like we should only change it if we should, not force a change every 3 years. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we'd need to establish a list of a couple potential designs, and start an official RfC Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An RfC which would unfortunately fail. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cremastra Not necessarily, there's quite a few people in this thread who would support that idea. That's also what the purpose of an RfC is: gather consensus, and if it is a quick-fail, so be it. What do others think? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least your (and Galobtter's) small upgrade would probably pass. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't bet on it. :/ 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal may have met with a more favourable response if the proposer had suggested some concrete ways in which s/he would like the Main Page changed. I do have a suggestion, and that is we could include a box listing some of the new articles in Wikipedia in Wikipedia: Main Page. I do not know how many new articles are created on Wikipedia each day, but it could be dozens, and we only need to list a handful of them to make the Main Page show Wikipedia is a developing project. YTKJ (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    nominally, that'd be DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But not all the articles listed at DYK are new articles. I was hoping some recent change patrollers could enlighten me as to how many articles are likely to be created on Wikipedia each day, to know whether my suggestion is tenable. YTKJ (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DYKRULES require the article to be created, expanded fivefold or made GA this week. That's basically articles which are either new or newly worth featuring. A stub which occupied the title of this week's good work for a decade shouldn't block it from DYK. Certes (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a great idea! I support it Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And most of those articles are probably pretty bad. DYK fills that role, and DYK is at least slightly vetted. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A DYK hook can be extracted from nearly every article that satisfies DYK's very basic criteria. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a redesign With V22 rolling out, the main page has become quite squashed, with very short line lenghts, tiny images, and a general bloated feel. It would be great to redesign this, probably by stealing ideas from other editing communities. The Spanish Wikipedia design would definitely get support from me, but I think we can make this into a more responsive design, so that we can use modern screen sizes more optimally. There are two columns, so the arguments for V22 giving up screen space are not transferable. Easiest is probably taking one small step at a time. Is it possible to widen the main page in V22? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a different Main Page on the app

Nobody ever seems to mention this, so I think it might just not be generally known -- seriously, go look if you don't believe me -- there is a different Main Page on the app with completely different sections that are not put together by the editing community. It has totally different stuff, some sections are missing and there are sections that only show up on the app's main page, et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 05:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really? The sections are Featured article, On this day, Featured image, Most visited articles, and Random article. It's not totally different by any means, and I don't think it needs consideration when we think about a main page redesign. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So is someone going to let the people at DYK and FLC know that they were deemed unimportant and removed from the main page, then? If this is just being done unilaterally by the fiat of app developers, does it really matter what the community decides should be there? jp×g🗯️ 15:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It matters, because most people use the website. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback sought for proposal to drop archival bot notice params from Template:Talk header

Your feedback would be appreciated at Template talk:Talk header#Proposal to drop archiving params. The {{Talk header}} template has no control over Talk page archiving, but it does have four params used to generate a "bot notice" in the header box which says something like: "Archiving: 90 days" (plus a tooltip with more info). It's just a string displayed in the header, which may or may not reflect what the actual archiving period is. A recent change to Template:Talk header automates the generation of this string directly from the archive config, rendering the four Talk header params unnecessary. Imho, they should be deleted from the template in order to prevent misleading bot notices in the Template header box when the given params get out of sync with the config. More details at the proposal discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk header is a highly visible template, so I've added {{subst:DNAU|3|weeks}} to this discussion to give it sufficient time to air. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI for WP guidelines/ policies

I propose following 2 things, either one or second.

Proposal 1: Create AI for Wikipedia by taking existing model and feeding it the guidelines and policies. This will make it easier to find relevant policy. Example: I ask AI for any policy regarding 'using notably' or 'words to watch' in articles, and it comes back with WP:EDITORIAL. There are already AI's like pdf readers, which you can feed on with pdf and ask questions on it. Make AI optimized search, for reasons that are struck(still valid) before.(Added on 18/3/24 by ExclusiveEditor)
Proposal 2: Proposal 1 + Giving AI more AI feel, by letting it become more than better search engine, by becoming suggestion judge for small situations. Example: You editors are creative, you may add one.

Note: AIs like SIDE seem to help, so will this which may be easier to build. But couldn't find discussion for one like this. The proposed proposals may be amended for better use. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: AI is supposed to complement search) ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re proposal 1, ChatGPT can already answer this question decently. Presumably its training data includes pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barnards.tar.gz: ChatGPT requires email for registration. But it also has that 2021 bias, and couldn't list any policy/ guideline's specific article. ChatGPT is more like proposal 2, but that makes it erroneous. It's also third party, so it may not be fed with new ones and also combine non-wikipedia related data it is fed on with its response, which will make it even more erroneous. Proposal is to simply feed an AI on Wikipedian data only and program it to link specific policy it found the info on. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, new data like various discussions going on ANI, Village pump, IANB etc. could be fed to AI so as to decrease discussions on already discussed topic, a user is not aware/ couldn't find about. Currently only search method is using Wikipedia search within specific category which could produce innumerable irrelevant matches, and there are numerous categories too. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ExclusiveEditor You seem to assume that we want these things and that they are good. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra: I assumed that this shall help, or else I wouldn't have proposed it. We may not need it, but it's worth considering the potential advantages such an AI could bring, taking into account factors such as efficiency, accuracy, accessibility, and standardization all throughout Wikipedia it could bring with community's grace. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 09:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a solution looking for a problem. You only get familiar with current expectations by doing more editing. Awesome Aasim 01:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesome Aasim: WP:CHOICE. While practicing editing is important, AI tools can greatly enhance the editing process on Wikipedia by providing valuable assistance, improving accuracy, and streamlining search. They are designed to complement human editors, not replace them. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No for several reasons. 1) We already have a search capability, as well as numerous other features like lists, disambiguation pages and redirect shortcuts to help guide users to find what they're looking for. 2) The risks of AI misinterpreting, hallucinating, or otherwise giving users inaccurate information about policy is non-trivial. 3) Because our policies are wiki articles themselves, they too are constantly evolving; without constantly updated training, the AI would forever be operating from an outdated understanding of what our policies actually are. 4) This is not really within the purview of a single project to pursue nor is it likely to gain broad consensus across a wide variety of projects and languages necessary to make it worth the effort and cost. The scenario you're describing is better suited as part of the MediaWiki interface. 5) I suspect there are also non-trivial concerns about license compatibility as well as ensuring an open-source software/tools stack for this. 6) Where is this model going to be hosted? Who is paying for the compute time? The foundation? Some foundation-adjacent entity? Donations? A private research institution? There are too many unanswered questions and this proposal addresses none of them in a way that shows sufficient time and thought was put into making this a realistic suggestion. AI is not a "magic bullet" solution to problems that you haven't validated actually exist; nor that it is a product fit for what this community actually wants. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The risks of AI misinterpreting, hallucinating, or otherwise giving users inaccurate information about policy is non-trivial. Is this referring to an AI generating freeform text, or referring a user to a certain page? I think that this program should probably be restricted to answering in links. I don't see a reason to believe the AI would consistently get that much wrong, or get it wrong more than a user. AI is not a "magic bullet" solution to problems that you haven't validated actually exist; Beyond a shadow of a doubt, people have trouble searching for policies and boards. Half the time I use Google Search. Overall, there seems to be unharnessed potential, which could make newbies stick around or make learning and navigating between policies, past and present, easier. - Mebigrouxboy (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swatjester: 1) The stance is like 'We have candles, why need bulb?" The very reason I proposed this is that it is really difficult for a non-experienced user (even a mid-experienced user like me having 3000+ edits) to find relevant policy, and sometimes not sure if there exists any for it even with the legacy tools. To be clear, there are numerous similar policy pages, and it is difficult to find out where the exact guideline is located and it takes lot of time if not hours finding one. Also even, forums avoid/ aren't sure of such questions as they themselves find it hard to locate sometime (not sure).
    2) As of now, i go with what Mebigrouxboy says.
    3) That's the other primary reason I am proposing this. Assuming that a constantly evolving policy may make the "AI" old, seems like saying editors have super power of going though entire policy updates within less time AI is updated. AI may help editors know what updates are in guidelines.
    4) This is just a tool. I may be wrong, but it is not even a major update like enforcing new vector design on IP editors/ readers. Just a sidebar for easy searching, and policy updates will do it.
    5) Wikipedia itself would not have got the success, if it was not launched due to such considerations. Solving the problems is necessary to establish anything.
    6) I am not considering myself eligible to answer questions related to financial side, as it dependent on what the community and foundation decides and how this proposal evolves. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're going to use that analogy, your suggestion is like switching from candles to incandescent bulbs, without having addressed why the lighting difference matters, what type of lamp we're going to use, whether the power grid can support it, and who's going to pay for the electric bill. I stand by all of my points -- your idea is incomplete, premature, and lacking sufficient detail or information to be executed on even if there was consensus that it was desirable. You can't simply handwave away critical considerations like "who's going to pay for this" and "is this compatible with our open-licenses and our mission" as trivialities that we'll figure out later. That kind of techbro fastspeak won't fly here. We are the 7th most popular website in the world; even small changes here can have drastic impacts on millions of people. The burden is on you to show that you've actually given the serious consideration and planning due for a change that would affect people in that magnitude. Until then, you don't have a proposal; you have a fantasy. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swatjester: I presented my ideas here (on proposal) as conjectures, indicating that they are open to improvement and further development. This allows for collaboration and the exchange of ideas among editors. The proposed proposals may be amended for better use. Also I believe that just because I did not elaborate every problem we may face with this, doesn't make it useless, and it could further be developed. However, I assume your point to make sense, and would like to further detail my proposals. And yes, we are one of the most visited website, so we should not be stagnant with the influx of improvement we are capable of. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An AI that can instantly forward you to the correct venue for a dispute, find help pages for any question, or search the archives of boards, and other capabilities mentioned above would be a massive benefit to editor QoL. A proof of concept might be possible by creating a custom GPT on the ChatGPT store. - Mebigrouxboy (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this would be nice. Since training / fine-tuning AIs on volatile user-provided data is a hot area of research and product development at the moment, I don't think it would be a wise use of Wikipedia funds to get involved just yet. It feels like we would just be duplicating work that is being done elsewhere. At the current pace of development, I would expect that production-ready open source systems that do this are not far off. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Machine Learning Team already seem quite busy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It could really help finding policies when you forget the name or just don't know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nononsense101 (talkcontribs) 16:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal is in essence about creating a better search tool. It could be a good project for a university computer science department. If you know anyone with appropriate connections, or any developers with available resources who might be interested, perhaps you can suggest it to them. isaacl (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, AI optimized search tool is the first and foremost thing I proposed. Other things can be discussed within the community. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to first find people with appropriate experience and resources who can work on this type of project. This will allow them to engage in any discussions and thus guide them down more productive paths. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaacl: Okay. Can you tell where could I search for such people who may have related experience? Thanks, ExclusiveEditor (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sean.hoyland gave one pointer above to a Wikimedia Foundation team that might be able to give some pointers or advice. You can also look at the foundation's pages to find other potential contacts. Think of everyone you know and if they have any related experience or connections to those who do, and if they might be receptive. isaacl (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposal 1. Happy to be invited to join this discussion. By way of introduction, I am a new editor who has done some deep diving into AI as well as algorithmic and data biases. As a newcomer, I can say that navigating Wikipedia's trove of policies and guidelines can feel very daunting. I’ve read posts in the Teahouse from new editors who say they feel paralyzed due to their fear of being criticized for doing the wrong thing or making mistakes. As such, being able to get easy access to policies would help to reduce policy breaches, support retention of new editors, and help create a “psychologically safer” environment for all editors. In my experience with AI and LLMs such as ChatGPT, they are very efficient when they are dealing with well-defined inputs for a request. A set of Wikipedia policies and guidelines would be an example of well-defined inputs. Generally, when LLMs stumble into "hallucinations", it tends to be when they are tasked with open-ended topics such as “blank sheet of paper” requests where they need to create something new with no prior input other than their own information. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Feel like this is an unnecessary way to teach policy (and it's just asking for issues). We should avoid AI in general, and instead we should be improving new user onboarding so that we don't need this solution. Support AI in a very limited form
vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 03:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vghfr: Proposal 1 is AI- optimized search. Proposal 2 may better suit your oppose. Also the proposal 1 is not asking for issues as it is already evident from my and others(response above yours) experience that new wikipedians do face lot of issues when it comes to make even the slightest edits, and WP:CHOICE finally. We are not a company, but encyclopedia's community which should be not conservative in approach of helping Wikipedia's editor base growth in fears which make no sense.ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 14:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, got trigger-happy when I saw 'AI.' I could see it working if it was used as an addition to the search. Something similar to how Bing uses Copilot to summarize search results. We would just have to be careful. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 21:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - I'd find it so useful to find policies and guidelines, as long as the AI is only used for that and is not involved in anything else around Wikipedia. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not - The state of the art of AI does not have sufficient quality assurance to be able to operate in such an open-ended domain as Wikipedia policy and guidelines. This proposal is begging for trouble, and there is currently no time frame for when AI will reach this level of sophistication beyond a useless guess of "maybe in a few years at best". signed, Rosguill talk 14:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill:No, I never deemed the proposal to be the way you are thinking, I myself may have opposed such proposal. I proposed for an AI optimized search for Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. There are lot of chatbots out there (including ones made on small budget) which could answer question based on web results in real time by 'searching' on internet, but the Wikipedia(AI-opt-search) work would be simpler even in term that it is just based on internal pages of just Wikipedia. In other words, right now Wikipedia's traditional search is 'Google', and I propose something like 'perplexity.ai' but much less sophisticated and easy to build. Also this would complement the search and may not be major change, it is proposal 2 which may suit your oppose. Regards, ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 14:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that this is a solution in search of a problem, and that it will in fact find several new problems if implemented. The same concerns of lack of reliability apply: how do we know that the chatbot will direct people to the correct p&g page given a query at runtime? What dataset of queries and responses could we possibly train it on? How will the AI know how to balance essays, guidelines, and policies, or how to recognize an essay that nevertheless has broad buy-in from the community and is a guideline in all but name? How would the AI know how to adapt to IAR, to contradictory essays and guidelines, or to the fact more broadly that our documentation is descriptive rather than prescriptive of Wikipedia practices? There is no publicly-available dataset that we could train an AI off of that would even begin to address these use cases. I am raising these concerns as someone with several years of professional experience in AI research. signed, Rosguill talk 15:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: Your have very valid points of concern. I think that this could be implemented step by step, whenever the community and foundation feel ready. There are lot of proposals in this discussion itself: First two are the proposals I presented, then a new one is too just let the already existing search engine get AI optimized, other is to make 'policychecker' (spellchecker but for WP policy... which(idea) is at least worth exploring), then we have something like Wikipedia Library type, difference that it provides access to some third party model like ChatGPT fed with p&g which could be used in a while, etc. I have even posted an example of basic AI which we could think of in first step. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have put some thought into this and I do think there could be merit for a tool to help new editors see their revision draft is violating a WP policy prior to submission. That isn't necessarily a "WP Policy chatbot" but probably something more akin to a spellchecker but for WP policy. If it could cause a new editor to fix their bad edit before another editor had to deal with it, it could make things better. That said, the model is only a small part of what would be needed to make this work, a bigger aspect would that the UI/UX that makes it seemless for a newer user while not annoying experienced editors (maybe make it opt in?). CAlbon (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CAlbon (WMF): Maybe we could add that in 'beta features'. Proposal 2 or related would surely be more complex idea than 1, but it will increase the overall efficiency and quality of articles produced/ or edits. However 'AI' is the "popular" term so I used it, but the real solution would be to somehow reduce the pressure of getting 'edit wrong due to policy/ guideline' fear from new editors, because those who have such worries are the ones who are most dedicated. And it may surely ease the navigation process like gps did. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I do think helping new editors overcome the hurdle of their (and everyone's) first edits often being pretty rough. Structured Tasks can help with this, but the "policychecker" idea has merit, at least as an exploration. CAlbon (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CAlbon (WMF): In editing energy and telecommunications articles, I've noticed that several key editors who made significant contributions have left Wikipedia, likely due to criticisms or disputes. These criticisms, not always expressed in a civil tone, have highlighted issues in their newly created articles or edits such as subjective language, the inclusion of original ideas, and potential plagiarism. Implementing a "policy checker" for articles before they "go live" could greatly reduce such friction, helping to retain passionate contributors. HerBauhaus (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a really good insight. Thanks for sharing the example. CAlbon (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary – It'd be a big hassle for Wikipedia to implement such a proposal and, at least to me, seems like a pretty unnecessary thing to do, since there already are such third-party tools. If anyone wants to use them, they should feel free to do so (and accept responsibility for any error), like with any tool. I don't oppose the idea though, I just see it as another solution to a problem that already has (or is close to having) a solution. Gedditor (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gedditor:Specifically proposed for new editors (and in extension can be used by others). Some newbies don't even know Wikimedia projects other than Wikipedia exist, being aware of third party tools seems improbable. I don't think hassle can be the reason to deny working on (discussion), which may result in at least a minor change which may make it a process easier (and yet efficient) to edit for Wikipedians. Also I don't think any 'third party tool' or any 'tool' is currently better than Wikipedia's own "search engine" which is not very effective, I very first proposed, and even if any exists, they mostly are highly unreliable. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that things shouldn't be done because they are hard to do. I just personally think that it's not worth it. I'd say I'm neutral on this issue. If such a feature is implemented, good. If not, that's fine too. Just wanted to add my opinion here :) Gedditor (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Don't think this should be an official tool. I support any unofficial ones that people want to build. I've personally built a GPT with access to all Wikipedia namespace articles concatenated into a single file. Go ahead and ask it about Wikipedia rules and guidelines and maybe it will actually give an accurate answer. – Kjerish (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kjerish: Okay, great! But it requires ChatGPT plus. Maybe somewhat like Wikipedia library, WM could give us any one such model's access. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 13:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - First and foremost, I understand and respect your vision to expand Wikipedia but I fear that AI (such as ChatGPT) is not to the level that it should be. I understand that AI has been around for quite a long time, but only recently has it been ignited to the public and is used through numerous high-end companies (such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, you name it). I oppose this because Wikipedia is about humans checking the article. And yes, it would make it go faster, but it will make mistakes and those mistakes could time consuming for an individual (or a community) to resolve them. I think we should pilot it to a few selective articles rather than making it public to the entire Wikipedia articles. I think it's a great idea, no doubt, but we should be cautious when it comes to making it public for all without really piloting it. I have a couple more opinions on it, feel free to reach out if you want to. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 15:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all I appreciate your civil tone. I understand the lack of confidence on currently available AI platforms, and that implementing it site wide may bring issues, increasing the overall time to solve. But for that you said Wikipedia is about humans checking the article, I would also point that we have bots, which do not directly edit and cross check the articles (as a dystopian editor-less Wikipedia may have, and I oppose this), the bots have proven to be very effective in side tasks other than automating repetitive tasks. Bots like ClueBot NG are active examples. AI has wide applications, and I think that there are lot of applications to it on WP too, to some I oppose just like you, but others, like AI optimized simple search, or beta tested policy chatbots are some I have eyes on, as they rather than replacing existing resources, would only complement them. And as they say it, something is better than nothing (being added), especially when it is promising to look at. I would also like to know 'more opinions' you mentioned to have. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 15:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For those who oppose major change related to AI, the ai need not take a very inclusive part in Wikipedia's working for now, but a simple AI search like this would really ease the problem:

User: I am editing person's article, but she has lot of names, I want to write all of them, what I do?[1]
 WP AI: I found the following results:
 1.MOS:NAME: The guidelines talks about various cases in which the subject has Anachronistic names, Changed names, Multiple changed names, Pseudonyms and stage names, Hypocorisms, Nicknames etc. .....


or something I have seen many editors not knowing about:
Editor: I added name of subject in Hindi in information box at right side, but somebody removed it and warned me. Why?[2]
WP AI: I found the following guideline regarding the usage of Indic script (which the Hindi language is predominantly written in) in infobox:
 WP:INDICSCRIPT: The guidelines says that per a consensus at 2017 request for comment, the use of Indic sript in India related articles is to be avoided for multiples reasons listed below:
1).....
2)......
3)......
This could be the possible reason that your edit was removed. For more information, you may ask the editor who reverted your edit for a response.

References

  1. ^ Note the informal language I used here.
  2. ^ Note that the new editor does not know about script and rather says 'Hindi', a language. The editor need not be expert in linguistic field, but this initial gf edits should not discourage them from editing constructively in future

-- ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I anticipate little benefit to the Wikipedia project. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Clarinetguy097: And how do you? ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 17:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wrong page? This seems like a request for software rather than something that needs consensus. Any volunteer may create a user script or Toolforge tool that uses AI. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Novem Linguae: User scripts are add-ons that are commonly used by experienced users, while new editors are often unaware of them. Even mid-level editors may naturally find them uncomfortable to use. While volunteer-created scripts or tools are valuable, official integration ensures widespread accessibility and consistency across the platform. So I propose a direct integration of this feature in Wikipedia's interface, and so I started the discussion here. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 12:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. Using ChatGPT to augment the wikipedia search engine isn't a good idea. It hasn't been tested enough, isn't built for searching, and doesn't like certain queries (medical, legal, political, and anything containing the phrase "root access"). If Wikimedia wants to build its own AI to help with searching, however, then I do support this. DarklitShadow (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Financial Times is just doing something similar with their internal content. We may do the same with Wikipedia's internal pages and (maybe conversations/ discussions also) for editors (especially new) as I already proposed. AI already serves Wikipedia's content for readers, with this editors may benefit from something similar for sure. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 07:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using ai to help users find policy pages seems fine, but asking it for advice when it comes to editing conflicts seems like a poor idea. We already have the teahouse and help desk, and the likeliness of ai giving an incorrect answer is high. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Insect: AI (if build in chatbot form) would not be asked doubts/ queries regarding existing policy known to editor. At max, AI will be given a problem faced by editor and AI will suggest pages which may be related to editor's problem. Reading the policy/ guideline page and deciding next move is solely editor's responsibility and choice. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An AI interpreting the policies and guidelines is simply asking for trouble. Nor is there a need, as pointed out above, to force anything official right now given that user scripts exist and the WMF may be carrying out its own research. CMD (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis: No, no!! Never in my any statement have I ever mentioned that AI will come and interpret policy and suggest editors the next move. Sorry if I am being too expressive as lot of editors here are having same misunderstanding. Ok, so simply as it goes, AI is for new editors, so user script better be kept out of frame, also WMF does not look to have been actively sorting out in something specific before this proposal as seen in CAlbon (WMF)'s reply above. And to the troubles which we may face in this, first we have to start somewhere, second that implementation could be step by step. This cycle is just like an unemployed being denied a job because of lack of experience which he will never get without a job which he is being denied. The ending was not reply to you specifically but rather to the discussion as whole. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, at max, AI will be given a problem faced by editor and AI will suggest pages which may be related to editor's problem. Reading the policy/ guideline page and deciding next move is solely editor's responsibility and choice. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 17:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You gave a very specific example of an AI hearing a generic problem and deciding what guideline it thought applied. That is interpreting policy. Your example also specifically includes a suggestion of the editor's next move: "For more information, you may ask the editor who reverted your edit for a response." CMD (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis: How can any AI/ algorithm work without interpreting its query and relate it to the search results. What you mean by 'interpretation' is the vary backbone of any AI that I could propose. Otherwise what is difference between current search bar which just cares to match the words you enter? The 'interpretation' I consider wrong is that WP AI is given specific cases by user, say related to NPV, and the AI presents a 'solution' rather than simple 'AI optimized search' that too based on its own 'interpretation' of WP:NPV just like there are different interpretations of Bible/ Quran. The last line For more information, you may ask the editor who reverted your edit for a response. is just a simple advice which may be made compulsory for AI as a disclaimer for issues related to 'warnings for unknown reason'. If you still oppose the idea, please list the reason and I will try to be more objective in answering those. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 21:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I suggested earlier, I feel continuing to try to discuss your proposal without the involvement of those who are experienced and ready to start planning development isn't the best way forward. At present, this is discussion is about a hypothetical project where there are reasonable doubts about its viability, which means there isn't any impetus to work towards refining the scope and objectives. I think the proposal needs to have more concrete resources and expertise behind it in order to get better feedback. isaacl (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaacl: I have indeed invited dozens of editors shown to have expertise/ special interest in AI or its branches since you last suggested. We even have the attention of director of machine learning at WMF. I will try to expand this over now, streamlining its focus as you said. Thank you. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 21:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for being unclear: personally, I do not recommend that you expand this discussion further. Instead, I think you should let those who are interested in planning development to drive the conversation, so that they can use their expertise and constraints to help direct further discussions. That will make it very concrete from both their perspective and the community's. Thanks for getting more people involved. isaacl (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Side note, it's unclear what is meant by "AI" in the proposal. Wikipedia has long had AI (it's search bar). I'm assuming the proposal meant generative AI. Strongly against that. Such is a black box with a mind of it's own. We don't need it to be presenting its creations as policies/guidelines or as interpretations of them. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @North8000: Firstly, AI here does not directly indicate to generative AI, rather it may be complementary. Secondly, the first and foremost thing I propose(d) is AI in search bar, not just as significant as it looks on paper, but practically useful. It is the present 'tune' I say, that as anyone says AI, first thing in mind is ChatGPT and its fuzzy mistakes and/or the wrong hands that image making 'AI' hallucinates. Artificial Intelligence is much more that this, and I am sure many of you are clear to this. Now what if I assure you that the AI will make equal or lesser percent mistakes than ClueBot NG in terms of overall damage to Wikipedia? My point is that I am sure if I had proposed inculsion of bots to Wikipedia (assuming they weren't involved yet) I must have met a fierce resistance than I am getting now. By AI, I don't mean hallucinating ChatGPT or an AI which will make Wikipedia human editor-less but a algorithm that will better serve the knowledge gap regarding 'policies' and 'guidelines' to new editors, so they can edit without fear of getting 4 warnings quickly and blocked, all because they never knew what they were doing wrong. If you still oppose the idea, please list the reason and I will try to be more objective in answering those. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 21:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking Sandbox Heading

Hello! I am requesting that {{sandbox heading}} be changed to this:

Proposed sandbox heading text

<center><big>'''Click on the "Edit this page" link above to experiment!'''</big></center><center><big>'''Please leave this heading alone'''</big></center> Welcome to the sandbox! Anybody can edit this page and it is automatically cleared regularly (anything you write will not remain indefinitely). You can either [[Special:EditPage/Wikipedia:Village pump (all)|edit]] the source code ("'''[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(all)&action=edit Edit source]'''" tab above) or use [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor|VisualEditor]] ("'''[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(all)&veaction=edit Edit]'''" tab above). Click the "'''Publish changes'''" button when finished. You can click "'''Show preview'''" to see a preview of your edits, or "'''Show changes'''" to see what you have changed. this page is cleared regularly, feel free to try your editing skills below. <span class="plainlinks clickbutton">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(all)&action=edit&preload=Template:Sandbox+reset&summary=Reset+sandbox&oldid= <span class="mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive">Click here to reset the sandbox.</span>]</span> If you are logged in, you can access your personal sandbox: "'''[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_sandbox/preload Sandbox]'''". [[Wikipedia:Misuse of the sandbox|'''DO NOT''' place promotional, copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content]] in sandboxes.<span style="font-size:85%;">''For more info, see [[Help:My sandbox]]. New? See the [[Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia|contributing to Wikipedia]] page or [[Help:Introduction|our tutorial]]. Questions? Try [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|the Teahouse]]!'' [[:Category:Wikipedia Editing Aids]]</span>

Should this change be made? - Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hate that hedgehog!) 18:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be changed to this version. 23.245.44.64 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This makes the reset option more visible. It might make people pay less attention to the heading, but I doubt it. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 16:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've left an invitation to this discussion at Template talk:Sandbox heading. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 19:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising sister projects

Should Wikipedia run a period of banners (one or multiple weeks) encouraging readers to use and edit sister projects? (previous discussion)

Please note that this is a discussion regarding whether Wikipedia should do this in the broad sense; detailed arguments like "I don't like the suggested banners" or "but we shouldn't promote [this project I don't like]" should be saved for later discussion. Please respond to the idea in the RfC statement. Thank-you, 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying participants in previous discussion: @Aaron Liu, Harvici, Commander Keane, WhatamIdoing, Theklan, The Wordsmith, and Vghfr:
Notified: meta:Wikimedia Forum. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (advertising sister projects)

  • Yes as proposer. As I wrote previously:
Sister Wikimedia projects have a lot to offer readers, and as one of the most viewed sites on the internet (globally!) we should help introduce readers to these resources. As you know, other Wikimedia projects include a dictionary/thesaurus which includes translations; a travel guide; a library of digitized public domain texts that anyone can download or distribute; a travel guide; a media repository; and many others. The sister project links are currently buried far down on the Main Page, and are especially distant for mobile viewers who make up an increasing share of our readership. Why would we not want to help readers discover some of the useful resources our sister projects have to offer?
🌺 Cremastra (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Several of the 'sister projects' are worse than useless. At least one is run in a manner entirely contrary to the stated objectives of Wikipedia. We should not be encouraging them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyTheGrump: They're Wikimedia, not Wikipedia. This is the exact Wikipedia-is-the-best-and-most-important-project conceit I've been talking about. And I wonder which project you object to— Wikidata doesn't follow our notability guidelines, Wiktionary clearly violates WP:NOTDIC, Wikisource has no citations at all (!) Wikifunctions is just a bunch of code or something, Wikivoyage goes against WP:V and, to a degree, WP:NPOV… I could go on. Judging other projects by Wikipedian standards in nothing less than absurd. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth. I am under no illusion that Wikipedia is 'the best' anything. It is however, the only online encyclopaedia that has any significant readership (thanks in no small part to Google), and is thus worthy of critical scrutiny. And I'm not judging the other projects by 'Wikipedian' standards, I'm judging them by the standards of someone who considers Wikipedia structurally flawed, even if its objectives are worthy in the abstract. The projects I refer to are in my opinion worse, in several ways, but mostly of little significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AndyTheGrump, could you please expand on how the projects are worse and the project that is run in a manner entirely contrary to the stated objectives of Wikipedia? — Frostly (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least one is run in a manner entirely contrary to the stated objectives of Wikipedia. Which project is it?
    You first say that we should not encourage our sister Wikimedia projects because they go against Wikipedia objectives, and then you say that you aren't judging them by Wikipedian standards. I don't understand. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it your intention to get into long-winded discussions with everyone who participates here, or just the ones you disagree with? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, provided it is limited to a few projects. Some of our projects are of limited interest to the average reader (Wikidata, Wikispecies and Wikifunctions) and others aren't in a state where it's worthwhile directing users to them (Wikinews). I think that such a campaign would be best served by a focused group of 3 or 4 of them that is more able to effectively direct attention their way. ― novov (t c) 02:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. Banners steal our readers' attention. By distracting them and taking them off task, we slow down them learning what they're here to learn. Ads make people stupider. We should display as few as humanly possible for as little time as possible.—S Marshall T/C 02:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No for the same reason I don't like banner ads for donations or dishwashing soap. You diminish the encyclopedia by pasting ads for things that are completely unrelated to the topic they are searching. First and foremost, the READERS matter, and this diminishes the encyclopedia by putting information in the way of what they came for: verifiable facts about a topic. We aren't here to promote anything, including ourselves. Dennis Brown - 07:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as per above. Banner ads do not benefit the encyclopedia, which is our primary concern. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the kind of self-centredness that is detrimental to the Wikimedia project as a whole. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could just as easily say that proposals like this one are detrimental to the English Wikipedia because they consume editor time that might otherwise have been spent improving articles. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic, every proposal here is detrimental because they take time away from editing articles. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a proposal that seeks to improve the encyclopedia is not a detriment. This, however, is a proposal that diminishes the encyclopedia, which is why I opposed it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, obviously: it's common knowledge that enwiki's love for sister projects is... lackluster at best. Thank god we're not in charge of creating new projects, because otherwise there wouldn't be any. But raising awareness for sister projects raises the probability that we'll be able to help someone find what they're looking for (like, say, a quote or a definition) next time they need something. Maybe they're looking for that information right now, and don't know where to find it! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is a good idea, beyond directing users to all Wikimedia sites in general. If English Wikipedia starts choosing individual sites to promote, and thus selecting ones not to promote, failure to promote a site will be seen as a negative endorsement. This may have an unduly discouraging effect on the expansion of the related communities. I am wary of putting English Wikipedia in a position where it can determine the success or failure of other Wikimedia sites. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No There are far fewer reasons to do this than not to do this; some of the reasons that I can think of off the top of my head include NPOV & not wanting to have to look into the editorial practices of other projects. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV only applies to articles. If we start interpreting it that strictly, then we're going to need to delete a lot of essays... 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I have seen no convincing argument why and how this would benefit the encyclopedia. Also per Isaacl · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopaedia, not to recruit users for other projects. If the Wikimedia foundation thinks they need more users elsewhere, they can do their own advertising. Modest Genius talk 12:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Modest Genius: Ah, so we don't want to actually help readers, we just want them to read the encyclopedia? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would showing readers advertising possibly help them? Modest Genius talk 12:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Queen of Hearts' comment below. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. leeky puts it perfectly. Most readers don't know what on Earth a Wikivoyage is, when in reality, it could be exactly what they're looking for. Queen of Hearts she/theytalk/stalk 20:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No largely per Isaac. If we do every project, we're making a lot of noise for very little benefit. If we select only some, we functionally decide which projects we endorse (and which we don't by omission). Neither is a particularly good outcome. I also think banner campaigns are over-used in general and not a good way to support sibling projects if that's the goal. It's indiscriminate and for the majority of readers completely useless given what they're here to learn about. Why show a reader a banner about wikispecies if they're here reading about the Andromeda Galaxy? I don't see the benefits outweighing the costs. Wug·a·po·des 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per leeky. General support for the idea, without committing to doing all of them (after all, we can't say too much about the Incubator, Meta, etc.). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Advertising (especially in banner form) is annoying and intrusive, distracting and wasting of screen space. It doesn't matter how noble or sororal the entity being advertised. We already link to the sister projects in the main page (left panel and bottom) and we routinely mention relevant sister projects explicitly from articles where applicable (many articles include templates linking to specific pages on Commons, Wikivoyage, Wiktionary) and link inline where appropriate, most often via images. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, good points above on the value of ads and on being cautious with the power of en.wiki within the WMF ecosystem. On a pragmatic note, a general link to go look at WikiSource or WikiData or even WikiCommons is of any use. How to contribute to those is opaque at best. If these resources are promoted, it should be through specific useful ways, such as our practice of including relevant WikiSource pages in See also sections (occasionally they pop up in infoboxes too). CMD (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as leeky put it. Other sister projects are very well what readers may be looking for, like WikiVoyage or Commons. There should be an option to opt-out though. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to all forms of distracting and inappropriate advertising. There will always be sound and moral reasons behind any banner campaign - I'd like us to allow various charitable banners which fund-raise to help starving children, or prevent climate change, etc. But Wikipedia was set up not to be such a platform, and so it seem highly inappropriate and immoral and incestuous that we don't allow banners which may improve or even save people's lives, but will allow banners purely to inflate the traffic flow of various WikiMedia projects. If there is an appropriate need to link to another project, that is already done within articles, such as via External links. SilkTork (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per SilkTork. Besides, a lot of people, both editors and readers, are already frustrated by the endless, huge banner ads that get foisted on articles every December, grubbing for money for the WMF. We don't need to add to that. Writ Keeper  14:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are going to be normal-sized. It seems more useful than displaying edithon notices to readers. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No due to banner blindness, and due to the fact that just because a project is a sister project doesn't mean it's a good project. I just don't see the value in telling readers about other projects. BTW, I also would oppose a banner that encouraged people to edit this project. I'm generally opposed to taking up screen real estate to try and recruit readers, let the readers read in peace without distraction. BTW, the way to let readers know about sister projects they may find useful is "inline," the way we do it now, with those boxes/links/hatnotes/whatever-you-call-them that say, e.g. "full text is available at WikiSource," or "there is an entry at WikiData," or "there is media on Commons," etc. It's better to put those more-targeted notices in the place where they'll matter. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as conceptually wrong. Very, very, VERY few people, even linguaphiles, are hardcore "let me sit down and read the dictionary some" types. Similarly, even people who love reading books aren't going to be enticed by "oh hey, let me go to the local library and pick some books at random" from Wikisource or Wikibooks. And yet that's precisely what these suggested banners provide: essentially a link to the front door of the library, or to a full dictionary. What is far more effective is a relevant link for a word or topic that the reader has already shown themselves interested in, hence them being at an article in the first place. So something like The_Red-Headed_League#External_links having its first EL being to Wikisource? Great. The reader is interested in the topic, here's a link to where you can read the story on Wikisource. Or disambig pages including a prominent Wiktionary link, especially for less-used words or foreign terms like Anabasis. There's an argument we should link sister projects when relevant more aggressively, sure. That might be a good way to spend time. But these banners don't have any relevance, and therefore aren't useful. SnowFire (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Unnecessarily distracting and annoying. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but with opt-in, because banners can be annoying.--OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly opt-out? Of course users should have the right to opt-out of showing the banners. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than asking readers to take an action to see banners about other Wikimedia sites, we may as well just ask them to visit another page to learn about other Wikimedia sties. isaacl (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The current central banner system is somewhat sufficient for this purpose. Even if we want to work on the sister projects, one has to be cognizant that every project has different levels of maturity and sets of social norms. We shouldn't be the ones pushing ourselves and sensibilities over to the other projects. If so, can the targeted project take on an influx of editors who are bringing a foreign set of norms and sensibilities over to their projects? As one who occasionally straddles between English and Chinese Wikipedias, as well as commons, I can say that it takes awhile to pick up the norms of the individual projects, an effort that would likely be significantly longer than the run on the banner. If the other projects would like to have us and other projects to contribute, have them to come up with their own campaigns, banners through the central banner system, and processes. If anything, I think improvements in other parts of the interface may be more feasible, for example a better call-out to translate the article if it is known that the viewer is good in a certain language, or call outs somewhere to contribute to wikivoyage if somehow we know if the viewer is actively editing in geographic based articles, Wikisource if one is editing articles related to manuscripts or other types or texts and printed materials. – robertsky (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion (advertising sister projects)

The main page already has a large section, Wikipedia's sister projects. Why is something else needed? Schazjmd (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are hard to find and do little. Especially for mobile readers, they are unlikely to be actually seen. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 'sister project' banners is inevitably going to make other content less likely to be seen, given finite screen sizes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there inevitably will be tradeoffs with inclusion of any type of content. — Frostly (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how much space will the banners take up on mobile screens? Donald Albury 20:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what the final design is. Presumably the design used for mobile will be much smaller than that for desktop. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If banners were approved and shown, how would you determine whether they were worth the effort? Schazjmd (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One could look at siteviews of projects, number of edits made, number of active users... and see if there was noticeable change. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related discussion: Those here concerned about excessive banner use (or, conversely, wishing we'd use banners more) may be interested in discussion about the appropriateness of displaying the banner for Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month globally without any geographic targeting. Sdkbtalk 21:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During the brainstorming session for the 2021 RfA review, I suggested having regularly scheduled volunteer weeks, where editors representing different initiatives could host "open house" activities to engage potential volunteers. I didn't pursue the idea, though, since there was almost no interest expressed. However if it were to occur, it would be an opportunity for editors from other projects to set up open houses to publicize their work. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe rather than banners for individual projects, there could be a banner about sister projects in general linking to a page that transcluded {{Wikipedia's sister projects}}, had a paragraph overview of each project, links to any welcome portals on that project, and links to any coordination or other related groups on en.wp. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I'm not necessarily opposed to focusing on other Wikimedia projects, personally I prefer a venue that is open for any initiative looking for more participation. There are a lot of areas on English Wikipedia that could either be helpful to more readers, if they knew about them, or could use more participants, if they were drawn to help out. isaacl (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create an alias for the Template namespace

I am proposing that tp: be added as an alias to the Template: namespace per this discussion.

Note: Though previous aliases were already listed on perennial proposals, it proposed t:, which would have conflicted with some article titles, or be confused with the Talk: namespace. Tp:, on the other hand, wouldn't, and would make it way quicker to look up a template in the search bar.

Edit (during rfc): tp: was not fully supported due to it being confused with "Talk Page", however other options were proposed, like hard coding {{ being replaced by Template: in the search bar. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "Template" is not a long word, and nobody abbreviates it as "tp" these days. This seems pointless. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just thought it'd make it consistent with wp: for Wikipedia:, which is 10 characters, while Template: is 9 characters. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody abbreviates it as "tp" these days. Even if that is true it is not a reason for us not to do so. Wikipedia is big enough to be making fashions rather than following them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'd find it useful. It's less effort to type "tp:infobox person" in the search box than "template:infobox person" (which is how I usually navigate to wp: and template: pages). Schazjmd (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Schazjmd. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'd absolutely love this. I've often wondered if there was some technical problem that was preventing us doing this. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Pretty nice QOL change. Per Schazjmd. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's a good idea to create an alias (and implicitly creating more English Wikipedia jargon) just to improve the search function. We should instead improve the search capability directly. isaacl (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but you don't want a casual reader to be confused as to why they ended up on a template page Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a lot easier for the casual user to stumble upon a namespace alias, which could happen anywhere they enter an URL that might trigger a browser to launch, than for them to deliberately select the search box and type there. Furthermore, if this isn't intended to be used by a broad audience, then a more targeted solution would be better. Users wanting this functionality can make use of the script to which you were pointed in the previous thread, or they can configure their OS to provide an appropriate macro expansion to shorten the number of keystrokes they use. isaacl (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, the script seems to be User:Ahecht/Scripts/TemplateSearch. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tp" seems very easily misconstrued as "Talk Page" at a glance. CMD (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Sdkbtalk 18:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've been wanting this. It really is irksome to type out "Template:" I since learned today there are scripts, and of course {{tld}} for talk pages, but it would be much cleaner and simpler to have a standard abbrev. and this is technically easy to implement. TP: or T: it doesn't matter they both are fine. I prefer T: -- GreenC 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unless I'm missing something, the TP: prefix was proposed in 2015, in a discussion which was closed as no consensus - Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 127#Prefix suggestion: TP: for Template:. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 19:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the reasons in WP:PEREN#Create shortcut namespace aliases for various namespaces. In particular, the Template namespace is generally not linked often enough that saving the typing of 6 characters is likely to be at all worthwhile and there's nothing available to use for the corresponding talk pages. Anomie 20:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template for linking a template is called {{tl}}. Shouldn't we have some consistency between this and the short-cut? Or is "tl" already used? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger tl is ISO639 for tagalog. — xaosflux Talk 22:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{tl}} is short for {{template link}}, so the el doesn't have anything to do with templates qua templates. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – While there are helpful template shortcuts, like {{t}} and its siblings, that can be used in discussions, and a script that can be used in the on-wiki searchbox to convert {{ to Template:, a namespace shortcut (tp:) would help in edit summaries and customised browser search boxes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Adding layers of obfuscation is not helpful. If I want to refer to {{convert}}, writing Template:Convert is easy and helpful to someone reading my comment. Writing Tp:Convert is unnecessary jargon that saves under a second of typing at the cost of head-scratching for readers. tp would be "talk page" for many. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As someone who has next to no involvement with template editing, I immediately think of 'talk page' when I see 'tp'. It would confuse many people who edit outside of the technical areas of Wikipedia. (Summoned by bot) JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the template mainspace from "Template:" to "Plantilla:" and use "Pl:" as a shortcut CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be quite a big change, but I'm not against it lol Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is in español ROTFL -- ZandDev 13:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah there's no way we'll get consensus on that one Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, no. Also even on eswiki that uses that namespace name this couldn't happen as Pl is ISO639 for Polish. — xaosflux Talk 09:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Oppose I'd support hard-coding {{Template: into the search box's autocomplete natively rather than using my script as a hack, but I agree that the widespread use of links like TP:Example are an unnecessary layer of obfuscation/jargon. With the WP prefix, at least the shortcut links are mostly self explanatory, but it wouldn't be obvious to a newcomer what, for example, tp:birds is, or why it's not an article. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 18:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ahecht Yes, hard-coding that directly could be a great alternative. I just think that we need to find a solution for this, and maybe tp: wasn't the best as others have pointed out. I'll continue gathering some ideas and then conduct a sub-RfC to see what option would be best, as long as the consensus doesn't seem to be oppose. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral i could go either way. I like the hard coding option of having 'template' be dropdown option in the menu. Slacker13 (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I don't think that adding the t: will add an another level of obfuscation. The current method of making interwiki link is already obscure and complicated, specially for newbies, instead a simple alias to the template namespace will be easy and handy in researches. -- ZandDev 13:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I suggested tp: though, not t: as it was rejected previously: does that work for you? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cocobb8: I'm in favor to the proposal of create an alias for the template namespace, but I believe that I, when I would see one of these link, would not associate tp: directly with templates, but with talk pages. -- ZandDev 16:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do work with templates but I feel that this is not an intuitive shortcut and could easily be confused with "talk page". (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support , I had typed TP: prefix in the past thinking that I would get the template page without success. This would be useful in different scenarios (just like the WP: prefix). And its use is optional, so if someone doesn't like it, they can go with the full Template: as ever. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unnecessary, and just as with T=Talk, TP=Talk Page. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Agree with the principle, would prefer access to a shortened version; but also agree that the proposal is too close to talk page. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think supporting {{ in the search bar would be sufficient to support the use case of issue. But beside that, I agree with oppose comments above. Izno (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Not intuitive and I'm not convinced this solves a genuine problem -Fastily 21:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support because I have typed "Twmplate" in the search bar too many goddamn times. Mach61 21:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I have to do everything on mobile, and am looking up templates all the time. This would make that a significantly less laborious and typo-prone experience. But I'd be happy with some other 2- or 3-letter shortcut if TP: is a problem. No more than 3 letters, though. Also I keep typing TP:, TMP: or TPL: without thinking, expecting them to work. But I only want it for search purposes. I'd be opposed to its use as jargon for referring to templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiconeologist (talkcontribs) 01:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To help you out immediately, you can use the text expansion feature or apps on your phone to expand an abbreviated string to a longer one. isaacl (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Showing "Redirected from" notice at top of section

When one arrives at an article via a redirect, the page is rendered with an additional line saying "(Redirected from [...])", directly (?) below the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" byline below the article title.

For most of the many redirects that target sections of articles, instead of entire articles, that means that this line isn't in view, which makes little sense to me. After all, if the page includes any {{redirect}}-type dab templates, those are placed as section hatnotes, not article hatnotes, which makes a lot of sense.

Why not show the notice below the section title, either instead of or in addition to where it is now?

- 2A02:560:5829:B000:7D78:FB68:39A:4A28 (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good question. The notice linking to the redirect is useful as a way to get to the redirect page. and it informs the reader why they are at a place they would not expect to be, but it should be displayed where it can be seen, and preferably where it is most relevant, which would usually be at the redirect target. At the section header would be appropriate for R to section. Not sure about R to anchor. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, anchors, good thinking. Their essential invisibility tends to make me fail to consider them more often than not. In this context, I recken that's probably fine, though, because keeping the thing itself hidden but then implicitly or explicitly drawing attention to it in a visible notice would be a bit weird, even if there were a nice space for it.
That said, I suppose a generic phrasing like "(Redirected from [...] to this location)" would work for both, or even all three, cases. That'd leave the space issue to be solved.
- 2A02:560:5829:B000:7D78:FB68:39A:4A28 (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Cuts down on confusion. How it would be implemented is another question. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Good idea. I'd suggest filing a task on Phabricator to get some developer attention. Sdkbtalk 18:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've noticed that. Thanks for proposing this. Donald Albury 18:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would've been a perfect technical wishlist submission if they hadn't just gotten rid of the technical wishlist. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 13:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely "in addition", rather than "instead of". At the very least, this would help editors whose muscle memories have them press Home when following a redirect to a section. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a counterargument to be made, using the same scenario: If, after jumping to the top of the article, for whatever reason, one decides one wants to go back to the redirect's target location, again for whatever reason, the proposed change adds a new way to do that - Ctrl+F "redirected". Works either way, of course, but a bit better when there are no duplicates elsewhere.
Ah, but now that I imagine myself doing that, selecting "redirected" in the notice at the top, then Ctrl+F, then just hitting Enter once or twice may be even more convenient than typing it in. Never mind!
- (OP) 2A02:560:5829:B000:99D:3DCE:4DAE:FDB (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally support this idea, you should definitely file this on Phabricator! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will just mention that it works completely differently on mobile. Here, no matter where it sends you, a notice appears for a few seconds at the bottom of the screen, and then disappears. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecating new unsourced articles

After the events at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of uncited articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/February 2024, I think there is broad community consensus to not take any policy action against old unsourced articles. However, there should be a process in order to take action against new unsourced articles, because currently there are still new articles that does not have sources attached to it (see the 2023/2024 category at Category:Articles without sources).

I propose that articles that are created after 1st April 2024 and does not have any inline sources to be eligible for WP:PROD. Such a PROD can only be revoked after an addition of one inline, reliable, third-party source. That source does not need to completely establish the topic's notability (because that will be decided in AfD); its only job is to verify that this topic is not a hoax. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this proposal is accepted by the community, it would greatly streamline our efforts to cleanup uncited articles and prevent the growth of the cancerous Category:Articles without sources backlog. In the future, this "imaginary" deadline could be gradually push backwards to tackle older and older articles, until the backlog is fully cleared. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if we think further in the future, such a process can also be used to tackle Category:Articles with unsourced statements as well. This would be a glorious sight to behold. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I have already said, independent reliable sources are needed to established notability, so such sources should be made explicit by citing them in any new article. As Levivich says, an article with no sources is a blog. Hell, when I was blogging a few years ago, I always included a list of sources at the bottom of a post, so that readers could read more about the subject, if they wanted to. Not providing sources when an article is created is just being rude to other editors who are somehow expected to do the work sourcing the article that the creator could not be bothered with. Donald Albury 20:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I envision that there will be three things that needs to be done before this proposal can be enforced:

  1. Make a new template similar to {{Proposed deletion}} for this proposal
  2. Communicate to new editors that articles on Wikipedia must have reliable sources cited, and it is strongly encouraged that they find reliable sources before writing the article
  3. A way to tackle editor disputes about what constitutes "third-party" and "reliable".

- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number two is extremely difficult. Anyone who knows English could be a new editor. There are many hundreds of millions of them. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number 3 is pretty easy, though. Wikipedia:Third-party sources has been around for years, and we're pretty good at identifying them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should also find ways to retain new editors if this proposal is enforced, because that would set an even higher barrier for entry for new editors to Wikipedia. This is the reason I why invited WP:Wikiproject Editor Retention to this topic. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean depreciate or deprecate? Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As in discouraging. It would be bad if we start to vandalize new articles in order to depreciate them though :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New editors are already forced to go through WP:AfC, which is not going to approve an unsourced article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 13:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the new editor article-writing experience is so demoralizing, maybe we should just not let new editors create articles in the first place? 2603:8001:4542:28FB:E9B3:2893:5C25:E68F (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here)[reply]
No. We already have the WP:Article wizard to aid completely new editors to create a new article. I think that the wizard should be shown more prominently in "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" notification box, as well as making {{AfC submission/draft}} and {{AfC submission/declined}} easier to understand for new editors. But we need new editors and we MUST NOT make Wikipedia harder for newcomers to contribute. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental problem for newcomers is that editing Wikipedia is not convenient. It takes a substantial effort to do so. So, one way to make this easier is to improve on the article wizard and ask people to find a few sources before citing them. I imagine that the new article wizard would ask you for URLs/book titles (and pages), and once you create a draft it would show you how to expand these fragments of info into fully-fledged "wikipedia-compliant" citations. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the horrendous MS Paint drawing, but this is what I envision it to be like this:
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the objections raised to the two similar proposals in the last few months still apply. I really can't be bothered to repeat them again. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here. Clearing a backlog is only incidental to this. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea in theory, but will only support it once tools and wording changes for newcomers are instated. The risk of this detracting newcomers is high enough that I think the community should have a consensus that the new wording/templates etc. alleviate harm, and they should be ready to go before any changes are made. ― novov (t c) 09:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than a PROD, we should really just move new unsourced articles to draft. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This again? While consensus can change, it seems unlikely that consensus will have changed in the month since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of uncited articles was rejected. Let's not make this another topic area where people keep pushing essentially the same proposal with slightly different wording until, through tendentiousness and exhaustion, they manage to get something in (and then ratchet and repeat). Anomie 13:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Moving to Draft with a x day prod-like notice. I'm impressed by the relentless work done by a small number of overwhelmed volunteers trying to address this problem, and I support their efforts. I disagreed with the former proposal, but this one is acceptable, grandfather the existing article and raise the quality bar for new articles by a very small degree. We already do this with AfC, where quality standards are much higher, it is nothing we don't already do. -- GreenC 14:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Can someone speak to how the newer entries in Category:Articles lacking sources are ending up there? Don't all new articles these days have to go through WP:NPP, which ought not to let them pass if they are unsourced? Sdkbtalk 14:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you find many such new articles? New page reviewers can mark unsourced articles reviewed if the topic is notable but I doubt that happens very often. Someone would have to sort those articles by creation/expansion-from-redirect date to find out. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      First one I checked from March 2024 was created by an autopatrolled editor, so even NPP wouldn't see it necessarily. Schazjmd (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Schazjmd, created March 24 or in the category March 24? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Usedtobecool, from Category:Articles lacking sources from March 2024. (The article has since had one of its external URLs changed to a ref to remove it from the category.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The categories track the tagging date. And iirc some automated tools update tag dates when making unrelated edits. So, it's likely the new categories are just populating with old articles. Autopatrolled editors wouldn't remain autopatrolled if they created unsourced articles nowadays. I actually think autopatrolled has a higher bar than necessary but admins are very risk-averse. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Usedtobecool, you're right, it wasn't created in March 2024, I should have looked more closely. Schazjmd (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In general, I expect almost all the articles in those categories are old articles. Notability would have to be completely obvious and there would need to be no BLP element in the article for a reviewer to pass an unsourced article in 2024, if someone were to start Ancient history of Botswana that more or less concurs with relevant content in existing articles, for example. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I draftify all new unsourced articles I see, but sometimes the creator tendentiously undraftifies it, and per WP:DRAFTIFY, I'm not allowed to redraftify it, so I just tag it. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are they supposed to do about them? We don't delete articles just because they lack references and NPPers don't have a special 'article go away' button otherwise. Unless an unreferenced has other, more immediate problems I think most experienced reviewers would tag it with {{unreferenced}} and move on. Others might choose to bat it back and forth to draftspace a few times first, but the end result is the same. – Joe (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the most recent discussion and disallow any new discussions on this for a few months. I've already seen several notable topics without sources or with only one source being moved to draftspace and then deleted after six months. A PROD would make this even worse. SportingFlyer T·C 15:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is for recent articles, not old articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unsourced articles are bad but etching explicit grandfather clauses into Wikipedia's rules is worse. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't like the idea of grandfathering, especially given the potential to reinforce systemic bias, given that Wikipedia's content is becoming more diverse over time. Sdkbtalk 16:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why there is a moving deadline to the left to clear out the backlog. Stage one of this proposal is to prevent further growth of the backlog, stage two of this proposal is to start tackling the remaining articles from newest to oldest. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, draftifying does the trick already. There do not seem to be many (any?) totally unsourced articles that make it through NPP, so I am not sure there are any articles that this proposal applies to (the category mentioned by the nominator contains mostly old articles that have been recently tagged as unsourced). —Kusma (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. From above, it appears that newly created unsourced articles are already sufficiently handled by our existing rules and processes. Sdkbtalk 16:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild oppose. Three concerns: First, the proposal and discussion seem to be conflating unsourced articles with articles lacking inline citations. Requiring all articles to have inline citations regardless of whether any content has been or is likely to be challenged is out of step with WP:V and quite a jump from settled practice. Second, is is not clear what it means for the affected articles to be "eligible" for PROD. WP:PROD#Deletion provides the following criteria for PROD eligibility: the page is not a redirect, never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never subject to a deletion discussion. So as long as the proposer reasonably believes that the deletion will be uncontroversial there doesn't appear to be any particular procedural barrier to prodding these articles now. Third, it would be helpful to see evidence that there is a problem that needs solving. A PetScan query for articles created since January 1, 2024 in Category:All articles lacking sources gives 8 results, including one article with listed references (so tagged incorrectly but still subject to this proposal) and one that is currently up for speedy deletion. The remaining six definitely have some issues, but I'm not sure we need this level of policy change to fix what seems to be a couple-of-articles-per-month problem. (OTOH, the counterargument could well be made that this just shows that the proposal is the best kind of wiki-rule: one that simply codifies existing practice to prevent future confusion. But if that's the argument it would likewise be helpful to have some quantitative details showing how this proposal maps onto existing practice.) -- Visviva (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it’s worth, on March 1 and 2 I attempted to patrol the category in question and see if it was possible for one person to keep it down to zero. It sort of is but you run into articles that are unlikely to get deleted but next to impossible to source, and then things get out of hand if you miss a day. It’s a tough project. I just want to note that this is a burden on editors to fix, and a lot of times adding a inline source to a plainly bad article doesn’t do a lot. ForksForks (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly what I meant. This PROD would essentially be a formal enactment of our "unspoken rule", which is that new articles on Wikipedia must have sources. A lot of people here don't get it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered that it might be "unspoken" because it's not actually a rule? – Joe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Let's suggest something new. Before PRODDING, one should check for sources. If it turns out that the unsourced article has no reliable sources to verify, then just PROD it; otherwise, it should be draftified as an easy and less bitey than prodding. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 21:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This proposal is not compatible with WP:NEXIST or WP:ATD. The topic of an unsourced article is often notable. The content of unsourced articles is often accurate and verifiable. An article is not "unsourced" merely because lacks of inline citations. Deletion of an article for lack of inline citations would result in the deletion of articles on topics whose existence and notability is not only verifiable, but is actually verified with sources actually cited in the article. The proposal is a solution in search of a problem, as there is no problem with unreferenced new articles that could possibly make it expedient to create a new sticky PROD similar to the BLP PROD. We are not being swamped with unreferenced new articles, and it is very easy, and takes very little time, to do a WP:BEFORE search. I propose that there should no further proposals for the creation of an "unreferenced PROD" for the next five years. I do not believe that there is any chance of consensus for the creation of a new PROD in the near future, and the community does not have time to !vote on what is essentially the same proposal again and again and again in quick succession. It is not particularly easy to check the large number of noticeboards for perennial proposals, either. James500 (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet we often say in WP:BURDEN that "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I do agree that retroactively apply this proposal to very old articles is a very dumb idea, but I do think that we need to explicitly communicate with new editors that new articles require at least 1 cited source. We can help them to find the sources, but ultimately the burden is on them to find it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This conflates notability with content; we can establish notability in the absence of sourcing in an aricle, verification of content requires sourcing. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Establishment of notability (in the Wikipedia sense) requires the existance of reliable, independent sources, so if we know what those sources are, why not cite them in the article? In other words, if no reliable, independent sources are cited in the article, where is the proof that the subject is notable? Donald Albury 13:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This. The cognitive dissonance in these kind of arguments are deafening. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The cognitive dissonance is the instance that WP:V says "verified with an inline reliable source from the first revision of the article" not "verifiable". If you want to change that, you need to explicitly propose amending WP:V. If you want to change "credible claim of significance" to "credible claim of significance supported by an inline citation to a reliable source" then you need to explicitly propose amending that page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That should be obvious and needs amending now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the number of comments in opposition here, I don't think it's obvious at all. However, if it is obvious then you will have no problem gaining consensus for the amendments. Just don't claim the consensus exists until you can provide a citation proving it does actually exist. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with DonaldAlbury above: the point of having one source, no matter if it's not reliable, or trivial, is to ensure that the WP:CCS is true. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I agree completely with James500. What matters is whether articles can be sourced, not whether any sources are currently listed in the article. We should be making it easier for editors (new and old) to contribute notable articles to the encyclopaedia, not putting even more barriers in their way. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We need to build this idea that finding and including sources is step #1 of creating an article. And the burden shouldn't fall on overloaded volunteers to "prove a negative" when people don't bother with sources. But are there enough of these to be setting this up? I've done thousands of NPP's and don't think that I've ever seen one with zero sources and just a few with zero in-line sources. The widespread / pervasive volunteer-crushing problem is zero GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, nobody's forcing you to look for sources. – Joe (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The greater fool theory, that someone else will do it, is not accurate: see the backlog. See the stats that show how few experienced regular editors. If we can't support our maintainers who are in the trenches doing this work, then you are right, they should not do it. -- GreenC 15:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the is an extension of WP:CIR. Beside it is very frustrating to see in AfDs the comments "there are sources available" and "normal editing can solve this" after which absolutely nothing happens. Not even by the editors that state that there are sources available (when you know that, why do you not add them???). The Banner talk 17:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. I opposed the previous proposal to remove all unsourced articles, but this encyclopedia has existed for 23 years, and the standards have dramatically increased since then. Back then, this might've been acceptable, but it is no longer, hasn't been for quite a while, and this just codifies that. This is also in line with WP:BURDEN; we shouldn't have to prove a lack of notability to throw these articles out. Queen of Hearts she/theytalk/stalk 20:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, let's not forget that, and its purpose is to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge. As others have said, having at least one source will at least verify the topic is not a hoax, and will ensure that the mentioned knowledge is not fake. These unsourced articles should at the very least be moved to a draft, in my opinion. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't love grandfather clauses either, but I think this is the least bad of the available solutions (the most bad being "Do nothing; just keep accumulating unsourced material indefinitely".) At some point, we have to turn the water off to the gushing pipe, and then we can focus on cleaning up the remaining mess. We really need to get across the idea of a "reverse BEFORE": Before you create or substantially add to an article, have in hand the reference material that verifies what you will write, and cite it. "Write first, hope someone sources it later, in practice let it sit unreferenced or CN tagged for the next ten years" should be an approach that is deprecated and ultimately not permitted (at least not in mainspace; if people want to do things backward in a draft or userspace, that's up to them.) An alternative might be to draftify unsourced new articles, and forbid returning them to mainspace until at least one source is added, but when you're already dealing with a flood, first turn the tap off. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mostly because a grandfather clause is generally a bad idea at best: why does this only become a problem on April 1, 2024? As other have pointed out, unsourced articles rarely make it through NPP and AfC, and even if we let PROD be used for this, it can still be contested and forced to go through AFD where WP:NEXIST makes it likely to be kept regardless of the number of citations in the article. The main practical effect I see is the grandfather clause, and it only makes sense if the goal of slowly removing the protection is bought into. The problem is that consensus from about a month ago doesn't show an appetite to apply this rule to articles that already exist, and without a mechanism to move the grandfather date automatically we'll have to keep having discussions to move it around which wastes time and risks running around consensus by tiring people out with constant discussions. I don't see this going well in practice. Wug·a·po·des 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I suggested that "In the future, this "imaginary" deadline could be gradually push backwards to tackle older and older articles, until the backlog is fully cleared." CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been multiple recent consensuses that explicitly opposed to using prod or speedy deletion to clear the backlog, so this is clearly something the community does not want and continuing to propose it is getting tendentious. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Is there something preventing us moving such articles to draft space that necessitates creating a new hammer? Also, requiring inline citations is a step too far and seems contrary to policy. I hope this isn't really what was intended and the proposal is just badly worded. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inline citations are essential for verifying information in an article. As stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, contrary to policy, you are actually seeking to bypass the challenge part (for the contentious material) and jump straight to deletion (of the entire article)? wjematherplease leave a message... 08:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The crucial part of that is has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and nowhere does it say that deletion of the article is the appropriate course of action for verifiable but not verified material. Thryduulf (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In practice, this is needed because it is very difficult to verify which statements belong to which source (with an exception of very short stubs). I would say that all sentences in such an article are likely to be challenged because they establish that "this topic exists in real life" and "this topic has X, Y, Z attributes that is true". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what the policy says though, and there has been consensus against treating all unsourced statements as likely to be challenged because the person doing the challenging must assess whether the claim is a "sky is blue" type claim (and thus doesn't need a source), plausibly true (in which case they should attempt to find a source, and add it if found or tag it if not) or completely implausible (in which case they should remove it from the article). Thryduulf (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, many new articles are "very short stubs". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is necessary that articles be based on sources, but not that the sources be cited in-line. Other, less WP:BITEy methods are better ways to address this issue than quickly deleting new articles. Such as a more leisurely deletion process or drafification. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My reading of the previous discussions was that there is a consensus against (or at least a marked lack of consensus for) automatic deletion of unreferenced articles, old or new. Those previous proposals were weakened by a lack of clarity in scope and terminology, and it seems that this proposal is too:
    • What do you consider an unsourced article? An unreferenced article? An article consisting of one or more uncited claims? Or one that is not based on sources, cited or not? Those are not synonyms, and anyone who has got stuck into trying to write or salvage articles will know that there is a big difference between an article that lacks citations and an article that lacks sources.
    • What is an inline source? Do you expect people to copy the whole text into the article, or do you mean inline citation? In which case, how do you square this new requirement with WP:MINREF, WP:GENREF, WP:LISTVERIFY, and WP:LEADCITE?
    • What is a "third-party source"? Elsewhere, that phrase can mean either independent (WP:GNG) or tertiary (WP:PSTS). In both cases, this would contradict current policy: independent sources are only required to demonstrate notability, and need not be present in the article; tertiary sources are described by WP:NOR as less desirable than secondary ones.
    • What does it mean to be eligible for PROD? All articles are eligible for PROD, if the deletion is expected to be uncontroversial. Does this remove the 'uncontroversial' requirement? Does that mean that this new type of PROD can be used multiple times? Or after an AfD?
    • If the only purpose of the required source is to verify that this topic is not a hoax, what information actually needs to be in it? Or should it verify some of the article content? If so, how much? If not, where are you supposed to put the citation, if it doesn't actually relate to any actual article text? What about articles that are obviously not hoaxes (i.e. most of them)?
This would be a massive change to our inclusion standards. It needs to be properly thought through. – Joe (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Roe, I think all of these concerns are very valid and thus this proposal is not complete. Should I move this to the idea lab? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not this specific discussion, which is already quite long. If you want to develop this idea further, I'd suggest going back to basics and asking what encyclopaedic purpose a mandatory citation for each new article would serve (i.e. beyond just removing it from Category:Articles lacking sources). – Joe (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that the opposers would detail more about what this proposal is missing rather than just regurgitating talking points. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, a third-party source is defined in Wikipedia:Third-party sources, and is not about tertiary sources. WP:TERTIARY does not use "third-party" to describe tertiary sources. See also Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean secondhand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is already a process that works (draftification through NPP), there is no need to complicate that. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - here are, at time of writing, the latest uncited articles created today which under this proposal would be prodded: Lake Rabon (South Carolina), Last Train To Fortune, Khereshwar Temple, Teluk Bahang River, 2024 Salzburg local elections, Henry VI's Conquest of Sicily. I'm not seeing those articles as any more problematic than other similar unsourced articles. I think it is better that we make a judgement about which articles we delete rather than simply sweep away everything that meets a broad criteria. SilkTork (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SilkTork, all of them are either PRODDed or have one citation. Problem solved. Lake Rabon (South Carolina) is the only article here that currently does not have one inline citation and that should change now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So our current system works, no? None of the articles have been prodded, but those which were problematic have been moved to Draft space as appropriate. Some of those may be moved back into main space after they have been worked on. Better to go to Draft than to be deleted. SilkTork (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First of all, as one of the patrollers, the flowchart of NPP clearly state that unsourced articles have to be draftified, not PROD-ed. PROD only applies to BLP articles that are unsourced, not other articles. If this is implemented, the procedure of NPP will have to be changed as well which requires further discussion before it can be implemented. We have to also consider WP:ATD where alternatives before deletion have to be considered before moving on to the deletion. This proposal also didn't consider WP:NEXIST - where the notability is based on the availability of sources, not the current state of the article where it may or may not be sourced. Finally, I think there is no need for this. Sending them to draft is enough for them to fix the article, or if they didn't want to fix it, it will be deleted anyway. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The first edit to any new page should contain at least one source. One source is the minimum we should require for any page in mainspace. One source is the minimum we should require from anyone creating a new page in mainspace. One source is the minimum required to show that an edit or an article meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, our core content policies. One source is not too much to ask. And for this reason, there is little reason to save an unsourced draft. Without a source, a Wikipedia article is meaningless. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the reason to draftify an article exactly so that it can be brought up to mainspace standards before living in mainspace? Zerotalk 05:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A draft with no sources is useless, it doesn't help anyone start an article, because you need at least one source in order to summarize sources. Also, while a petty concern, the editor who started an unsourced draft shouldn't get article creation credit. The first step of writing an article is to gather sources; people who write stuff off the top of their head are just blogging, not writing a Wikipedia article. Levivich (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because sources are not explicitly listed does not mean they weren't used when writing the page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if they were used or not, if the sources are not listed in the draft, the draft is not helpful to anyone else. Levivich (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly that is irrelevant, secondly it's not true. If someone has written an article about a topic but not included sources then another editor can find sources to verify the claims in the article without needing to know the claims (or even the topic) exist. There is no guarantee of course that such claims will present a comprehensive and neutral view of the topic, but that's true regardless of whether all, none or some of the claims are sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant? You're the one who brought it up. I agree, it doesn't matter if sources were used or not used in the creation of an article, what's relevant is whether sources are listed in the article or not. If the sources aren't listed in the article, when second editor comes along in order to improve the unsourced article, the second editor has to start by looking at sources and coming up with a summary of those sources. Then the second editor can look at the unsourced draft and yeah, maybe the unsourced draft will magically be a perfect summary of the sources. This is, obviously, highly unlikely. At the very most, in this highly unlikely scenario, the unsourced article would have saved the second editor a bit of typing. But that time saved typing is cancelled out by the time spent reading the unsourced draft and comparing it to the source material to see if it matches. That's a waste of time. I would never read an unsourced draft -- it doesn't matter what the heck is written there if there is no source listed. I would just gather the sources and write my own summary, completely ignoring the unsourced draft. It's useless to an actual article writer.
    And why do some editors spend so much energy defending unsourced articles? FFS, this is Wikipedia, it's coming up on almost 25 years now. The first step in writing an article is to gather not one source, or two, but three high-quality, GNG-compliant sources. If you don't have that, you don't have a notable topic, you aren't verifying what you're writing, you're just blogging, not writing a summary of secondary sources. Writing off the top of one's head about a topic is not the same thing as summarizing sources. And if somebody's off-the-top-of-their-head blog happens to line up with an NPOV summary of high-quality RS, that's just like a freak coincidence, man. That is not what we should be striving for, or even tolerating, on Wikipedia. "But what if the bloggers happens to be right?" is an lol argument.
    If an editor happened to use sources in drafting the unsourced article and just forgot to put them in there, that's easily fixed. When the article is prodded, tagged for CSD, or AFD'd, the editor can add the sources. Heck, even after it's deleted, the editor can get it REFUNDed and add the sources.
    Much more likely, the unsourced article is unsourced because the author didn't summarize sources, they wrote off the top of their head. This is not worth saving, nor is it worth defending.
    Wikipedia articles are summaries of secondary sources. That's what they are, and if they don't summarize secondary sources, then they're not Wikipedia articles, even if they're hosted at wikipedia.org. The starting point for every article and every editor is sources. Anyone who starts anywhere else is doing it wrong.
    Someday, more Wikipedia editors will come to realize this, and eventually Wikipedia will actually as a matter of policy require sources for all statements in mainspace. It's rather an indictment of Wikipedia that this was not the first policy, and that it's still not policy almost 25 years later. Levivich (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't the one to bring this up, you brought it up in response to Zero. I'm not saying that it's not better to have sources in a draft (obviously it is), so most of your arguments are refuting something I'm not claiming. My only point here was that an unsourced draft can be helpful.
    You are entitled to your opinion about how other people's workflows for writing articles is "wrong", but unless and until there is a consensus to modify WP:V, WP:N, WP:AGF and other core policies you don't get to impose your opinion on the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What in the world am I doing that would be considered "imposing my opinion on the encyclopedia"? Comments like this is why I get frustrated discussing things with you. Nobody here is imposing anything on anyone, and this IS an RFC about modifying policy. This IS the right place to express the views I've expressed. Levivich (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, because this creates a new type of deletion, which makes new page patrol and deletion workflows more complex. I believe that all new deletion proposals should work within our existing types of deletion. I think it would make more sense to expand the scope of BLPPROD, than to add a brand new NOSOURCESPROD that is in addition to the almost obsolete PROD (since folks always just unprod these and they end up at AFD) and BLPPROD. I will also note that many new page patrollers automatically draftify or BLPPROD articles without sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    almost obsolete PROD (since folks always just unprod these and they end up at AFD). Try looking at the evidence rather than repeating silly tropes. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Phil Bridger. I don't think we've interacted before. It's nice to meet you. User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary appears to be a list of current prods. Got any reports that list the outcomes of prods, such as deprod vs delete? My point is that many prods are de-prodded, which then requires the patroller to follow up with an AFD. This is my anecdotal experience with using prod during NPP. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice to meet you too. That link points to many articles where the PROD tag has been there for nearly a week and nobody has removed it, making your claim that that always happens false. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if a new article is sent for deletion solely because there are currently no sources, that's a bad rationale for deletion and a failure of WP:BEFORE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good argument to get rid of WP:BEFORE too. The Banner talk 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb (or anyone else who's interested), do you feel the same way about the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people policy? I think this proposal overreaches in requiring an Wikipedia:Inline citation to a reliable, third-party source, but I don't see why, in principle, a completely uncited new article about a BLP should be subject to deletion after a week's notice but an equally uncited new article about, say, a sports team or a business shouldn't be allowed to follow the same process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Articles on notable topics which would be worth having but don't yet meet mainspace standards (lack of sourcing is only one possible reason) should be draftified. That is a step towards eventually having a good article, while deletion is a step away; I think it is obvious which is better for the encyclopedia. Zerotalk 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PROD would force that article to be improved or to be moved to draftspace. And frankly, why is it so difficult to cite one source in an article about a notable topic? I don't get the opposers' reasoning here. If there is no source in an article, how could we know that this article is not a total fabrication? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above, contradicts WP:NEXIST; unclear that this necessarily resolves a problem - as the February unreferenced backlog drive showed, even experienced Wikipedians were making mistakes and incorrectly sourcing articles. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per other guidelines and many other opposers, that sources existing and existing notability is enough to not use an enhanced PROD process. I am not a very big fan of draft space (I think working in articles space where there's many eyes is often better if it seems notable. And user space or off wiki is better at the stage where notability is unclear or if someone wants to draft an article solo.). However, I could see supporting a properly crafted proposal that articles less than 90 days old and entirely unsourced when draftified with care (so maybe a very weak form of WP:BEFORE is done) cannot be moved back to article space without adding at least one source that has a credible claim of at minimum verifying the article. Skynxnex (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MILD SUPPORT I think that any articles without citations should either provide a source or be deleted.
    But there should be a ~month long period to provide sources before deletion occurs. Redacted II (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I know this is not going to succeed, but ultimately only this approach is consistent with the widespread (and beneficial) practice of improving verifiability by removing unsourced content from articles—which can only be restored if there is a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's premature to predict the outcome. A straight vote count is running a bit under 40:60 against the proposal, but a number of objections (including my own) are to specific details (e.g., specifically requiring an inline citation instead of a general citation) rather than to the overall principle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; not sure there is much more to be said about why this would not be a great idea. I think this would go against the spirit of the project, and that it would be a very costly move in return for not much improvement. jp×g🗯️ 05:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a "very costly move" as you have said, as multiple editors has pointed out that this is not that much different to how modern Wikipedia processes new unsourced articles. We just don't allow them to come to the mainspace. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftification is done at the discretion of editors and new page patrollers, who like most Wikipedia editors are generally expected to have coherent reason for things that they do. Making it a binding policy would remove this discretion. Either way, it is not good: if it's meant to substantively change the way that article creation works on Wikipedia, it is for the worse, and if it isn't meant to substantively change anything, that is a great reason to avoid making giant disruptions in the public-facing process of a thing that has worked fine for the last 23 years. jp×g🗯️ 07:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I also see this as unlikely to succeed, but I'd prefer to see the project move into this direction. I think it would be an improvement to require that article creators include at least one source, and I do not see current procedure as sufficient to deal with the unsourced article problem. I can understand the objections based on grandfathering, but I would prefer the harms of temporary inequity over the harms of doing nothing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't think the citation needs to be inline, but geez y'all, it's 2024, citations are expected in everyday culture now, anyone dumping an unsourced article into mainspace (without followup edits) nowadays is willfully ignoring our requirements and clearly has no plans to join the community. We don't need to protect these precious new editors, and we don't need to retain unsupported information that would be deleted if it was in any other format than a standalone page. JoelleJay (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Levivich. Ajpolino (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To be sure, a new, truly unsourced article is very likely to be hit by NPP for draftification, prod, or AFD (perhaps even when it really shouldn't). It's good practice to include at least some references. However, some editors take a narrow view of sourcing and consider implicit sources as "unsourced" when it really isn't (i.e. a newbie editor simply writing out "According to Joe Bloggs, blah blah blah..."). Secondly, the main case where valid "unsourced" articles exist are generally the frontiers that are good to create articles on for WP:CSB grounds. These are often translations of other language's wikipedia articles where there very well may be sources, but not ones easily consulted in English. Now, yes, other language Wikipedia editions have weaker notability requirements than enwiki, and yes, some of these are just authentically unsourced in the other language too. But this case is large enough that there will still be cases of plainly notable people who don't have articles yet, and deleting the articles out of misguided "consistency" doesn't make sense. Better to keep the article simple and non-controversial and wait on someone familiar with the foreign language sources, instead. Keeping this situation a valid option for creating an article means opposing the proposal. SnowFire (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I feel comfortable to say that we tolerate unsourced articles because someday, somebody will magically put a citation into it? No. Without work from the WP:WikiProject Unreferenced articles, Category:Articles lacking sources backlog would now have >150k articles and will keep growing from here. Plus, by de facto standard, we already strongly recommended that new articles should have an inline citation. Why is it so difficult to codify that into policy? If you translate an article from a foreign language to English, then it is very trivial for them to copy the citations to the English version of the article or find one source that verify that this topic/subject actually exist. It's not that difficult. If you want new editors to understand the new PROD criteria, why not being more clear in the Article Wizard that Wikipedia articles need to have sources? And if my proposal sounds BITEy, then that's because the whole PROD/AfD process itself is BITEy. Please, if that's the reason why you opposed my proposal, please suggest changes to PROD and AfD instead. This is not my fault.
    You might ask, why do I demand an inline citation in my proposal? This is because an inline citation helps me to verify a specific statement in the article. If that reference is placed below, a reader would have no idea what is the specific statement that we are referring to. Just to mention this, most new editors nowadays don't start out editing in wikicode, they start out with VisualEditor. When they fire up VisualEditor for the first time there is an explicit instruction dialog hovering below the citation button that instructs you how to make an inline citation. It's really not that hard to do for a beginner. Even if VisualEditor somehow cannot process your URL, you can always type that citation in plain text.
    And why do I ask that citation must come from reliable source? Because we don't want people to write an article about a notable topic with absolutely shitty sources, like Twitter posts, gossip websites, forums, etc. If the whole article is talking about the Ancient history of Botswana and every citation in that article refers to a self-published Blogger page, then that article is just as useless as it is uncited, because we cannot verify whether that article is spewing out myths or not. Many editors here objected my proposal due to WP:NEXIST, but why is it so hard to ask people just cite one of those excellent sources to the first sentence, to verify that this topic actually exists in real life?
    I'm just gonna sum up my proposal as follows. Missing content on Wikipedia is terrible. Having incorrect content masquerading as facts on Wikipedia is much, much worse. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would think that if one was going to go through the expense of yet another RFC on the same theme (the third within six months?), it would have at least been better thought out. As Joe Roe and others have highlighted, clearly it is not. Anyway, we should not introduce this new process, subtly different from existing ones yet also similar and overlapping in purpose. I hesitate to expand our assortment of procedural mechanisms for deletion or quasi-deletion, which is already confusing to editors. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and neither is PROD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is cleanup, in that a PROD indicates that "this article that does not have inline citations does not belong to Wikipedia". And it is not wrong to do so, because it corresponds to our current best practices. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no excuse for creating an unsourced article in 2024. Unsourced articles cannot be repaired by adding sources; they must be rewritten because without the sources we cannot tell if they are COPYVIO. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The bar needs to be raised. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this particular bar should not be raised. The proposal is about new unsourced articles and suggests to delete them instead of draftifying as we currently do. This would make our problem of WP:BITEing newbies worse and give less feedback on how to write an acceptable article, without any change to the amount of unsourced content in mainspace. The backlog of unsourced articles is completely unconnected to the new articles that this proposal is about. —Kusma (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How/when would that happen? Due to the backlog due to a handful of active NPP'ers being asked to do too much of the million editors' work and otherwise being too difficult and painful, it won't even get looked at at NPP until after the draftifying time limit runs out. Not that I think that there are very many completely unsourced new articles. The pervasive problem is lack of GNG sources for articles that need those. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the suggestion has already been turned down, apparently twice - no justification for bringing it up again so soon. For the rest, as per James500 and Joe. Ingratis (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The last proposal said that we should PROD all articles right now that does not have a source. That's absolute lunacy. What I'm suggesting here is what the community has effectively done to new articles since 2020. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad - I should have implied "substantially similar", not "identical". On which, I'll just quote a brief comment from up above:

    "All of the objections raised to the two similar proposals in the last few months still apply. I really can't be bothered to repeat them again. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here. Clearing a backlog is only incidental to this. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)"

    I could add to that but it would be pretty much what James500 and Joe have already said better. Ingratis (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm confused about what @CactiStaccingCrane: is proposing here. The header claims the proposal is (1) "deprecating new unsourced articles". But then he says (2) I propose that articles that [...] [do] not have any inline sources can be PRODed. Unsourced articles aren't the same as articles lacking inline citations. He then specifies (3) "Such a PROD can only be revoked after an addition of one inline, reliable, third-party source" – apparently raising the bar even higher, since articles lacking inline, reliable, third-party citations aren't the same as articles merely lacking inline citations. There must be clarity on what exactly is proposed to be changed. – Teratix 16:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seems to be covered well by existing (albeit broken) processes. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 01:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are ways other than deletion that can be employed to clear the backlog. I would support a draftification process for unsourced articles to get potentially problematic content out of mainspace, but simply deleting discourages new editors from learning how to write articles and ultimately staying on the site. funplussmart (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- MediaWiki Edit Check project - (has anyone else mentioned this? sorry if so) this looks as though it is about to deal with most of the issues raised here, to the liking of some if not of others. Ingratis (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For the proposer's reason. (Sorry about where I put the comment, I was clicking the wrong reply button.) OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (quite strongly), because it this would prevent all translation of articles from wikipedias that accept general referencing (which, incidentally, still technically includes our own). (1) Yes, the translator ideally will get the original source, track down the information, and convert general referencing into inline referencing. But often it's impossible to track down all the sources, and we have to assume at least some good faith that the original author did use the sources they provide. A translation is still a starting-point for later editors to convert the general references to inline, and to find new references. Wikipedia articles aren't expected to be complete at first appearance. (2) We promise our readers that everything in Wikipedia can be traced back to a source. We don't promise how much leg-work it will require. Even an inline reference can require work, if it's just a book with no page number. Or a book that's really hard to track down. Sometimes an article here is quite short, and has a couple of general references that themselves are either quite short, or have a clear section obviously on the subject (e.g. references to Grove in biographies of musicians), and general referencing is straightforward and reasonably helpful to the reader. We are also not obliged to pander to hypothetically incredibly lazy readers who want to be told that the information is in the third word on the fourteenth line on page 37. There are circumstances when general referencing isn't evil, and we should trust AfC and the new page patrol to use their discretion to accept such articles even if not inline-referenced. Elemimele (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (1): Is it that difficult to ask for one source? Our built-in translation tool also translate the references for you, so I don't see why this is so hard to do.
    (2) and (3): That's true. I think I have to reconsider this proposal for this reason. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CactiStaccingCrane, while you're thinking about translation, take a look at the German-language Wikipedia. Check out articles like w:de:Sandstein (=sandstone). There are general references, but I didn't see a single inline citation.
    Even among their TFAs, which AFAICT do have inline citations, they may be sparse. Several this month (including Herrenhof (Mußbach) and Schwachhauser Heerstraße, which we don't have articles about) had less than 10 inline citations.
    I wouldn't personally want to emulate this approach, but it is something to think about as a potential source of complications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's precisely what I meant. I don't condone the German Wikipedia's approach; it would be better if they used more inline citations, but unfortunately they often don't, and yet nevertheless they have useful, well-written articles on subjects we don't cover, and the articles are sourced, just not the way we do it. Elemimele (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose from a new page patroller, using PROD for this is WP:BITEy and the wrong process, the current remedy of WP:DRAFTIFY gives the often new editors more time to rectify sourcing issues and gives them more venues to get help. ~ A412 talk! 02:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @A412, PROD is the prescribed process for completely unsourced BLPs (which seems to be the majority of articles that NPP deals with). Do you feel that BLPPROD is also BITEy? Do you use draftification to get around the BLPPROD rules? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because WP:BLP, as policy, is more applicable than the WP:BITE guideline. This doesn't mean we should expand the pattern we use to deal with unsourced BLPs (which exists for a specific reason) to the more general case. ~ A412 talk! 04:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. An issue for someone who's new to Wikipedia, still learning wikitext etc. is that adding a citation in the correct format isn't entirely straightforward. Even using the provided templates, you have to know which detail belongs in which field. It's another technical thing to be learnt. It's quite possible that the reason someone hasn't added any citations yet is that they don't feel confident adding them. "How do I make the references appear in the right place?", "What does name mean on the form?", "How do I know if I'm choosing the right template?", "What is a template anyway?" People don't automatically know this stuff, and they're already having to read up on how everything else works. I think a friendly offer of help with inserting them would be more useful. "Find a reference you need to add, and I'll show you what to put in the popup form." Musiconeologist (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make Todays Featured List appear exactly every 3 days instead of 3-4 days

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'll ask it here.

Something that I've always been confused about is why TDL has a schedule where one list will appear three days after a list and then the next list will appear 4 days after instead of just three days again. I don't see how this could be for "we could run out of unique lists" purposes because there are over 3100 lists that haven't been featured on the main page.

So I propose that Todays Featured List should appear every 3 days instead of every 3-4 days on the main page. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Today's featured list, it's because TFL appears Mondays and Fridays, aligning with days of the week. That seems to work fine, so I don't see a need for a change. Sdkbtalk 08:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Keep it on Mondays and Fridays! Bduke (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "every Monday and Friday" pattern makes it easier for people to know when to look for it than your proposal would. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to have more TFLs (no idea whether that is a good idea or not), just go for three times per week. —Kusma (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Disambiguation page

The page “People’s Publishing House” is redirecting to a Beijing based People’s Press.

please remove this redirect and instead create a disambiguation page of “People’s Publishing House”, so that other pages with similar names, for example “People’s Publishing House (India) can be listed on that disambiguationmpage. Pallav.journo (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they really are of equal importance then a two-entry disambiguation page may be the best solution. However, the new article you created, People’s Publishing House (India), currently has only one primary source and may be at risk of deletion. Even if the new article remains, People's Publishing House may be retained as a primary redirect if the Chinese state press is deemed much more significant than a private company. Certes (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Add a link to the WP:Contents page either on the Main Page itself or on the mobile sidebar

I found that it is very hard to get to the WP:Contents page in mobile view. Instead, I would have to search for in the search bar and go into desktop view to access it. I am proposing that we include this page somewhere on the main page. No opinion on where to put it on the main page, but my first thought would be to put it the other areas of Wikipedia section. Please comment with your thoughts below. Interstellarity (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to WP:Contents/Portals already there. Having both that and WP:Contents would probably be redundant - which one is more useful on the main page? Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 00:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a swap from the portals link to the contents link. Interstellarity (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: clarify that they may be on a linked page

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



I wish to seek to change the wikipedia policy WP:SOURCE. Currently this states "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." in the section Responsibility for providing citations. I propose amending this with the additional sentence "Sources may be contained in a linked article."

 RATIONAL FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE

I believe that requiring sources on every page brings a number of problems: 1) it is onerous and inefficient and discourages linking relevant articles to pages, especially for new editors: 2) the relevant article may include more sources, mentions of the article might only include one, so anyone looking for useful information might not see it; 3) in a rapidly moving field sources may be updated in an article but that might be missed on linked pages. In any case it is easy for anyone to click on the link to see the article with all relevant sources. Hewer7 (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not too familiar with how things work here at the village pump but I believe policy changes should be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
CanonNi (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But I thought I saw that proposals should be discussed here first? Hewer7 (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to change a existing policy, not create a new one, so WP:VPP is the correct place. CanonNi (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks. Hewer7 (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

GeoHack preference

The GeoHack system offers a choice of about two dozen map applications. I always choose the same application, but I have to make that choice every time I use GeoHack. It would be nice if my choice could be saved in a preference setting so that whenever I click on a coordinate I go directly to my preferred map app instead of having to again select which app. Sbowers3 (talk) Sbowers3 (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same. jp×g🗯️ 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Magnus Manske is listed as one of the maintainers for mw:GeoHack. He might know whether a bit of .js or something could solve this problem. If he isn't on wiki in the next couple of days, I suggest taking this question to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) instead of asking here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idea lab

Semi-Administrator right

I believe that there should be an extended level of protection named "Semi-Administrator" that requires a user request their permissions on a WP:PERM page. I believe this should be added because it would prevent WP:PGAME and a possible future WP:INVASION. It would be like requesting WP:TPE or WP:RBK, but instead it gives users the right to edit semi-administrator protected pages which would likely become commonplace in the future due to the expansion of media bias, systematic bias, and political extremism, all leading to increased vandalism. Combined with the reduction of editors, this will cause disasterous effects. Another idea is to make WP:ECP a requested right instead of an automatic one. To reduce request backlog, however, there must be more administrators which means WP:RFAINFLATION needs to stop. 2003LN6 18:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!
I don't think we should worry about anything that has no indication of happening. Permission gaming isn't happening on a large scale, and I'd rather preserve adminship being no big deal. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but I still believe a backup plan is good or else admins will have to do mass rangeblocks on pretty much the entire world during an WP:INVASION, which would be quite hostile to newcomers. 2003LN6 05:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think mass-enabling WP:Pending changes would be a good plan. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about phasing out edit requests in favour of pending changes for any protected pages? This is pretty radical, sure, but it'd make it much easier to propose a change quickly, rather than going through the hassle of putting up the template, etc... This would also make it easier for newcomers to quickly do some copyediting. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this would put too much of a burden on pending changes patrollers. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approving 100 pending changes is much faster than responding to 100 edit requests. It could only require more effort from the community if we got far more contributions (e.g., 100 people willing to an edit under PC vs only 10 willing to figure out edit requests). On the other hand, if we believe what the Wikipedia:Editing policy says about Wikipedia being best when it has the most knowledge, then maybe that's a burden we should try to accommodate, at least to some extent.
BTW, a few years ago, an admin removed semi-protection from a bunch of articles (appropriately selected ones, not those likely to be targeted by spammers or juvenile vandals) and added PC. I believe the increase in activity was negligible. It might be possible to do something along these lines, e.g., to reduce some EC-protected articles to semi+PC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's "semi+PC"? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% certain what the setup is these days, but I believe that it at least used to be possible to stack protections in a way that would prevent editing by IPs and new accounts entirely, and have PC protection for other accounts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not currently an EC level of pending changes. There is only one level of pending changes at the moment, and a consensus would be needed to add a new one. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus would be needed for any of this, so that's not a showstopper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be another level of pending changes, but there was consensus for its removal. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be Pending Changes Level 2. It used the reviewer userright (before extendedconfirmed existed) and locked approval of pending changes to that. It was trialled in 2010 and had failed RfCs to approve it in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016 before finally achieving consensus to remove it completely in 2017. Wikipedia:Pending changes#Timeline gives more context. Frankly, now that we have ECP there doesn't seem to be much use for Pending Changes at all anymore. The actual extension (mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs/m:Flagged Revisions) is unmaintained and the WMF has had a moratorium on new installs since 2017. I think it would be easier to get consensus to remove FlaggedRevs altogether than to expand it's usage. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. FlaggedRevisions is used on all articles at the German-language Wikipedia. While one might not wish to emulate their overall trajectory, it would is unheard of for any of the larger communities to voluntarily give up any software that allows them to exercise greater control over article content or new editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think removing FlaggedRevs is likely, I just think that gaining consensus for expanding its use would be even less likely. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of active editors (registered accounts making 5+ edits in a given month) has been stable at the English Wikipedia since about 2013.
@2003 LN6, just in case it was the very old image at the top of the page that made you believe that the number of editors is still declining, I've made an updated image for you.
As you can see, the number of active editors has been stable for 10+ years. There are some seasonal effects, but most months have 36K to 38K registered editors making five or more edits during the calendar month. The English Wikipedia isn't growing, but there is no decline, either.
If you want to see what a decline looks like, then check out the numbers for the German Wikipedia. Other communities, like the Persian Wikipedia, are growing. Overall, across all the languages, I understand that the number of editors was increasing slowly over time, spiked up during the first year of the pandemic, and might be settling down to a natural growth rate again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely don't think a hypothetical scenario of thousands of vandals hacking into Wikipedia is a reasonable basis for such drastic changes. Blocking is easy for admins, and, if your hypothetical WikiInvaders can hack into established accounts, what would stop them from also hacking into accounts with that new user right? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is highly unlikely, and many of the outlined potential changes are a horrible idea. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and nobody WP:OWNs the content here. I actually doubt that introducing new measures to increase barriers of entry would actually address the bias problems that you raise. It might even have the opposite effect. This would be an interesting topic to study. spintheer (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is AfC so strict compared to NPP?

For new pages patrol, it is common to see pages with a single source or two (in some cases even none) which are not even very reliable be reviewed and accepted. NPP seems to pass every article which doesn't have speedy deletion criteria-meeting problems, while AfC is much more strict with everything. I would even go further and say that some declined AfC submissions are better quality than over 15% of mainspace articles. Often, a declined AfC submission has incredible potential but gets declined, and the draft just dies after 6 months. What do you think? I think this discourages new users and kills out articles with potential to be well-sourced and notable. Youprayteas (t c) 16:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the reason is that an actual article can only be deleted either if it meets one of the strict CSD criteria, or if it undergoes the community effort of an AFD. On the other hand, a single reviewer is allowed to decline an AFC submission purely because the reviewer thinks it's too low quality to submit as an article. Animal lover |666| 17:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real reason is probably as above, but I would point out that the best time to deal with any problems that an article might have is when it is brand new, so if an article author cooperates with the reviewer, rather than just abandoning things, a better article may result. A few reviewers seem to just reject any non-English or offline sources out of hand. If you come across one of those then it should be remembered that most of the time an author can simply move the article to main space where it will be subject to speedy deletion or an AfD discussion in the usual way. That option should be better publicised. AfC should be regarded as a service to article authors rather than a hurdle to be jumped over. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more structural than that: an AFC reviewer may be yelled at if they accept articles that meet the rules ("unlikely to get deleted at AFD") but are ugly ("How dare you put that short/incompletely cited/poorly written article in the mainspace?! Won't somebody think of our reputation!"). They are almost never yelled at if they decline these articles. Therefore, they are incentivized to ignore and decline articles that should be accepted. Therefore (since they are rational people), they will ignore and decline articles that should be accepted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is spot on. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very true and relevant. I wrote more on this below. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should strike a middle ground on both of them. AfC reviewers should be expected to review them a little more leniently if they're sourced but WP:NOTFINISHED (which is inherent to any article), and NPP reviewers should be a little more willing to draftify or AfD weak articles if they don't immediately demonstrate notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Youprayteas talk/contribs 18:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One issue here is user reputation: you lose nothing if you do nothing, but you risk losing some if you do something. In this context, neither declining an AFC (it will probably be unseen for a few months and then deleted), nor marking a page as patrolled (leaves behind a log entry, but few will notice it), is truly considered something; on the other hand, accepting a draft, or nominating an article for AFD, is. In borderline cases, the primary incentive is to do nothing. Animal lover |666| 17:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Animal lover 666, you might be interested in this discussion at WT:NPP earlier this month, about how to make "doing nothing" a little more visible to other patrollers. (The context is that we need all new articles reviewed at least once in the first few minutes more than we need any single article silently reviewed 20 times.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, typically AFC is tougher than typical NPP. This is due to a combination of human nature plus common practices and structure at AFC. NPP primarily screens by "should an article on this topic exist in Wikipedia?" which 90% of the times is by wp:notability. AFC also screens by other article quality criteria and has rejection templates for those other criteria. This can be both a plus and a minus...the plus is that more article improvement work gets done and editors learn while doing that. Also, I think that AFC reviewers are a bit more cautious. I think that sometimes they are viewing it as putting their stamp of approval on the overall articles. Also because a rejection at AFC often means just "work on it some more" whereas a rejection at NPP means taking it to AFD. Finally, I think that NPP tends to pass edge cases regarding wp:notability, a partial adaptation to the fact that even articles/topics which clearly fail wp:notability often get kept at AFD. I think that AFC reviewers tend to play it safer regarding this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The review process is different even though they are both quality control. However I have come across several new articles which were moved to draft space when they should not have been. My goal at AfC is to help good faith editors ensure their article won't be deleted, whereas at NPP I'm basically making sure there's no copyvio/putting template headers up so people understand what's wrong with the article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with North that AFC reviewers are viewing it as putting their stamp of approval on the overall article.
    By way of reducing the incentives to decline articles, I wonder whether a third AFC nomination should result in a procedural AFD. Then it's no individual's "fault" if the "bad" article ends up in the mainspace, and AFC won't have to go through multiple rounds of "No, really, getting mentioned on Facebook doesn't mean your garage band qualifies for a Wikipedia article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a newer editor, the WP:Notability decline template is hard to understand, doubly so because the Wikipedia meaning of wp:notability is different than the real world one. I've done a few help desk items there and have said it more directly (when there is not an SNG in play) "Find two published independent sources that discuss the topic of your article in depth and put them into the article as references. If you can't find those, IMO it's best not to try to create an article on this topic". North8000 (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I once sketched a streamlined replacement for AfC that incorporated a mechanism like that (though MfD instead of AfD, and on the first 'decline'). The idea was that if you restrict the range of options available to reviewers to a) accepting as-is, b) CSD, or c) sending to XfD, it removes the tendency for AfC to turn itself into an elaborated peer review process and returns it to just being a quick sanity-check on article creation requests. The detailed reviewing is then done by NPP, who were going to do it anyway. It would create quite of bit of extra work at XfD, however, so I think it would only be viable if combined with stopping encouraging new editors from using AfC (see below) and reserving it just for editors prevented from creating things in mainspace by a COI or partial block. – Joe (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be AFD (because that's where the subject-matter experts already are), and I think that making it the third round would cut the volume significantly. Anything that survives AFD shouldn't get further review by NPP and should be ineligible for future draftification (which is what some NPPers prefer to do with ugly articles on notable subjects – these editors care about article quality, rather than deletion-worthiness). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it matters that the standards differ (though WhatamIdoing's explanation is spot-on, and I like their procedural-AFD idea too). What we need is better appreciation of the different routes by which articles can arrive in main-space. AfC and NPP are quite different, and some articles simply don't suit one or the other. For example, an academic editor writing about a historical figure, using non-English, written (book) sources as referencing shouldn't hesitate to bypass AfC because it's highly unlikely that anyone there will feel qualified to assess the article, or have access to the sources. At the very least, the article will sit there for months. Meanwhile, AfC reviewers, when in doubt, shouldn't feel bad about accepting and instantly sending to AFD in WhatamIdoing's procedural sense. The whole guiding principal of Wikipedia is that it's a multi-editor, collaborative project. An AfC reviewer can reject once, but as soon as the article's author disagrees, it's a dispute that requires community consensus - and AfD's where that gets discussed. This needs wording correctly, so that everyone understands that the article has arrived at AfD for a second, multi-editor opinion, not because the creator committed a crime in submitting it, or the AfC reviewer is evil for their one-editor view that it's not okay. Elemimele (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's common to see AFD nominations marked as "procedural nomination", so that latter idea fits right in with existing practices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's broken by design. AfC primarily exists to give people who we don't actually want to create articles a way to create articles (classic Wikipedian logic there), and as such there is no real reason to make the process effective or encouraging. No editor with a modicum of experience or good advice uses AfC unless they have to. We should stop encouraging good-faith new editors to use it too. – Joe (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a way to prevent "hallucinated" AI-generated citations in articles

A major issue observed at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup is the ability for LLMs to make up entire citations that never actually existed, given a veneer of verifiability to actually completely unsourced articles. Examples include Leninist historiography (now turned into a redirect), with completely made-up references. Another example is Estola albosignata, with LLMs generating foreign-language sources that actually existed, but had nothing to do with the topic and would be unlikely to be detected by a non-specialist not speaking the relevant languages.
As LLMs become more commonplace, and this kind of insidious "sourced-but-really-unsourced" text generation becomes harder to detect than plain unsourced text, should we try to work on a way to limit such situations? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately edits have to be checked. It would be a good university research project to build an AI to evalute edits and highlight ones that appear to be unsupported by citations. The rate at which content was falsely flagged would probably be high to start (including content supported by sources in some more distant location in the article), but it could still help produced a prioritized list of edits for human checking. isaacl (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but as interesting as it would be, a university research project isn't a Wikipedia policy or task force. And that wouldn't solve the specific problem of AI-generated text making up convincing-looking references, which something like a limitation on AI reference generation could do. Something as simple as having to disclose the references as having been AI-generated (and tagging them for further review) could be helpful. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the only way to truly know whether a citation is genuine is to manually check it. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and that's why tagging AI-generated citations for manual reviews is the best way to go. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your base assumption seemed to be that it was hard to detect when a citation had been AI-generated. Ultimately all edits have to be checked. isaacl (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please stop assuming what others' "base assumptions" were, it's strawmanning and doesn't help the discussion at all. Citations in the middle of AI-generated text are easy to recognize as AI-generated, but the lack of policies on AI generation means they currently stand without any extra scrutiny. Despite being spurious in the vast majority of cases. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good research project for Wikipedians to work on, too. I only mentioned universities because I feel it's a natural fit for the WMF to engage in partnership, with external timelines from the university and other funders also driving progress. But Wikipedia editors can apply for WMF funding, or just work on it for free if they desire. isaacl (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the task would be to mimic what human verification does: examine the change, look at any related references (either as part of the change or pre-existing ones that seem appropriate), determine if the references exist, read the cited works if they are accessible, and evaluate if the change is supported by the references. This is of course a difficult task. But a program working on it will do it tirelessly and continually. It wouldn't be a magic solution, but it could help enable human checking to find more problems more rapidly. At a minimum, it would help identify plausible but fictional references. isaacl (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are proposing a solution to a problem caused by AI that involves more AI. Surely it would be easier just to not use AI in the first place? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. Similarly, the best solution to gun crime would be for criminals not to use guns, but arming the police is a good plan B. If AI has any place in Wikipedia, it's in suggesting edits which an experienced human can consider critically and make or discard. There are plenty of problems where finding a solution is hard but verifying it is easy. As long as no one implements alleged solutions without verification. AI can have a role. Certes (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption in the original comment seemed to be that it was difficult to distinguish when the source of the edit was program-generated text. Sure, it would be easier to say text shouldn't be written by programs (and I think there's a reasonable chance that this could attain consensus support), but it wouldn't stop the problem of editors ignoring this policy. Ultimately, all edits have to be checked; AI could be used to help prioritize which edits to check first, but it doesn't have to be. Either way, we need to find a way to ramp up the amount of verification effort in a sustained manner, which isn't going to be easy. isaacl (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that making a policy doesn't stop editors from ignoring the policy, while technically true, doesn't mean it isn't helpful. That's the reason we have policies at all to begin with. Also, I never suggested banning AI writing altogether, but using AI to generate citations, as they are nearly always incorrect or completely made up.
Also, your suggestion of implementing automated verification of all edits is pretty far off from the original discussion, and doesn't really answer the specific issue raised. I suggest you open a separate discussion for this proposal, to avoid both getting mixed up. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for ways to manage fictious citations, and I suggested one way was to find automated ways to detect them. I feel this aligns with your suggestion of tagging them. Are you considering a manual process for tagging them? isaacl (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just considering tagging or disclosing citations that are AI-generated. The question is how to deal with a tool (LLMs) that facilitates adding spurious citations, rather than how to make a tool to verify every single citation (which would be a project at a much bigger scale, and relying on it for the first issue would make the process take much longer).
I'm not against an automated way to verify citations. To the contrary, I feel like this would be extremely beneficial to the encyclopedia, and I encourage you to work on it! My point is just that relying on this (very powerful, but harder to implement) tool to solve the more specific problem would be slower than implementing a tagging/disclosing/etc. policy, with warnings/sanctions for editors adding false citations with LLMs. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no hard feelings at all, I really believe your idea has potential! I just feel like it would be better for both to have their own sections/discussions as they solve different, although certainly related, problems. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the response. I don't think relying on editors to flag their own edits as containing citations generated by text-writing programs is going to very effective, since editors who follow policy will be manually checking that any citations are valid and support the added content. I think some kind of automated tagging would be needed to avoid editor fatigue, and to free up editor effort for the real problem of verifying edits. It's already counter to policy to include a false citation, regardless of where it came from, so administrators can take appropriate actions as needed. Although English Wikipedia's good-faith and welcoming traditions underlie its ability to attract more volunteers, they also mean there isn't much way to prevent a new editor from doing things they really want to do. isaacl (talk) 02:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment below on an approach that would "only solve half the problem" seems to indicate that you are also concerned about verifying if a cited work actually supports the content added. This also aligns with having tools to help assist with that verification. isaacl (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In related news, AI researchers have started reviewing their peers using AI assistance. Certes (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what I said at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 179#What can chatbots do? actually came true... 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is going to be the most challenging thing with LLMs. Unsourced text is trivial to spot, but these generated citations can be really convincing, e.g. using the names of real authors with expertise in that subject alongside titles they would plausibly (but didn't) write. And most of our quality-control processes are too undermanned to manually verify each citation.
One solution I can think of is to start insisting that references include at least one external identifier (ISBN, ISSN, DOI, etc.). These could be used to automatically check the existence of a publication matching the citation in external databases. We could start gently at first, with warnings for missing template parameters and tags like {{ISBN missing}}. – Joe (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I at least ocassionally use books as sources that were published before ISBN existed. I also often use articles as sources from journals that do not have ISSN or DOI identifiers, but which I regard as reliable sources for what I use them for. The journal articles and many of the older books that I have cited for many years now are on-line, either free-access or available through the WikiLibrary, and I link the URL when there is no DOI, JSTOR, or similar link, but I would oppose any measure that prevents us from using relevant, reliable sources that do not have an ISBN, ISSN, DOI, etc identifier, and are not (yet) on-line. Donald Albury 16:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also often work with sources that legitimately have no ISBNs etc, and I agree that a hard requirement for ISBNs is a non-starter -- it wouldn't even help much against LLMs, because they often do provide (fake) ISBNs. But! Since the LLM's ISBN is usually fake, it rarely points to the book being cited (especially when that book is fake too) -- a mismatch would be a useful diagnostic symptom to prompt scrutiny. It seems tricky but not impossible to have a bot that, e.g., looks up a cited ISBN for its title and compares that title to the title in the citation. If these mismatches were given a maint tag, they could then be scrutinized more easily. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. But in order for such mismatch-checks to be effective, we'd need a stronger (but not totally-inflexible) requirement to provide identifiers. Otherwise you could circumvent the whole thing by simply getting the LLM to generate fake citations without ISBNs. – Joe (talk) 13:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a stranger to using old sources either. But ISBN/ISSNS will be issued for any new editions or republications of older volumes, and failing that we could look to things like OCLC or national library catalogue numbers, which are assigned retrospectively. There will still be things that fall through cracks, of course, but I imagine well over 99% of sources can now be matched with authoritative identifiers. I don't envisage that this measure would stop people using sources without identifiers, just strongly encourage them to provide them where possible. Like all our rules, it would be ignorable when necessary. – Joe (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would only solve half of the issue, at best. A lot of times, AI-generated citations link to actual works in the general domain of the topic, that could plausibly match, but which don't address the specific topic or verify the claim at all (see the Estola albosignata example discussed above). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a potentially useful application of AI would be to download a corpus of (sentences with citations, full text of the cited sources) pairs, and train/finetune an AI model to evaluate whether it thinks the source supports the sentence. Even if it produces some false negatives, it could still generate a useful prioritised worklist for human editors to manually verify. Of course, not all sources are readily available to download, but many are. This would help catch cases of verification failures in general, not just LLM hallucinations. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was some work ~a decade ago that did this sort of in reverse: it took unsourced statements in Wikipedia and checked one of the big newspaper sites to see if it could find a suitable source. It seemed to work most of the time, especially for simpler things (e.g., "Joe Film announces his new film"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby, I'm curious about the claim above that Citations in the middle of AI-generated text are easy to recognize as AI-generated. Is the idea here that we should assume that text we've detected as being AI-generated should be assumed to not include real citations, or is there something specific about an AI-generated citation that would let you detect that specifically?
My experience with the free LLM-detection tools online is that they think the articles I've written were AI-generated too often for me to trust their accuracy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about LLM-detection tools (which always lag behind LLMs and aren't very reliable), I'm just saying that we can recognize some of the "obvious" AI-generated text (with, for instance, the usual ChatGPT keywords/text structure), and infer that the citations inside it are very likely also AI-generated. There's more information about this on Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup if you want! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That page, particularly "Other indications include the presence of fake references", sets up the possibility for circular decision-making: I know it's LLM-generated text because the refs are fake, and I know the refs are fake because it's LLM-generated text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refs being fake alone shouldn't be used to decide something is AI-generated text, it's an indication. And, if you read my proposal, you'll see I never said that any LLM-generated text should have its references automatically seen as false, but as to be reviewed by humans. The solution is obviously to actually check if the references are fake or not, rather than to get caught up in circular reasoning. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, I wonder whether this is a problem that's going to have to be solved in the bigger world - just as Captcha became so important, and we realised first that a human is something that can identify fire hydrants, and later that a human was something that moves a mouse towards a fire hydrant in a wobbly way. LLM's can work very fast, and are extremely good at faking references in very convincing ways. They require neither intelligence, ethics, nor good will from their users. So at the moment, they're a huge risk not only to Wikipedia, but to accuracy of almost every web result, all the way from Wikipedia-references to pictures of people in no clothes. The world desperately needs good ways to identify and screen-out LLM-products, and it's going to be the same battle of will as happened with Captcha: as AI gets better at generating human-like text, other AI will get better at detecting AI-produced text. It may be that anything we do in Wikipedia-world is actually a pointless and partial duplication of something that Google and others are probably working on as we speak. With the current state of AI and LLM's, I definitely favour a flat ban on all AI-generated material in WP. The risks outweigh the benefits by a vast margin. Elemimele (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enforcement of a ban will depend on being able to identify AI/LLM-produced material with a reasonably high success rate while keeping false positives at an acceptably low rate. But, why should we be more concerned by the source of material than about the quality of material? Humans are also capable of introducing false information, bad sources, and misleading images to WP. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and anyone can verify content. The emphasis needs to be on what will improve the encyclopedia. Donald Albury 13:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My money is on identifying AI/LLM being the easier of the two problems, and verifying content the harder. Part of the problem is old, pre-internet paper references, which are very easy for AI to fake, and very hard for individuals to verify (in fact near impossible: all you need to do is claim that it's in a pre-ISBN book from a nice long time ago, preferably in a foreign language, and the chances of anyone managing to prove the book doesn't exist are very slim). But it would be very bad for the encyclopedia if we had to ban old, paper sources, because they're too hard to verify and too easily faked. I do think we should be concerned at the source of the material. We have a general principle that every editor is responsible for what they submit; if you submit falsified sources you will get banned very quickly. If you submit falsified material on behalf of another editor, you will also get banned pretty quickly. So given that AI purports to create material like an editor, but falsifies its referencing depressingly often, every current AI-bot is ripe for banning; and those editors who are using them to create wrongly-references gunk are equally ripe. If an editor whose mother tongue is Spanish writes material that's not great grammatically, but is factually correct, some other editor can easily gnome it into shape. This is much, much more productive than having to deal with the misleading nonsense produced by someone who thinks it's okay to edit Wikipedia using AI to circumvent the fact that they are incompetent in the language, the subject, and the whole general idea of writing encyclopedia articles. Elemimele (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a new problem. There have been jokes like these since for decades:
Proof by reference to inaccessible literature:
The author cites a simple corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately circulated memoir of the Slovenian Philological Society, 1883.
Proof by ghost reference:
Nothing even remotely resembling the cited theorem appears in the reference given.
People who want to tag sources rather than find them may want a new template, maybe [fake source?] or something along those lines. But what works best is when editors pitch in to find good sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"What works best" would be an ideal-case scenario, but, given that not every editor is always available to find good sources, it would be a good thing to tag AI-generated sources for potential fakeness in the meanwhile. Tagging/removing a false source shouldn't need the much higher prerequisite of bringing a better source to replace it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it might be possible to make a bot that checks citations for possible red flags and tags it for review by a human (or adds it to a list somewhere for review by a human.) Verifying that an ISSN is valid and is at least not too far off from the information in the citation, for instance, is reasonable to automate. Links that are dead the first time they're added as a citation, as opposed to going dead later, would also be a red flag, and could be reasonably examined by a bot. Other stuff like "does a book of this name by this author actually exist" is something a bot can potentially determine by searching public databases and APIs. If it's built well, some of the potentially problematic or broken citations it catches might be worth catching even aside from any issues with AI-generated stuff. --Aquillion (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That could be a great idea indeed! There could be issues with less-referenced books, but that's still a reason for flagging for further verification and not, like, immediately removing them. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 19:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have we ever ran a banner explaining the quality topicons to readers?

Hi, y'all! After reading Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Remove_the_topicons_for_good_and_featured_articles, some editors say that readers are not aware of what the topicons represent. Has the wiki ever ran a campaign or put up banners explaining what they are? If not, could it be done? — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. ♠ 21:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hovering over the icon produces a tooltip explaining what it means, and the icon itself also links to GA or FA. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, readers hate banner messages that get in the way of the information they were seeking. Personally, I feel a banner to explain page status indicators would be overly intrusive. A link to a legend would be better. isaacl (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above, a banner is overkill. IMO it's obvious and any final concerns should be solved by the tooltip. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I support it. The WMF runs banners for fundraising and random non-enwp-related stuff all the time -- giant ones, too -- so I don't think we can act like the presence of a banner is an unwelcome imposition on readers ipso facto. I mean, look at this: meta:CentralNotice/Calendar. Here is what enwp has flying atop the page:
  • Awareness of Wiki community run Wiki Loves Folklore International Photographic contest
  • Movement Charter Community feedback period
  • Movement Charter ratification period
  • Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2024
  • Wikidata Leveling Up Days 2024
  • Wikimedia Stewards elections
  • International Women's Day/International Women's Month
  • Every Book Its Reader 2024 in English speaking countries
  • Wiki Loves Monuments 2024
  • Some dozen or so fundraising campaigns in different countries
At worst, it's background noise that they're thoroughly used to, and at best, it's something that might actually improve their understanding and skill at using the website -- something for readers -- as opposed to something like e.g. steward elections, that even 99% of editors don't participate in, or the photography contest, which is of interest for photographers and contributors. Not that it's bad to run banners for these things, it's just that I think in practice the bar is pretty low for how relevant something has to be to get a sitenotice. jp×g🗯️ 01:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and readers complain about them, and users ask for ways to suppress them. And there should always be a way to figure out what the status indicators mean; there are always new readers, and even existing readers should be able to learn about them outside of a time-limited campaign. isaacl (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the people who raised that in said discussion, I feel there's many other aspects of the encyclopedia that would warrant more reader attention, and it seems a bit odd to solely prioritise this. A good amount of people are going to ignore the banner anyway, see banner blindness.
A better idea IMO would be having a running section on the Main Page that cycles through various elements of the encyclopedia that we feel readers should know about. It could go below featured pictures. ― novov (t c) 05:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a promising idea: a sort of "tip of the day" but for readers. Certes (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. ♠ 10:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a great idea! Although "featured pictures" is often too low for new readers to see without scrolling, so maybe our new section could be placed higher up instead? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that would get support for a permanent spot in the page, but what about a temporary thing? Like, for one month each day has different information in the section and it could be done yearly or something so it doesn't take up too much space all the time. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. ♠ 14:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's {{Main page banner}} when you need it. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this, we hide the inner workings of Wikipedia too well from the viewers in a time where we are losing editors. ♠ Ca talk to me! 01:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the inner workings that viewers don't know we feel they should know the most? — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. ♠ 10:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where to start editing? Create an account, and we'll offer you a bunch of easy tasks to get started! Ghosts of Europa (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OOOOOOOOh! I think actually something that could get a lot of support in the community is running some kind of recruitment drive with tips of the day as part of it. Not sure how it could look doe. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. ♠ 19:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty good text! Probably combine it with File:Wikipedia-logo-banner-ihojose.png as the image on the left and link create an account, while linking "a bunch of easy tasks" to either Wikipedia:Task Center, Template:W-graphical, or, if we're feeling adventurous, Wikipedia:Dashboard. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Active editors at the English Wikipedia 2001–2023
@Ca, the English Wikipedia has not been losing editors for a decade now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the updated graph! All of the editor count graph I've seen has been horribly outdated. It's nice to see the editor count is at least not in decline. ♠ Ca talk to me! 00:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, why has there been a yearly peak of active editors in March in every year since 2014 (except 2020)? Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 01:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summer vacation? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summer vacation is July and August in most places (June and July for the US), and editor activity goes down then (just like it goes down on weekends and holidays).
March is when International Women's Day happens, and there are a lot of organized events around that, so maybe that's relevant? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spring break is another possibility. Some1 (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Onboarding for new users?

This was promted by a wikimedia-l thread

New users are given zero guidance and then get yelled at when the break the rules they didn't know about. Therefore, I propose that, after sign up, we make a page (perhaps something like H:INTRO?) that we then direct new signups to

Two questions I have:

  1. Will new users simply click away without learning anything?
  2. How much will this help?

As it stands, the current onboarding procedure is basically nothing: just set them out there and yell at them when they mess up. Something needs to change and I hope my proposal will generate some discussion on how to make the onboarding process better. NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 01:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current onboarding procedure is to use Wikipedia:Welcoming committee templates and new users also get a newcomer home (see Wikipedia:Growth Team features). I'm pretty sure automatically sending new users welcome templates is at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Use a bot to welcome new users is probably what you were thinking of. Anomie 12:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron highlighted the Growth team features. To summarize them, new users get Special:Homepage as their base-camp (you might have to activate it in your preferences). There, they have access to selected help links and,
Some wikis also post a message at talk pages. From what I observe*, a successful welcome message requires the following:
  • it is a real message, not a block of links
  • it is clearly signed by a real human
  • it includes a clear indication "contact me if you have any question"
  • they are posted before the user make an edit (so that they can ask a question to the user who welcomed them**).
Messages consisting of blocks of links are not successful (a known issue), in particular when the message look like a banner or something else than a discussion. Signatures have to be clear, as the way we format our messages on wikis is not something the rest of the works is used to.
* Of course, what I observe is not a proof of anything, but I observe a lot of newcomers/experienced users at a lot of wikis since a long time. :)
** This is how Mentorship works: you get a name to contact at Special:Homepage (but unfortunately, at your wiki, not everyone gets one as we don't have enough mentors).
The discussion at wikimedia-l was more focused on explaining the rules while editing, which is also something the Wikimedia Foundation works on.
Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since so many recent changes have the "newcomer task" tag, I think it's enabled by default for newcomers. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is default for all new accounts, correct.
But Mentorship is only available to 50% of new users for the reasons I explained, and a key feature to discover editing, Add a link, is still missing at your wiki.
Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or we could just not yell at them... It is my personal opinion that a lot of our users have themselves forgotten they are on wiki that anyone can edit. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish our policies had TL:DR versions of them too because some of them are very lengthy and I have no doubt that that's put some people off from editing here. JCW555 (talk)♠ 22:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most policies have {{nutshell}}, a summary, on top, and welcome templates already link many summaries, such as Help:Introduction and Help:Getting started. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although experienced editors do make mistakes from time to time, in my experience, the vast majority of new editors who get "yelled at" are spammers, self promoters, POV pushers, axe grinders, conspiracy theorists and others whose manifest goals are not in alignment with improving this great encyclopedia. As I see things every day on the firing line, any editor who comes here with a genuine intent to neutrally improve this encyclopedia is almost always welcomed with open arms. So, when an editor puts forward vague assertions of "yelled at", I expect diffs and specific cases. Who in particular got "yelled at", and why? Cullen328 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I see an edit that degrades the encyclopedia, I revert it, and usually use Twinkle to leave a message on the user's page, with or without an additional comment. I think that kind of response is what some are calling "shouting". I will not leave unreverted an edit that damages the encyclopedia, no matter how well intentioned. I think the lowest levels of the Twinkle warnings are benign enough. I use the stronger versions of Twinkle warnings when a user repeats the same kind of edits after being warned. I block users who repeatedly over a short period of time make obviously problematic edits after being warned. It may be that new users don't see messages on their talk pages, but that is not a reason to allow them to continue to make edits that degrade the encyclopedia. Donald Albury 14:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328, how would you describe to an external observer how English Wikipedia welcomes good faith users with open arms? I'm asking it as finding how bad faith users are treated is easy (Donald gave a good example above), but examples of how one deals with good faith users is more difficult to find.
Actually, what I observed over the years is that vandalism or damageable edits get a warning message, while good faith edits are just left as they are, with no message, because they fit what is expected.
Thoughts? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes they get a thanks and they get a welcome if they're a new user. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And {{cookies}}! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trizek (WMF), we have places like the Teahouse and the Help Desk where new editors can get assistance, and they are easy to find given the amount of traffic they get. I have over 10,000 edits to the Teahouse and over 1,200 to the Help Desk, so I have considerable experience helping and encouraging new editors. Many new editors come to my talk page asking for advice. and I have 5,600 edits there. I agree that bad edits and those that make them get more attention in general than good editors making uncontroversial typo fixes, converting bare URLs into bibliographic references, and reverting vandalism. If I notice particularly good work from a new editor, I will definitely thank them. I think that a brief, personalized compliment is better than 100 "welcome templates". The analogy that comes to mind is that few people give detailed thanks to people doing routine work. Few people go into a McDonald's and lavishly compliment the people sweeping the floors, taking the orders and packaging up the french fries. We just treat them politely, with a "thanks" to the order taker being about the extent of it. Cullen328 (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trizek (WMF), I don't know if the WMF collects any statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the English Wikipedia gets more than its fair share of bad faith users, making experienced editors more cynical. At least if I were a spammer, self promoter, POV pusher, axe grinder, conspiracy theorist or any other bad faith user I'm sure I would prefer to target the largest Wikipedia that has the largest readership. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu, is "sometimes" good enough? :)
@Cullen328, thank you for the details. I think volunteer-me have the same profile as yours, but at my wiki. I don't really count places mike the Help desk or the Teahouse as proofs of being welcomed, as these are places you have to discover (or at least find the link to them). Thanks are apparently only for "particularly good" edits as you said. Messages are often perceived as costly to create. What would you (any of you) do to show a user that they edit is going in the right direction, at low cost?
@Phil Bridger, I'd say the bigger the wiki, the more likely it is to attract people. But as I read it quite often, I kind of think there is a perception of a mass of bad faith users that damage things, while only a few users do it right. I'm not sure this is true: maybe there is a perception bias, as badly behaving users are way more visible than users who do things the right way, don't you think?
Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that they sometimes get a thanks and nearly always eventually get a welcome. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

examples of how one deals with good faith users..

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that, in this context, you're using "getting yelled at" not to mean overt incivility (which is against policy), but rather more subtle snubbing, e.g. ignoring messages or responding curtly. I honestly think that this encyclopedia could improve if this just didn't happen at all, regardless of the person. spintheer (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trizek (WMF), there used to be a bot called HostBot that would send welcoming Teahouse invitations to new accounts in good standing that had made 10 edits within a few days. Sadly, the bot operator, User:Jtmorgan, is far less active in recent years, and the bot no longer operates. Maybe you can look into that.

If you take a look at the Home Page, you will see that the first prominent word is "Welcome". The prominent phrase "anyone can edit" links to Help:Introduction to Wikipedia. There is a prominent link to Help:Contents on the Home Page, which links to many other help pages. Further down are links to the Community Portal, the Village Pump, the Teahouse, the Help Desk, the Reference Desks, and so on. In other words, the page that new editors first see shouts "Welcome! How can we help you?" I know about banner blindness but I doubt if it would make much difference if we displayed "WELCOME" in bold, bright orange all caps, flashing and flickering. It wouldn't help and it would make us look ridiculous.

Most new accounts do not ever edit. Of those that do, most of those make only a handful of edits and then lose interest. Of those that continue editing, a significant percentage have motivations incompatible with the goals of the project as I described above. Of those who really want to improve the encyclopedia, many are here to create or improve one or two articles about topics of great interest to that person, and then they stop editing. Student editors are here to get a good grade, and only a tiny percentage continue after the course is over. People go to edit-a-thons to satisfy their curiosity, meet cool people and get some free food. Only a tiny percentage keep editing.

I have been wondering for nearly 15 years what the positive psychosocial factors are that separate all those types of people who contribute little or no encyclopedic content from the "rare beasts" who make improving this encyclopedia in countless ways an avocation for many years. I cannot answer that question with confidence although I have my pet theories. I hope that the WMF could make that research happen but I do not know.

As an adminstrator, I believe that blocking bad actors like harassers, vandals, spammers and the like is essential, because showing such people the door makes the editing environment more hospitable. And so I am not ashamed to have blocked nearly 10,000 accounts. I think my work in that area makes Wikipedia a more welcoming place. I think I have said enough so I will stop now. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some research on the psychological profile of Wikipedians. I am not sure you would consider the factors to be "positive", but if memory serves, we are above average for neuroticism and below average for agreeableness. In plain English: we start editing because there's a typo, we would rather be right and have an argument than go along with something that's wrong. We also don't like change. This all aligns with my experience. How about you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like change and demand a link to such a study immediately >:( Aaron Liu (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328, thank you for your detailed answer. You describe what I would call "passive welcoming": various signs, at various places that convey the idea of welcoming others. At the opposite, "active welcoming" goes more on the way of telling users personally that you can mentor them, thank users for their edits, etc. This is something you do, and I believe it is super important.
It tights to positive reinforcement: someone getting a positive stimulus on their edits are more likely to continue participating. If that positive discourse comes from a human, it has way more chances to be received and appreciated, compared to one coming from an information message on static page.
Following what @WhatamIdoing said or what @Dustfreeworld illustrated above, we, communities, are apparently very good at saying when something gets wrong. Worse, we are very good at qualifying one edit as not good even if just a part of it is not good. Reverting seems to be sometimes easier than fixing up an edit. And I'm not talking of vandals and trolls there: my focus is on users who genuinely came to fix something and saw "be bold" written at various places.
This topic started with the question of onboarding new users, but it is also on how to keep them editing. As we are in the ideas lab, I'm looking for your ideas: what would you (any of you) do to show a user that they edit is going in the right direction, at low cost? What do you miss to encourage users in an easy way?
Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trizek (WMF), thanks for the ping :-) I’m not sure if I can give much useful comment about your questions, because I’m facing issues very similar to those described in the “How do we ... “ discussion myself as well… ...
My problem is, there’s a user who really doesn’t like me. It seems that my edits are being watched. When they think there’s an “opportunity”, they will suddenly “jump out”, sometimes just within minutes after my edit, nominate the article I edited for AFD, or have half of an article deleted, or criticise me on talk page and have the thread I opened being closed, or, directly yelling at me that “You’re sprouting ... “, etc. All within a short time / same day, like heart attacks. You can’t feel the stress/threats just from viewing the page history unless you’ve experienced them (and that can only be felt from those notifications popping up). And when I tried to restore the removed content, I faced 3RR and 2 warnings, all within minutes; followed immediately by very unpleasant “discussion”/criticism on the project’s talk page.
When I look up the warning templates pages [33][34], I can’t find the warning template that they used. There is no such (level 4) warning template which says “restoring good-faith content is disruptive” (not to mention those are sourced long-standing content not added by me). It seems that they have “tailor-made”/created their own version of warning message for me.
If I were a new user, I would have been threatened and left already. Definitely, with no doubt. I’m quite sure that they have done similar tricks (3RR + level 3/4 warnings) to other good-faith editors as well. (This differs greatly from most other editors do, like providing a detailed edit summary, just remove one or two sentences/sources at a time unless they are doing a rewrite, tagging it first, try fixing the problem first, discuss civilly on talk page first, and only remove outright contentious bad content like those involving BLPs, etc.)
But I can understand why other users may not notice that or can’t see the problem because one can’t feel the tension just from viewing the page history, or, they might not understand how bad I felt when I saw large amount of valuable content that had been there over a decade was deleted mainly because of me. I came here to improve articles and to add content, not making them vanish. That completely goes opposite with the reasons that I’m here. What they did do affect my editing. I’ve left WP for a few days because of that, but it seems no use. Some of the above happened after I came back. I’ve asked for advice on another editor’s talk page, it seems that I was misunderstood. I was mainly asking for suggestions on the likely animus / uncivil behaviour, not on article’s content. I regret having asked that.. yes, my fault.. it was misunderstood.. and it seems that I’ve put someone in a difficult situation, which is not what I intended ... (As a side note, if we’re talking about content, removing a large amount of content at a time of course is not good. No one knows everything about every subject, and everyone makes mistakes. Removal like that will just increase the risk of mistaken removal, even when done in good-faith, without leaving the chance for correction).
I won’t deny that perhaps some of my edits/comments had irritated that user .. but I don’t think what they did is the way to go. Perhaps they just want to prove that “See? The article has problems that you didn’t notice and I’m correcting them now.”? I hope that can come to an end.. but that kind of behaviour has been lasting for quite some time already, and I’m not that optimistic ….. I choose to speak up here, anyway. What also troubled me is their fluctuating attitude/behaviour. Sometimes they seem to be very civil (mostly to others, but once or twice to me also). But when they are unhappy / don’t like you, it’s just totally different. I’ve been told to “find way” to like them, but it’s just too difficult.. I have tried not to escalate during the discussions (if you are familiar with my edits you’ll know how assertive I can be) but I wonder if that helped. I hope I’ve made it clearer now on why I said “I’ve tried my best already”. It’s not about “discovering the value of others”. Nothing like that. You can’t really like someone if they treat you (and others?) like that, no matter whatever value they have ...
Back to the “How do we welcome new medical editors?” thread at WP:MED talk page.. well, I think that user (one different from the above) has taken some of the advice in that discussion and probably has become more civil (as seen from their comments at least) now. And they have never been uncivil to me, which I really appreciate; despite the fact that I’ve pointed out several times what they shouldn’t have done. I believe that’s an editor with good intention. For that I’ve even given them a barnstar. So, perhaps I should go on and start a new discussion called “How do we work with our newly-joined colleagues?” Do we work with them by ... 3RR … warnings ... following … ?” I don’t think I have the energy (or should spend the time) for that though .. after all, it’s just Wikipedia ..
(N.B. I’m talking to myself and reply is welcome but not absolutely needed.. I’m not providing any diff, because I really don’t want to piss people off… if you know you know, anyway ..) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Wikihounding is against policy. You might want to consult someone to see if it fits. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing this, @Dustfreeworld. I'm really sorry for your bad experience. First and foremost, as Aaron Lui said, you need to report the behavior you describe.
On your message, I agree regarding the attitude. Welcoming users and providing suggestions to their edits is a positive and active way to have more editors joining. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workshopping a trial admin process

In WP:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I, I proposed trial adminship but it appeared that the proposal was not quite ready. I want to figure how can we have a trial admin process that is most likely to hold well with the community. There definitely should be a method for there to be trial admins when consensus is unclear or to dispel any doubts about current user conduct. Or maybe trial adminship should be the only result of an RfA. I do not know. Awesome Aasim 18:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The framework that I think has the best chance would be a kind of limited adminship. I would make a permission, requestable at WP:Perm and grantable/removable by a single admin as appropriate. The permission is designed to counteract vandalism and be used by a new change patroller. The permissions would be:
Block any account that is not autoconfirmed for a short time (37 hours?)
Semi-protect any page for a short time (probably same time frame as blocking)
Delete any recently-created page.
This gives these permission holders the full block/protect/delete triad to avoid the law of the instrument. It also gives them enough ability to break up most common/simple cases without letting them get into a lot of situations where they generate controversy.
The permission would NOT have viewdeleted. This is awkward because they could delete a page and not have any way to revisit it, but it is a WMF requirement for any process that didn't go through a full RfA or similar.
The way the actual restrictions on the perms are enforced could be technical or social. If they have the technical ability to make any block, but there's a brightline policy against it and a bot that reports any discrepancy to AN, I think that's still fine.
I know this isn't exactly what you had in mind from trial adminship (giving the full tools and a period of time to use them before some kind of reconfirmation), but I think it's the best way to practically solve some of these issues. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That feels like a pretty good idea, as making it a perm removes the need for a double RfA, and it can still show experience and trust in light of a future RfA. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 19:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On many Fandom wikis, there is this right called "content moderator". This right gives users the ability to edit fully protected pages (but not interface pages), delete/restore pages, rollback, and protect pages. We can have something similar particularly for those extremely familiar with the deletion policy. Awesome Aasim 03:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but having the ability to protect/delete but not the ability to block suffers from the law of the instrument. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed a problem, but I don't think it is that big of a problem when other administrators are able to immediately intervene when there is an incident of disruption going on. Awesome Aasim 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the issue. It's not about "they can't block and will have to wait for other admins", it's "they can't block and thus will likely protect instead of blocking, which is often not ideal". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking any trial admin process needs to allow users to demonstrate that they know how to act appropriately with the admin tools. Conduct as a non-admin is not necessarily an indicator as to whether they will behave that same way with the admin tools. In fact, people are more likely to be careful when given the tools just because they know the community can easily take the tools away. Awesome Aasim 20:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of lots of ways to do this. The trail admin might be paired with a full admin who would supervise the, trial admin. More high powered use of the tools might be reported to a notice board, Blocks might be limited to 24 hours to give a full admin time review, assuming a longer block is appropriate. The whole trial admin concept itself might be done a trial, say one year with a pause after to evaluate how it went.--agr (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have in mind when you say "supervise"? isaacl (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea in general. The details would need work. There's nothing that precludes working on this even if it outside the main current review. North8000 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, re "delete/restore pages"... restoring pages (which perforce would require the right to read them first) is probably the most sensitive right on the project. Sure, for the overwhelming majority of deleted pages, there's nothing sensitive there. But, other pages might contain egregious libel, doxxing of persons, state secrets, instructions for making infernal devices, and so forth, and we really want them to be gone and to stay gone. One single person could cause a deal of mischief by reading these articles and giving them to a third party. (Yes, admins can do this, and some have, but I think we want to keep this ability as tightly controlled as possible.) As for deleting pages, are not enough pages being deleted? Could be quite the opposite. Herostratus (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: preference to hide maintenance tags

Moved from WP:VPR

For many Wikipedia readers, maintenance tags are annoying to see. While WP:OVERTAG does try to mitigate this, it would be great if there was an option in preferences to hide maintenance tags. Pksois23 (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's something you could probably do with a CSS gadget. Most readers don't have an account though, and I think maintenance tags do the important job of warning that the article isn't up-to-quality or even is misleading. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @Pksois23: this is not currently an actionable proposal, hard moved from VPR. Feel free to continue discussing here. — xaosflux Talk 14:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Side note, VPR links to Vermont Public Co. Pksois23 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed VPR link. Schazjmd (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Aaron. Maintenance tags present information that's important for readers to know (and to the extent they don't, they should be removed), so we don't want to make hiding them at all a default option. And for those who really want to anyways, despite the information literacy risk, there's already CSS. Sdkbtalk 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible way to do this would be to have a hide button like [hide] next to the tags Pksois23 (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One world still have to click it everywhere. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we want to hide problems with articles from readers. Please, no. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an option, so we aren't deliberately hiding anything. As long as it's unobtrusive it won't do any harm Pksois23 (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiding them does harm!!!! Then readers won't know what the issues with the article are!! 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can sympathize with the tags being "annoying", they often are. But that's the thing: they're supposed to be. Their purpose is to make sure the reader isn't accidentally misled by content that may not be up to our usual standards. They're supposed to be noticeable. That said, I wouldn't mind a userscript or CSS that could show/hide them for logged-in users who know what they want, similar to what we have for CS1 errors in citations at Help:CS1 errors. I also think it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a deeper look into whether our maintenance tags should have their appearances updated for modern aesthetics. I don't think there's anything wrong with the old classic look (I still use Monobook unless I'm updating page layouts where I'd need to check other skins) but as long as they stay noticeable I think consensus for a redesign pass could probably be achievable. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was {{mbox/sandbox}}, which changed the icons used (see Template:Ambox/testcases#name= text=text 2 for how it looks), but the community didn't like it. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember a few proposals to update the boxes, but if I'm remembering right most of them were fairly small changes, backend stuff or accessibility. I don't think there's been a comprehensive major overhaul attempt in a while, but its possible I missed that discussion. Would you happen to have a link to the discussion for the last round? The WordsmithTalk to me 16:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scrounged a bit for this, it's at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 37#Changing to flat icons which also links to the same failed proposal's discussion in 2020. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For many Wikipedia readers, maintenance tags are annoying to see. I have literally never seen a person IRL express this sentiment, nor any comments from new/ip users calling tags ugly at the Teahouse or the like. Mach61 23:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither have I. I've also not seen any complaints (in real life or on wiki) from readers saying that they really missed the maintenance banners when they were hidden (for years and years) on the mobile site.
I'm seeing comments above like Maintenance tags present information that's important for readers to know – dubious, discuss? We have WP:No disclaimers in articles. Maintenance tags present information that's important for people doing maintenance work to know. That could include readers (aka "potential editors").
I think what we might need is a shared understanding of what the purpose of these banners is. Is it really to make sure readers know what the issues with the article are? If so, then a whole lot of tags need removing, because they're not actually problems that readers should care about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we really want to pursue that path of hiding unimportant tags, things get complicated, and the simplest solution would involve excluding IPs from seeing such tags. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline you listed specifically lists cleanup templates as "acceptable disclaimers" that are considered an exception. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think WAID is arguing based on principle. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What it actually says is that they're acceptable because they're "temporary" and "should be cleaned up quickly". It does not say anything even remotely like "It's important for readers to know that there is inconsistent American and British spelling used in this article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the public is used to our tags and they serve a cautionary purpose. In particular I've seen the phrase "citation needed" used outside a Wikipedia context and it is becoming part of the language. There is room for improvement in the tagging system. In particular I think some of the more contentious tags should always be accompanied with a new section in the talk page. No drive-by tagging. --agr (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's even a XKCD about it! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 10:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian protester
User:xkcd generously gave us a free license for that favorite comic. It looks like it's used in several articles and even more talk pages.
(Oooh, lookit Citation needed#Usage outside Wikipedia. This might turn out to be an WP:IPC section I could enjoy reading. Hmm, a custom-printed scarf to sneak into events?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing {{Broken anchors}} to the pattern of {{dead link}}

Hi all. User:Soni suggested changing {{Broken anchors}} to the pattern of {{dead link}}. I think this is a good idea. Since this task affects all Category:Pages with broken anchors pages, I'm here to ask for your opinion on this suggestion. If it goes well, I'll be ready to start modifying it. Kanashimi (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to change it to a tag that will be displayed in the article? Wouldn't that look very weird, since anchors are invisible? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are links to anchors, rather than the anchors themselves. The issue is anchors get changed, but the links to them don't. So there are 70,000+ articles with such broken links. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. In that case I agree. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain further? I'm unclear on what change is being proposed. isaacl (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To change the current system for tagging broken anchors into a {{fix}} template put after wikilinks to nonexistent anchors. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the {{Broken anchors}} template is added to the talk pages of articles that have links to non-existent anchors. From my reading the proposal is to replace this with an inline template directly after the broken link, similar to how {{dead link}} is used to mark broken weblinks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanashimi: can you please confirm whether your proposal is as described by ActivelyDisinterested, perhaps with a before and after example? isaacl (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining the discussion. I did a demo edit here. Kanashimi (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still don't understand what you are proposing to do. Is Cewbot intended to make edits that show how to invoke a template, rather than invoking the template? isaacl (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cewbot is supposed to stop adding these banners altogether and use a {{fix}} template to mark wikilinks to broken anchors. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you're in favor of changing it to {{broken anchor}}? Kanashimi (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what appears in the link that Kanashimi provided. Perhaps you can let them explain their proposal? I still don't understand what is the current situation, and the proposed new situation. isaacl (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion started User talk:Kanashimi#Broken anchor edits. Perhaps you could take a look at what User:Soni has to say. Kanashimi (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confused. Is the proposal not to replace Cewbot's current talk-page-banner mechanism with one that puts {{broken anchor}} after links to broken anchors? That is what appears in the link (Note that Cewbot's first edit was wrong and Kanashimi fixed it.), and that's what appears on Kanashimi's talk page:

Personally I'd just add a template to the main article page, like Template:citation needed shows up inline. That way it's immediately obvious to editors where the potential anchor is.
— User:Soni

Aaron Liu (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so that sounds like what ActivelyDisinterested said. Is that correct? isaacl (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the bot can't fix it, it will insert {{Broken anchor}} after the link or template. Kanashimi (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a mistake in the test settings, so I changed them manually. The current version is the one that will be available after the robot modification. Kanashimi (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To re-cap:
Imagine an article that contains a link to Example#typo_here. This is a working link to an article, but there's no section called ==typo here== in the article.
  • The current behavior is: A bot adds a note to the talk page to say that there's no section called ==typo here== in the linked article.
  • The proposed behavior is: A bot adds a [broken anchor] template in the article, after the relevant link.
Is that right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, yep. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much it. The only distinction is that the bot currently adds {{broken anchors}} which resembles the talk page Wikiproject headers. My suggestion was to add [broken anchor] in the article and (additionally) maybe also adding a message in talk page. Like Talk:1st_Academy_Awards#External_links_modified from Internet Archive Bot. If we need something on the talk page, that's better than a banner. Soni (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the change going to move the template for the current 70,000+ pages? Perhaps it would be better to hide the visual appearance by default, while allowing editors to enable its display through a personal CSS file if desired. isaacl (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say just grandfather keep the talk-box version and make new versions the inline {{fix}}. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this change will affect all 70K pages. I'm expecting the same behavior as {{dead link}}, so I'll leave a marker to let users know to fix it manually. This is just like the behavior of {{dead link}}. Kanashimi (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with keeping the talk-box version grandfathered is that they are very hard to fix. As I mentioned in User_talk:Kanashimi#Broken_anchor_edits, I manually tried editing 2-3 of them to see how it was. There's no easy way for a human to see the talk-box template and find the respective text that was actually broken. You have to search through the text of the article, look for history (just in case the text got changed but the broken anchor remained) and crosscheck that with the talk page itself.
In fact, given how current automation works, you have no way to remove the talk-box notification when it's fixed. Of the articles I spot-checked, 2 were already fixed years ago, out of which one was even a redirect page.
Essentially the 70K pages with talk box version will contain a lot of pages that are already fixed, and everything else will be tiresome. It's simpler to just shift to a new functionality and have the script rerun on the 70K pages. The backlog can then be semi-automated (using AWB/similar) and the main fixes will become a lot easier Soni (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that can still be done while keeping the text hidden from readers by default (which I'm guessing was the original reason for placing the message on the talk page). isaacl (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep {{dead link}} hidden, so I don't think we should keep broken anchors hidden either. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were starting from scratch, then perhaps the two should be handled in the same way, though I'm guessing that {{dead link}} appears mostly in references, thus not affecting the visual appearance of the main content. But if the only discussion about this is on the idea lab village pump, then a lot of people will be surprised when thousands of indicators pop into existence. A more reader-friendly approach may be warranted. isaacl (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say these are no more intrusive than maintenance tags or {{cn}}. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think it's not a big deal to put maintenance tags on talk page. I'd personally not attribute a lot of weight to why the template was originally written as it was, since it was basically "Because another template used this way" more than anything.
I am okay if the template was hidden (in which case it may just as well be a single Category:Articles with broken anchor link), but I think that's still less preferable than a tag similar to {{cn}} Soni (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Kanashimi Out of curiosity, what's the process for this usually? Does his need to go through another village pump/RFC/Bot approval/something else? Soni (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is basically within the scope of the original bot application. But since it affects a lot of pages, I'm looking for suggestions here. I've recently started implementing it, and you can see it in action at Visa policy of Russia. Kanashimi (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the template needs to add a category as well, otherwise it'd be impossible to find broken anchors to fix. I don't think I see it in the Visa Policy article.
    Also if the broken anchor is on a redirect, should it default to just redirecting to the overall page? Soni (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Problematic articles are added to Category:Pages with broken anchors. You can see it on Union Pacific 1982. If there is a problem with the redirect page, I think sometimes it's just that the target of the redirect has been deleted and needs to be checked manually. Kanashimi (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why redirect links should be changed. If an anchor doesn't exist, it doesn't do anything either Aaron Liu (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly because I think most broken anchors are just redirects, so the category is full of them. I can't check offhand though, and there doesn't seem to be a simple way to see everything in the category that's not a redirect.
    @Kanashimi Is there no way to check if an article exists? If the anchor (redirect or not) is at a deleted article, it probably shouldn't be a broken anchor template use anyway. (I forget if there's another template for redlinks) Soni (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects to nonexistent articles fall under speedy deletion, and I'm pretty sure some bot like AnomieBOT already detects them. I don't see why broken anchors are mostly redirects = we must remove the anchor. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I didn't make it clear. I was referring to the situation where the article still exists, but the entire section has been deleted. Kanashimi (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still do not see why we cannot change any redirect pages with broken anchors to instead be a redirect to the overall article instead. Without a "fix" redirects like Union Pacific 1982 already behave that way.
    Essentially I just want "Redirects with broken anchors" treated slightly differently than "Pages with broken anchors" just because it'll be a bit different dealing with both those backlogs Soni (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without a "fix" redirects like Union Pacific 1982 already behave that way. So why should we remove the extra information of where it was meant to point? The same reasoning applies to normal wikilinks too. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My primary concern is the Category:Pages_with_broken_anchors page. Right now it's 70K pages, including talk pages. I think the non redirect pages would be much less in number. I think that any "backlog removal" efforts at the non redirect versions will be a lot different than the redirect pages.
    If we had some way to see "Non redirect pages with broken anchors" in the category easily, it's good enough for my concerns. "Redirect pages with broken anchors" can be hacked at in it's own free time Soni (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see the difference between those of redirects and those of links, and why we should separate them. Fixing them is the exact same process. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the purpose of the |target_link= parameter? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking of using this parameter to quickly find all broken anchors linked to a specific page. Kanashimi (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decade overviews

I have set up Category:decade overviews as a set of categories, as well as articles, and navboxes, as part of WikiProject History Contemporary History task force, which I chair.

Please feel free to contact me any time, with any comments, ideas or questions. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a byte count to both editors

I have a hard time figuring out if my edits are minor or not, and usually I have to submit my edits to see the byte count. I think it would be helpful if we had a byte count display so we wouldn't have to make meaningless edits just to say that our previous edit was "Minor or NOT minor." 3.14 (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, rearrangement of text without modification of the content, WP:MOS changes, and reverting vandalism should be flagged as minor edits. Anything else is not a minor edit. The byte count doesn't matter, although minor edits usually have a small bytecount. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, keep in mind that nobody is going to criticize you for not marking an edit as minor, even if it is minor. Other editors only get annoyed when non-minor edits are marked as minor when they shouldn't be. Schazjmd (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's a good idea. 3.14 (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the best solution would be to remove the "minor edit" function entirely, as most people find its purpose and/or use confusing, for very little benefit as they're rarely marked. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby, I agree, but other editors don't (pretty sure there was a recent RfC on it that failed to pass). Schazjmd (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't know about that RfC, thanks for the info! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found two of the discussions: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_186#Proposal_to_remove_"rearrangement_of_text"_from_definition_of_minor_edit. and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_48#Completely_remove_the_idea_of_a_"minor_edit" I think there was a formal RfC after the most recent discussion but haven't found it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me the link to that RfC? I really want to read it. 3.14 (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't found the one I'm thinking of; this RfC was from 2021. Schazjmd (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright. I have the info I need. 3.14 (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: Found it for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_177#RfC:_Disable_minor_edits_on_English_Wikipedia 3.14 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the one Schazjmd linked from 2021. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? 3.14 (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the link Schazjmd said in "I still haven't found the one I'm thinking of; this RfC was from 2021." above. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found the specific one though. 3.14 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's the same one that they linked. There's a link on "this RfC". Aaron Liu (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. 3.14 (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another point that might be useful is: If you never use the 'minor edit' button, nobody will ever yell at you about it. Using it is strictly optional. Not using it is always acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You DO know you can reply, right?3.14 (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

??? A misplaced message from the future? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split WP:DRV into two pages?

WP:DRVPURPOSE gives five criteria for starting a new discussion. Of them, criteria 1-2 and 4-5 all involve some sort of wrongful action during the deletion process. But criterion 3, (which authorizes using the forum for when significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page), has nothing to do with any mistake on part of the closer and/or deleting admin, and is generally used for when someone looking to recreate a page with new sources wants to avoid a {{db-g4}} tag and/or wants to have the original article refunded as a draft for reference. This in and of itself isn't a problem–DRV is still a low traffic forum–but I think that having both of these types of discussions in the same place has lead to a bit of a "culture clash". When a review under criterion 3 is started, there are often !votes to the effect of Endorse, deletion discussion was several years ago so WP:G4 doesn't apply, even though that is completely unhelpful to the requester (especially if they want a drafted copy of the deleted article).

Since legitimate criterion 3 reviews are quickly approved, I think we should split them off into a "Possibly controversial undeletions" section of WP:RFU or a new Wikipedia:Requests for recreation page, where requests can unilaterally be fufilled by a single administrator without substantial discussion, and keep genuine deletion challenges at DRV. Mach61 04:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, a lot of requests can not fit the uncontroversial criteria, and all evaluations will undergo the same kind of review by people, even if we split to another venue. I think the page should be kept as-is. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Captchas

I think we need more complicated CAPTCHAS in case a more complex bot comes on to the system and tries to log in Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our CAPTCHA system is not managed locally here on the English Wikipedia. There are several idea open for changing CAPTCHAS, you can review them here (including possibly using reCaptcha v3). — xaosflux Talk 14:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our current system has been enough for the last ten years. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current system is an impediment for some impaired persons. reCAPTCHA v3 may be better; here's a study on its effectiveness for those with visual impairments. isaacl (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, but I'm pretty sure our current captcha was developed so we wouldn't have to use Google. Maybe hcaptcha? It has a special sign up thing where you can get a cookie to skip all hcaptchas for the visually ipmaired. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to give feedback to the MediaWiki devs. phab:T6845 is a ticket on accessibility of CAPTCHA; phab:T250227 is a ticket on using hCaptcha; and there are a number of other tickets at the link Xaosflux provided. Yes, the sticking point is how to keep user information private, which hinders dropping in a third-party solution. isaacl (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a CAPTCHA? 3.14 (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It only appears sometimes, like when the IP address has too much editing activity, when the edit triggers certain edit filters, and after too many failed login attempts. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may need to be expanded upon. BTW, possible vandalism in Just Shoot Me! - Missing Neilsen Awards. 3.14 (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The list of things that trigger CAPTCHAs needs to be expanded to things like creating an account (Speculation, IDK much about bots) or stuff like that. 3.14 (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing that I heard about our current system is: It keeps out humans (especially if they're not using a Latin-script keyboard, because typing correcthorse is difficult यदि आपका कीबोर्ड इन अक्षरों का उपयोग करता है), but it is easily defeated by bots.
Also, I've heard that creating our own could require a decade's worth of work for a team of engineers. Unless someone shows up with a US$10M grant and a determination to do it right, that project will probably continue to be postponed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiNLP

This is the concept of a machine learning-assisted countervandalism tool, made using Natural Language Processing (NLP). We will train the system to distinguish vandalism from constructive edits; the system will then share the data with countervandalism users and bots such as ClueBot NG. If it works as intended, it has the potential to significantly reduce vandalism. 2804:14D:72B3:9F5D:0:0:0:1F54 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, but isn't this already mw:ORES? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the already mentioned ClueBot. Q T C 17:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ORES predicts the quality and the intent of edits. A new revert risk models is developed by the Wikimedia Foundation Research team, with two components: a multilingual model, with support for 47 languages, and a language-agnostic model. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unpacking the infobox

Sometimes I run across an article where the infobox has been packed up in a tight wad of code that requires much more effort for an editor like me to analyze. Should we have a global 'bot' edit those into a more human-readable form? I think that would make it much easier for editors to maintain and expand. Here's an example edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NGC_2523B&diff=1215012630&oldid=1214766725 . I've seen much worse. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can start with a regex like \{\{ ?[Ii]nfobox.*?(?:[^\n ]|[^\n] )(\|).*?(?:\{\{|\}\}) (and replace the captured group with \n\|), with the caveat that it doesn't work if other templates are nested in the infobox as regex (a glorified finite-state automaton) cannot count nested brackets. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such a bot would be against WP:COSMETICBOT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably just ask to include in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes instead. I'll try to work on an AutoEd module for this. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The one concern could be inline cites in the infobox. Praemonitus (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can define use TemplateData for any template, to specify how the wikitext should be displayed in source mode. When defined, any edit to an article will activate the formatting from the TemplateData, and format the template the way it was defined. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It's limited to adding templates using TemplateWizard in source mode and adding/modifying templates in VE. The article won't automatically convert these every time you save an edit. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it will convert them every time you touch any part of the template in the visual editor. Eventually, that makes all of them conform. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I meant. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same info WhatamIdoing had, but apparently it wasn't really reflected in my sentence. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF

Stewards Election and Confirmation

The Stewards Election and Confirmation is currently taking place until 27 February. Interested editors can participate in the election here and the confirmation here.

Currently, 11 editors are running to become stewards, and 27 stewards are running to be reconfirmed. I have attempted to provide a neutral[a] summary of the current status of each of these candidacies, including a summary of concerns that have been raised. BilledMammal (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jump to: Summary Confirmation Candidates Election Candidates Internal discussion

Summary of Stewards, Steward Elections, and Steward Confirmations

Stewards

Stewards are a global group of users with complete access to the wiki interface on all public Wikimedia wikis. They have the technical ability to modify all local and global user rights, change the status and name of global accounts, and access any of the permissions available to administrators and bureaucrats. The use of steward rights is restricted by policy; stewards will not use their technical access when there are local users who can use that access, except in emergencies.

On the English Wikipedia, this means their primary functions are to make editors a bureaucrat and to globally ban editors; this last aspect can be controversial when an English Wikipedia editor is globally banned for activity that we would not consider to warrant such an action. They are also able to access personal data and suppressed information.

Steward Elections

Between January and February every year Steward Elections are held, during which editors with at least 600 edits who have been an admin on at least one Wikimedia Project for at least 6 months can run. To be elected an editor needs to receive at least 30 votes in support and at least 80% support.

Steward Confirmations

Between January and February every year Steward Confirmations are held, during which current stewards must have their status reconfirmed. During a public comment period editors may comment for or against a current steward; after the public comment period is closed all existing and newly elected stewards consider the comments and issue their own votes; a steward is removed if a majority of stewards vote to remove them.

Confirmation Candidates

Steward[b] Home wiki Concerns[c] Current status[d]
S O N %
AmandaNP English Wikipedia 82 0 0 100%
AntiCompositeNumber Wikimedia Commons 67 0 0 100%
Base Ukrainian Wikipedia 52 2 0 96%
Bsadowski1 English Wikipedia 51 1 0 98%
DerHexer Wikimedia Commons 72 0 0 100%
Elton Portuguese Wikipedia 34 0 0 100%
HakanIST Wikidata Some concerns about their activity levels 46 3 0 93%
Hasley Spanish Wikipedia 47 0 0 100%
Hoo man German Wikipedia Some concerns about their activity levels 31 7 0 81%
Jon Kolbert Wikimedia Commons 41 0 0 100%
MarcGarver English Wikibooks 23 1 1 96%
Martin Urbanec Czech Wikipedia 66 2 0 97%
masti Polish Wikipedia Concerns about their failure to respond to queries; effectively, concerns that they are failing to meet the steward equivalent of WP:ADMINACCT 40 16 9 71%
Mykola7 Ukrainian Wikipedia 61 2 0 97%
RadiX Portuguese Wikipedia 36 0 0 100%
Sakretsu Italian Wikipedia Concerns about their involvement in the Gitz affair, specifically use of steward rights while under a potential conflict of interest. For context see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-19/In the media and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-19/In the media. 62 13 3 83%
Schniggendiller German Wikipedia 39 0 1 100%
Sotiale Korean Wikipedia 50 0 0 100%
Stryn Finnish Wikipedia 41 0 0 100%
Superpes15 Italian Wikipedia 78 0 1 100%
Tegel Swedish Wikipedia 43 0 2 100%
Teles Portuguese Wikipedia 41 0 1 100%
Vermont Simple Wikipedia 66 1 0 98%
Vituzzu Italian Wikipedia Concerns about their involvement in the Gitz affair, specifically use of steward rights while under a potential conflict of interest, WP:OUTING, and behavior during the confirmation process. For context see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-19/In the media and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-19/In the media. 57 34 2 62%
Wim b Italian Wiktionary 51 0 0 100%
Xaosflux English Wikipedia 51 0 0 100%
علاء Arabic Wikipedia Concerns about their involvement in the Arabic Wikipedia black out and auto-logout. 62 4 1 94%

Election Candidates

Candidate[b] Home wiki Concerns[c] Current status[d]
S O N %
Ajraddatz English Wikipedia 190 1 2 99%
Albertoleoncio Portuguese Wikipedia Concerns about level of cross-wiki activity 113 14 8 89%
EPIC Swedish Wikipedia Concerns about experience, cross-wiki activity, and hat collecting 104 14 17 88%
JJMC89 English Wikipedia Concerns about level of cross-wiki activity 98 12 12 89%
Johannnes89 German Wikipedia 187 2 4 99%
K6ka English Wikipedia Concerns about level of cross-wiki activity 39 46 17 46%
Lee Vilenski English Wikipedia Concerns about level of cross-wiki activity 18 71 14 20%
Melos Italian Wikipedia Concerns about activity levels 147 10 11 94%
Turkmen Azerbaijani Wikipedia Concerns about re-using statement from a previous attempt 65 41 24 61%
Yahya Wikidata 147 2 4 99%
~aanzx Kannada Wikipedia Broad range of concerns, including cross-wiki activity, experience, and views on spam. 14 67 22 17%

English Wikipedia Discussion

Nice summary. Thanks for taking the time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Novem, thank you! As you mention, it'd be awesome to have this automated in the future (maybe as a Toolforge tool instead of a bot, to avoid the update edits needed). — Frostly (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a toolforge tool for the election candidates (though not the confirmation candidates) - https://stewardbots-legacy.toolforge.org/Elections/elections.php stwalkerster (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ For full disclosure; I have currently participated in two of the discussions, with a vote for Xaosflux and a vote against Vituzzu
  2. ^ a b Link takes you directly to the voting page; candidate statements may be found there.
  3. ^ a b Column is left empty when there is little or no opposition. Concerns are summarized from the votes in the linked discussion.
  4. ^ a b Manually updated; last updated at 23:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC). It would be useful to automate this for future elections.

No relicensing template

How is Template {{WikimediaNoLicensing}} permissible under wmf:Term of Use? It's even fully protected. User Anthony (inactive) created the original in 2004, and the license only dates to 2011, so maybe the template is grandfathered in somehow? Beyond the legal, I've seen it on a user page (and elsewhere) and on user pages it seems to be a declaration that the user does not intend to comply with the Terms of use, and even if the statement above the Publish button negates that from a legal point of view (does it?) which maybe means the template's assertion is void, it hardly seems the right attitude for a User here to have. Should it be taken to Afd? Even if legally void, why encourage that with a template, even if it's just a pointless sign of an ornery user strutting some attitude on their user page, like a lot of userboxes are. Adding Slaporte (WMF). Mathglot (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there about eight users active in the past year who display that template on their user page. Most users displaying the template have not edited in 10 years or more. I don't see how displaying that template can override the terms of use. I don't see it as a major problem. If the template does not have any legal effect, then trying to delete it may create more drama than it is worth. Donald Albury 20:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Template:WikimediaNoLicensing. — Frostly (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Quds University

Why is Al-Quds University not only mirroring the English Wikipedia—which I presume is permitted by law—but also using Wikimedia logos? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slaporte (WMF): - FYI. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations with the Trustees - next call this Thursday 21st!

Hi all. I just wanted to give you a heads-up, in case you didn’t already know, that there are regular ‘Conversation with the Trustees’ events that you are welcome to attend and ask questions to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (who oversee and guide the Foundation). I’m hosting the next one, taking place this Thursday 21st March at 19h UTC and, speaking as a long-time enwiki editor, it would be really nice to see people from here attending and engaging in the discussions. Please see m:Wikimedia Foundation Community Affairs Committee/2024-03-21 Conversation with Trustees for details! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is good to know about, Mike; thanks for sharing! Sdkbtalk 18:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: WMF should hire a full-time developer to do basic maintenance on MediaWiki

I've been disappointed with the state of disrepair of MediaWiki for years, but yesterday I've become aware of an issue that finally drove me to complain: there was a basic SVG rendering bug that has been fixed upstream 4 years ago, but it still torments Wikipedia readers because WMF can't be bothered to install the fixed version T97233. WMF also refuses to switch to a less buggy SVG rendering library T40010 or to let the browsers do the rendering themselves T5593. Other users there expressed skepticism that SVGs would ever work here and we should revert to PNGs instead, as such issues have existed for more than a decade without being addressed.

This lack of basic maintenance is not limited to SVGs. There is also the well-known issue that graphs are "temporarily" disabled, which was triggered by MediaWiki using the Vega 2 library for 6 years after its end-of-life, until this time bomb exploded in their face. It looks like the current "solution" is just disable graphs forever T334940.

Another issue is that MediaWiki still runs on Debian Buster, the Debian stable from two releases ago. Fun fact, it will be end-of-lifed in three months, so we'll have one of the biggest websites in the world running on unsupported software. And these are only the problems I have personally encountered. Other editors tell of many more that I won't list here.

One might think that this situation is due to a lack of funds, but this is not the case. WMF has so much money that it doesn't know what to do with it: Signpost May 2023, Signpost August 2023. That's why I'm launching this proposal to tell it: hire a full-time developer to do at least basic maintenance. It's unconscionable to donate millions of dollars to other charities while your own website is falling apart.

It would be in fact perfectly natural natural for such a wealthy foundation administering such a large website to fix bugs themselves, or even take over development of the libraries it depends upon. I'm not demanding that much. Only to keep the software stack remotely up to date. Right now it's downright archaeological. Our billions of readers are suffering through issues that the rest of the world has long solved. Tercer (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the WMF has hundreds of staff and these include developers. Github has 558 names of such. So, my impression is that there's no lack of staff or other resources. Presumably it's more matter of organisation and fit. I'm guessing that there's a lot of legacy code and technical debt and maybe this is too brittle and rotten to maintain easily. The graph debacle indicates that senior management ought to be getting a grip on this before a more catastrophic gap opens up. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously WMF has some developers. Certainly not hundreds, let alone 558. In any case none of them is dedicated to maintenance, otherwise Wikipedia's servers wouldn't be in a worse state than my grandmother's PC. I assume they are working on sexy new features such as the visual editor, the reply function, or the dark mode. Maintenance is boring, and doesn't look impressive in your CV. Nobody wants to do it. That's why I'm proposing a full-time maintainer.
Your alternative theory that they have enough resources but still can't do maintenance can be summarized as rank incompetence, and that's too cynical for my taste. It's also not actionable. What could one propose? "Proposal: WMF should get its shit together"? Tercer (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF does appear to have hundreds of developers and engineers. For example, see Developers/Maintainers which has a specific column documenting maintenance responsibilities. Some of these are the responsibility of entire teams such as Wikimedia Site Reliability Engineering which has a headcount of about 45. There are still clearly gaps in this structure, as shown by the year-long outage of graphs, for example. But the idea that there's nobody currently responsible for maintenance in a general sense seems too simplistic. The problem seems more that there's a complex structure in which it's easy for issues to fall down cracks or for people to pass the buck. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the gigantic list in Developers/Maintainers; the first two names there are volunteers, not staff, so we can easily discount that as indicating that WMF has hundreds of devs. All the ones I clicked in Wikimedia Site Reliability Engineering, however, are actually staff, so we can take 45 as a lower bound for the number of devs. Fair enough, some of them are responsible for maintenance, but it's clearly not enough. The WMF can easily afford to hire another, and it should urgently do so. Tercer (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find these threads tiresome. By background, I'm a real software engineer for real money in real life. I do some software development on enwiki-related projects as a volunteer. The pay sucks (but it's no worse than I get paid for editing) but at least I get to pick and choose what I work on, when I want to work on it, and how I want to architect it.
I've found my interactions with the WMF development staff similar to my interactions with any dev group I've ever worked with. Some are good, some not so good. There's a few who are absolute joys to work with. There's a few who are grumps. But then again, you could cross out "WMF developer" and write in (with crayon if you like) "enwiki editor" and you would still have a true statement.
The basic architecture is 25-ish years old. There's a lot of legacy crud. The fact that the core system is written in PHP just boggles my mind. Recruiting must be a challenge. How do you attract top-shelf talent when what you're offering is an opportunity to work on a legacy code base written in PHP and salaries which I can only assume are not competitive with what the Googles and Facebooks and Apples of the tech world are offering. And yes, you are right, doing maintenance work is not what people want to do. If you told somebody, "Your job is to ONLY work on maintaining the old stuff and you'll never get a chance to work on anything that's new and shiny and exciting", I can't imagine you'd get many applications. RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the slow code review process discourages the volunteers who are affected by longstanding bugs from working on fixing them. And of course a company with a known-bad workplace culture.
I think there are people, myself included, who would be willing to work on only fixing bugs rather than building new things in principle, but probably a lot of those people (again including myself) have internally vilified the WMF for exactly this reason so would consider it to morally repugnant to work for them. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of those people. The experience described in that link is totally unacceptable and would lead to prosecution in many jurisdictions. I am ashamed to be associated with its perpetrators. Certes (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why WMF has to pay them. You'll never get boring infrastructure work done by volunteers. And no, I don't believe you'd have any difficulty finding applicants if you offer a decent salary. Even for working with PHP (it's no COBOL, everybody knows PHP). WMF can afford to pay even a top salary from a tiny fraction of the money it has been setting on fire. Tercer (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds much more likely to succeed than giving the interesting work to the paid staff and hoping some mug will volunteer to do the grind for free. One option is make dedicated maintenance a role rather than a person, and to allocate it to a different member of staff each month. (Other time periods are available.) That way no one has to do it for long enough to drive them to resignation, and it's a chance to cycle the skill set with e.g. graph maintenance being done when a graph expert is on duty. Certes (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Small bug fixes can be spread out amongst developers. But truly addressing significant technical debt means cleaning up the software framework to be more sustainable. That's not something that can be done effectively by rotating the work. isaacl (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add a bit to what Roy Smith described about software development: there are failures in managing it throughout the industry, particularly dealing with legacy code bases and a existing user population that generally wants all of their interactions to remain exactly the same. When the software has an associated revenue stream, there's a profit incentive to drive deadlines to be met, but when there isn't, the motivation is to get something that works implemented, as cheaply as possible. That tends to accumulate technical debt that has to be resolved later. One more developer isn't going to have much effect on these problems, which need significant resources working in concert to address. Better project management and setting of priorities is needed, to adequately plan how to transform the code base to a more sustainable state. Note there's a good possibility that would result in a decision to shed functionality currently in use that's too costly or insecure to keep in place, with a plan to re-implement some parts deemed necessary. isaacl (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's mitigated slightly by the lack of one negative force: MediaWiki has no need to make change for change's sake, just to make Product 2024 look sufficiently different from Product 2021 that users will feel obliged to upgrade. Certes (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a software engineer myself. More specifically I'm an SRE, so I'm typically responsible for the types of tasks you're talking about (server upgrades, etc). Let me give you my perspective:
For most software engineers, the work they do at their job is completely outside of their control. They do what makes their boss happy, and in turn, they do what makes their boss happy, and so on. Thankless work like regular maintenance is often dropped without the proper incentives. For some people, those incentives are the salary to work long hours, but since many American jobs in big tech pay 2x to 5x the salary WMF pays for the same role, That isn't it. Those incentives have to come from the top. An example of what that might look like is a "backlog drive" that employees are required to participate in. But that's pretty rare, because leadership is typically being evaluated on metrics like increasing revenue or visitors to the site, and technical debt doesn't push those metrics. So, asking WMF to hire more people doesn't address the problem. Those new employees, if hired, would just fall into the established system that caused the technical debt to exist in the first place. So the conversation you need to be having is: "How do we convince WMF to invest in technical debt?" I don't know the answer to that question. But focusing on hiring more people doesn't solve anything. Mokadoshi (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the proposal is to hire a dev specifically to work on maintenance. Tercer (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is bigger than just one person working on small bug fixes. The framework needs to be cleaned up to be more sustainable. The third-party software dependencies need to be reconciled across different extensions. This needs co-ordination across multiple development areas, and a lot of automated testing. It needs support from management to push through, rather than to just spend enough to keep the parts working. isaacl (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, investing in technical debt is exactly what's needed, but one reason (or excuse) for not doing that is lack of people. If I gag the cynic in me shouting that any new staff would just be diverted to exciting but unnecessary new chrome, an increase in resource should make it easier to get through the required drudgery. Certes (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is why hasn't the WMF already hired that one more developer, or ten, or fifty? Because it places a higher priority on spending those funds and management resources in other areas. For the development environment to truly improve, the WMF needs to change how it sets its priorities. Echoing what Mokadoshi said, that's the problem that needs to be worked on. isaacl (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that the Wikipedia web servers run on Debian Buster? I thought they ran on Kubernetes? Mokadoshi (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A message just came around on the cloud-announce mailing list saying that all the VPS hosts running Buster need to be upgraded in the next few months. I don't have any insight into what they're running on the production web servers, but I assume if they're migrating the VPS fleet, they're doing the same for production. RoySmith (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link, I'm not in that mailing list so I didn't know. I don't know how WMF runs prod so it very well may be that they are running Buster. But it's important to note that the announcement is for Cloud-VPS which is VPS hosting for the community. It would be common practice to not upgrade Cloud-VPS until the last possible minute so as to minimize disruption for the community. AWS for example does not forcibly upgrade your OS until the last possible day. Mokadoshi (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't spend too much time and effort focusing on the Debian Buster thing. That doesn't affect end users in any way that I can see, and it is not end of life'd yet. Let's trust WMF software engineers and SREs to handle those details, and focus on things that directly affect end users. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where it adds to the technical debt that has to be managed is the work to figure out the third-party software stack required by the extensions used for a given Wikimedia site. I agree that it's not a level of detail that editors should be worried about figuring out, but getting the code base improved so that it's easier to work out is important for long-term sustainability of the software. isaacl (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the discussion of the SVG bug I linked, where they say they will only install the bugfix when it comes with Bullseye, and link to the task for upgrading from Buster to Bullseye. Tercer (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to speak for the WMF, but I kind of understand their logic here. One way to manage a fleet of machines is to stick with LTS releases and survive on whatever gets packaged into that. It's certainly possible to built custom installs, but once you start doing that, you're off the LTS train and have to take on a lot more responsibility and overhead. I've lived in both worlds. If you haven't, it's difficult to fully understand just how attractive sticking to the LTS can be. RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I am aware of, there is a decent number of employed devs as well as volunteers, so if anything, this is a coordination problem (economical and social) more than anything else. I do have to agree on the point that despite the number of people, some important things don't seem to get done - some of it is primarily because dealing with legacy code is hard, and because hiring quality is hard (this is not to imply at all that current devs are bad) but more exactly that hiring the best devs to work on legacy code is particularly challenging (atleast without paying through the nose). The best way to resolve this is to use the donation war chest and work harder on technical evangelism + hiring on quality over quantity. --qedk (t c) 22:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps WMF can fund the volunteer developers to do basic maintenance, just like the Rapid Fund and the Wikimedia Technology Fund (which is unfortunately permanently on hold)? Thanks. SCP-2000 14:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all - I'm Mark Bergsma, VP of Site Reliability Engineering & Security at WMF. Thanks for this discussion and the points already raised. I'd like to help clarify a few things: at WMF we do indeed have a few hundred developers/engineers - spread over many teams in the Product & Technology department, which is roughly half of the organization. "Maintenance" is not exclusively done by a few dedicated staff, but is the shared responsibility of most of those teams and staff, for the components they're responsible for. They actually spend a large amount of their time on that, and for some teams it's the vast majority of their work. We do consider that a priority and explicitly make time & space for it (we call it "essential work"), and we aim to carefully balance it with strategic work (like bringing new functionality to users/contributors), as well as needed investments into our platform and infrastructure (e.g. our multi-year project to migrate all our services to modern Kubernetes platforms for easier development/testing/maintenance/developer workflows). Since last year, we've also made MediaWiki and related platform work an explicit priority (WE3), including the establishment of some much needed MediaWiki-focused teams again, and have an explicit annual goal to increase the number of staff and volunteer developers working on MediaWiki, WE3.2), and the new formation of our MediaWiki platform strategy. This will continue going forward (WE5 and WE6 of our draft next-year plan).
    Nonetheless, it's true that we have a big challenge sustaining the large and ever growing footprint of services, features and code we've developed and deployed over the now long history of our projects, at the large scale we're operating at. Compared to that footprint, and considering the very wide range of technologies involved, old and new, different code bases and needed knowledge and skill sets, a few hundred staff to sustain and develop that is not all that much. It involves difficult choices and tradeoffs everywhere - prioritizing between many tasks and projects, all of which seem important. It's something we care about, have done quite a bit of process improvement work on over the past 1.5 year, and have a lot more left to do on. We're planning several related initiatives (e.g. WE5.1, all KRs of PES*) as part of our next annual plan to further improve this. We're also going to communicate more about this sort of work, which has been less publicly visible before.
    But, for something more concrete right now: I've also looked into the situation of the specific issue with SVGs that you raised. That's indeed a problem with an old librsvg library version that is used by Thumbor, our thumbnailing service, which was extensively worked on last year to migrate it to our Kubernetes platform - also for easier/quicker maintenance like discussed here. Further work (including the Thumbor container OS image upgrade and some required Thumbor development for that) then unfortunately got delayed, as the development team then responsible for it needed to be disbanded and reorganized at the time - also to allow us to form the aforementioned MediaWiki focused teams. But, I'm now happy to report that the plan is for the work on the Thumbor upgrade to Debian Bullseye to start soon, in the next few weeks, which when finished should finally address this frustrating issue as well. (And yes, we do normally upgrade before OS releases go out-of-support :)
HTH! -- Mark Bergsma (WMF) (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed answer (it seems that Andrew Davidson had a much better grasp of the situation, and I stand corrected). I'm glad to hear that you are aware of the issues, care about them, and there are plans for improvement. In particular, I'm glad that there is a MediaWiki team again and that WE5.1 is an explicit goal. If the state of MediaWiki in fact improves (at least in the issues I'm aware of) I'll resume donating.
It's clear that the answer to my specific proposal is (a quite diplomatic) "no", but I don't mind. I care about the results, and I'm not going to pretend to know better than you how to achieve them. Tercer (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preannouncement of upcoming Movement Charter conversations

I am Kaarel, support staff of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, working with the Wikimedia Foundation.

I am writing here to let you know in advance that the full draft of the Movement Charter will be published on April 2nd, 2024. This will kick off the community engagement period from April 2nd to April 22nd. Perspectives from the English Wikipedia community would be very valuable for the conversations.

For context, the Movement Charter is a proposed document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia Movement, including to lay out a new Global Council for movement governance.

Everyone in the Wikimedia Movement is invited to share feedback on the full version of the Charter draft – this is the last chance to propose improvements before the Charter draft is updated for the ratification vote in June 2024.

Since the last feedback round the drafts have gone through notable changes. I hope many of you will still find it worthwhile to review the drafts and share your perspectives to inform the final version of the text that will be ratified.

How to share your feedback?

Read the Committee's latest updates for more information. I am truly grateful for your kind attention!

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember, when attempting to tie-in and enforce any specific rulings or wording of the document, that this project is Wikipedia (specifically English Wikipedia) and not Wikimedia or an entity called "Wikimedia movement", and its editors are called Wikipedians and not Wikimedians (although some Wikipedians may also want to self-identify as Wikimedians). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Wikipedia in Residence: is this a way around conflict of interest rules?

I was alerted to the existence of this Wikipedia in residence page sponsored by a library at Brigham Young University. As far as I can tell, the only people who are eligible to participate in the programs sponsored here are those who are in good standing with the LDS Church. This seems to be somewhat in contradiction to long-standing Wikipedia policies against that sort of coordinated editing (see, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology for the long history of these sorts of problems). From what I can tell, many of the participants from the programs and edit-a-thons have been inserting pro-Mormon POV into the encyclopedia fairly efficiently and effectively without much in the way of concern over WP:NPOV and the like. Should such a WiR program exist? What should be done?

I thought of maybe bringing that page to WP:AfD, but likely that's not the right thing to do. This seems pretty concerning to me. Anyone else?

jps (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:GLAM is not exactly the same as Wikipedia:Wikipedian in Residence, although there are some Wikipedians in Residence involved in that program. Do you see anything that says the students actually have to be "in good standing with the LDS Church", or are you just assuming that since most students at Brigham Young University do belong to the LDS church, that all of them do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is allowed to be active at that library who is not in good standing as such. See the academic freedom policy for BYU. In effect, anyone who would adopt a critical lens towards the LDS faith would not be allowed to work at the library. jps (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They also have a policy against illegal discrimination in employment. Do you have something more directly relevant, like a job posting that says "By the way, if you're a student here but not actually in good standing with the church, then we won't hire you"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be expelled if you left the church[35], presumably that would end any student employment. Note that as a private organization discriminating on the basis of religion is not illegal (at least not in the US). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, as that link says, they also have non-LDS students enrolled. Is there any reason to believe the non-LDS students are prohibited from getting this campus job? (One expects student jobs to be limited to students.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen anything which suggests that non-LDS students at BYU have any more academic freedom than LDS ones. That would be one difference between this program and almost every other related program... They are at institutions which respect basic academic freedoms. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-LDS students are subject to the same rules as LDS students and include maintaining Ecclesiastical Endorsement to maintain their standing. [36] It is true that one may obtain such an endorsement from a limited list of alternate ecclesiastical authorities, but an atheist, for example, is not allowed to attend BYU. Nor would a black tea drinker for that matter. jps (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They also have a policy against illegal discrimination in employment. But it is perfectly legal for them, as a religious institution, to deny people roles in the institution due to failing religious tests, of course. jps (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, that is only true if the role has some sort of religious component to it. A religious organization can require (e.g.,) a teacher to belong to their religion because of the Ministerial exception, but it can't require the same from a janitor. The low-level staff only have to avoid subverting the employer's goals (e.g., no telling the students that the religion is wrong while you're mopping the floor, no sneaking prohibited food into the cafeteria, etc.). It is unlikely that a student hired to post information about what's in the library would be considered a religious minister. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Beast in 2015 ran a story that included the claim that if a student loses their ecclesiastical endorsement, they will lose their campus job. "Without [ecclesiastical endorsement], they would be expelled. The university would initiate proceedings to terminate their campus jobs." Looks like a religious test to me. jps (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK expelled students are not expected to keep holding their student jobs at any university.
From what I read on their website, students can and do get the ecclesiastical endorsement without belonging to the LDS church. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have to belong to some church that is recognized as legitimate by BYU, convince the local LDS bishop to give them an endorsement, or get the endorsement from the BYU chaplain. Those are the only other options. That's a religious test plain and simple. jps (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned that the library as a resource intentionally censors sources that are not in line with the above policy at the discretion of an opaque process: [37] This looks like a book-banning form to me. jps (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read "the Library must also make materials available that some may find trivial, challenging, or offensive" in exactly the opposite way: Here's a handy complaint form, but don't get your hopes up about us removing a book just because you find it unimportant, difficult, or offensive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of other examples of libraries with complaint forms of this sort? The plain text read is that they consider removing offensive material from circulation. An alternative would be to say, "We do not censor materials due to some finding them trivial, challenging, or offensive." That's what I would expect for a library committed to the free exchange of knowledge, for example. jps (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very standard-looking US library complaint form. Such complaint forms are intended, as WhatamIdoing indicates, to channel complaints into a bureaucratic process that primarily exists as a paper trail for the librarians to justify to review boards their decisions to not withdraw an item, forcing complaints to make specific objections that can be refuted and dismissed. signed, Rosguill talk 01:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that standard-looking US library complaint forms include: "The Library intentionally collects materials that strengthen faith and promote spiritual development (D&C 88:118)" as the lead-in sentence to the form? jps (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd honestly glanced past that and assumed it was quoting the library's collection development policy, which would be a very normal thing to include in such a form irrespective of however weird the collection development policy is. But I do see now that it's actually alluding to scripture, and specifically scripture that says 18 Therefore, it must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory, which does indeed seem much more like a call for censorship rather than anything resembling a collection development policy. Concerning. signed, Rosguill talk 02:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read it as a standard complaint form with a bit of marketing at the top. A little sugar to make the medicine go down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that such "sugar" and marketing is antithetical to our mission of free knowledge dissemination and the promotion of open inquiry. We are actively collaborating with a group that promotes religious litmus tests as a means to decide a work's availability. Even if they say that apostate literature can sometimes be permitted to achieve certain faith-formation goals, this is still an uneven playing field necessarily skewed away from critical thinking. jps (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All BYU students have to abide by the Honor Code and can be expelled (which obviously would lead to termination of any university employment and eviction from school housing) for violating it--like by swearing, failing to encourage others to follow the HC, having "extreme-colored" hair, not "participating regularly in Church services", etc., on or off campus. And unlike every other college where evaluating grounds for expulsion is up to university officials, HC violations (with the exception of having a romantic (even if non-sexual) same-sex relationship, which is still an expellable offense but goes through the HC Office rather than bishops) lead to expulsion via revocation/non-renewal of the student's ecclesiastical endorsement by their ward bishop (or other ecclesiastical leader or nondenominational BYU chaplain for the 1.5% of students who identify with other or no religions) based on his personal interpretation of their transgressions. Anyone can report HC violations through this form, so students experiencing any doubt in their faith must be sure to hide it extremely well from everyone if they want to continue getting their degree.
So yes I would say all students still have to be in "good standing" with the LDS Church even if they are not LDS. JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can be "in good standing" without first being a member. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's an American thing, but why is Wikipedia/WMF associating itself with this irrational and unsavoury religious outfit in the first place? Bon courage (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can tell, many of the participants from the programs and edit-a-thons have been inserting pro-Mormon POV into the encyclopedia fairly efficiently and effectively without much in the way of concern over WP:NPOV and the like. Do you have diffs for this? I think that that would be central. Simply being of a particular religion is not inherently a WP:COI; the issue in the cases you linked was that there were coordinated and institutional efforts to influence Wikipedia in a non-neutral direction. The question is whether this is that. At a glance, though, this document (linked on the page you linked) is a bit concerning: How to look like a trustworthy Wikipedia editor. And especially the bit further down about If you are willing to have your edits tracked to measure how edits from Vineyard’s volunteers are doing, click on this link while logged into Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "How to look trustworthy" might sound a bit flippant, but the advice in there is sound: "always log in", "fill out the “edit summary” for every edit", "add a reference for every sentence", etc., and the tracking link is to our own https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not diffs per se, but this To-Do list appears to me to be not much better than an attempt at increasing the coverage of parochial LDS-approved topics. There is a subtle line between promotion of one's faith and documenting the beliefs, practices, and related stories of a medium-sized religion. Given that this is a systematic and sponsored project, I remain concerned. jps (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Simply being of a particular religion is not inherently a WP:COI" ← it certainly is for that religion, to some degree. And edits made about that religion are COI-tainted, to some degree ranging from the unimportant to the highly-problematic. Bon courage (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading this list, I'm not so concerned. I wouldn't consider the anti-Mormon film A Mormon Maid "LDS-approved" (and the to-do list is right that it needs improvement; for a film that was such a cultural touchstone about sex and sex panics, the article's very short), for instance. This assessment seems to imply that Mormonism is parochial, but you might be surprised how robustly Mormon subjects (persons, events, etc.) are covered in reliable, secondary sources. Speaking from the perspective of one who reads a lot in history and religious studies, academic presses and major periodicals publish a lot about Mormons. There's a lot to document about their demographic and social influence across history, and anthropologists, literary critics, and religious studies scholars seem to find Mormon culture and texts useful to study. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is A Mormon Maid really anti-Mormon? It's certainly anti-polygamist. But anyway, Scientologists would certainly be interested in helping to form Wikipedia's discussion of Trapped in the Closet (South Park), for example, as I imagine Mormons might be interested in framing the discourse about the film you mention with similar motivations. jps (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have traditionally said that being a member of a religion is not a COI, though being on the marketing team is, and being a cleric might be. We say the same thing about being a citizen of a country while editing the articles about that country, being a physician editing articles about medicine, and so forth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's right. COI says "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI" and for certain more propagandizing religions (scientology, Sahaja yoga, e.g.) COI has been a significant traditional problem on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, they can trigger a COI. Can≠does. Physicians are paid to provide medical services, which is a "financial" relationship. About 60% of American adults are registered members of political parties, which is a "political" relationship. But we don't tell physicians to stay out of the medical articles, and we don't leave WP:ARBAP2 work to the 40% who don't belong to a political party. If it were automatic, you'd find notes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity telling editors not to edit articles about Christianity if they're Christians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The example of Scientology is illustrative. It seems to me that there is a coordinated effort to skew Wikipedia content towards the approach adopted by the Harold B. Lee Library which, as far as I can tell, is intended to promote Mormonism. The Church of Scientology was basically doing the same thing back in the day when it paid editors to promote Scientology while adhering to Wikipedia principles. You know, just add a lot of content to help people understand the "basic principles and beliefs". jps (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a physician is not an external relationship, though of course Wikipedia has had a problem with physician COIs of various sorts in relation to medical devices, practices, fields of work, institutions, etc. etc. I do worry sometimes that COI is seen as a big binary switch. If you're a Christian you have an 'automatic' COI to some degree with with Christian topics, depending on your fervour and the topic, and in some cases it won't matter. If you're a member of Reform UK you have an 'automatic' COI with that topic to some degree which may or may be a problem. As to leaving AP2 "to the 40% who don't belong to a political party" ... ! You can dream WAID, you can dream ... Bon courage (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also the very definite, formalized financial relationships LDS members have with their church, and that BYU students have with BYU and the church. These relationships are not present between physicians and medicine or between most political party members and their party or politics.
    From what I have seen of the HBLL group's edits, the non-NPOV editing arises not so much through actively pushing LDS faith but through covering--often extensively--topics that are only discussed in publications by LDS members and thus exclusively reflect LDS-endorsed teaching on the topic. This predictably results in rather in-universe treatment of scriptural stories and amplifies the reach of fringe topics that have not received attention from mainstream scholars and thus should not have standalone notability. JoelleJay (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See for example the push to create articles for almost all possible Book of Mormon topics and improve existing in support of a new Church wide Sunday school curriculum. Many of the topics do not have significant coverage outside of the LDS walled garden. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One additional aspect of the financial relationship is that members of the LDS church get a not-insignificant discount on tuition at BYU. Just another way this particular role is being gatekept. Wikipedia is essentially promoting editing collaborations that are necessarily heavily skewed towards LDS members in good-standing. jps (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And in-state/in-country students get a not-insignificant discount on tuition at most universities. Would a Wikipedian-in-residence at New York University be unreliable for the topic of New York? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am amazed that you would think that this is close to being an equivalency. (Also, just FYI, NYU does not give discounts for New York residents, but CUNY/SUNY does! None of those institutions requires membership in a religious organization to receive such a benefit.) jps (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are certainly a number of concerns here, diffs wise I think its helpful to look at something smaller than systematically inserting pro-Mormon POV because that can only be judged at topic not page scale. On the page scale the program leader discloses a personal COI[38] with the Association for Mormon Letters (AMU), GLAM participant Cstickel(byu) has 69.4% of the authorship of AMU[39]. I think its fair to ask if thats an appropriate use of a paid student editor. Can you pay someone else to make edits which would be inappropriate for you to make? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we go down the AML page to "Presidents" we find the page James Goldberg. Now James Goldberg was created by... Salem(BYU) who like Cstickel(byu) does not disclose a COI related to the AML. Goldberg is not only an AML President and board member, they're a BYU alum and a former BYU professor. Rachel Helps (BYU) successfully nominated the page to DYK in April 2022, effectively promoting the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While a lot of students at BYU are Latter-day Saints, not all are, and as Aquillion points out, Simply being of a particular religion is not inherently a WP:COI (italics in original). My impression is that Wikipedia encourages edit—a-thons, and they sometimes have topical themes, and sometimes those topics are about coverage of religions. One about Jewish women artists happened just the other day. I noticed that Rachel Helps (BYU) (Wikipedian-in-residence at the BYU Library) is listed on the participants page. My interest in American history and articles about book topics has brought me into contact with her for a couple of years by now, and in my experience she and the editing that she encourages are amenable and good-faith, with an eye toward being on the right side of policy with the clear paid editing disclosure on her userpage and the transparent identification in her username. All this to say, while I certainly understand why someone might initially have a concern, I think there's a net positive happening with teaching people about Wikipedia and how to contribute to and further project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any conflicts of interest with the BYU Library (such as past or current employment) you should be disclosing when participating in this conversation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. Is there anything you should be disclosing in this conversation? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So its a coincidence that you just (Redacted)... After being asked that question here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Horse, I notice that you have ignored the direct question to yourself, while pushing harder on her. (Also, maybe time to review WP:OUTING?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no COI with BYU, the LDS Church, or any related topic. I don't believe I have run afoul of our outing policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I was thinking more about how at this point you're still hounding Rachel Helps (BYU) despite this being discussed by @Awilley: and @Mackensen: and warned about by @Drmies: over a year ago. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that (Redacted) I don't think this is a violation of the outing policy. Further, I am more concerned by the fact that P-Makato appears to have lied about whether they answered the question Do you have any conflicts of interest with the BYU Library (such as past or current employment) you should be disclosing when participating in this conversation. P-Makoto, I think we need an honest answer to this question, including for the discrepency that Horse Eye's Back identified, before someone takes you to ANI or ARBCOM. BilledMammal (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: The fact that an editor has (Redacted), is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". It says so exactly in WP:OUTING. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; because they have (Redacted), Horse Eye's Back comment identifying them isn't an WP:OUTING violation. Further, I am far more concerned about P-Makato lying, possibly under the mistaken belief that OUTING will protect them from being caught, than I am about an individual who has chosen to out themselves being identified. BilledMammal (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you disagree with WP:OUTING? Because my statement came verbatim from that policy (4th paragraph under Posting of personal information). Both things can be true - P-Makoto lied, and HEB violated OUTING. The proper venue for adjudicating that is not here but via Oversight, which is why this got redacted and HEB was warned by two admins. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You omit the second sentence of the 4th paragraph; Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be.
In other words, just as under the right circumstances it is permissible to bring up their past edits, under the right circumstances it is permissible to bring up off-site information. I would say that an editor lying about a COI is "the right circumstances" for both. BilledMammal (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a.k.a. the "exceptions" section of WP:OUTING, Exception #2. Levivich (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because this keeps coming up in multiple locations: P-Makoto has not made any on-wiki declaration of their real-life identity, and thus connecting them to a real-world individual using social media and other similar "personal bio" sites is a violation of our harassment policies. Per a discussion on HEB's talk page they have emailed me regarding this COI (per our policies); if anyone else feels the need to do similar please feel free. Primefac (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it came up in this thread, and since it was my own behavior that muddled the topic, it seems like my responsibility to clarify. In a conversation with Levivich, the latter helped me recognize my misunderstanding of the conflict of interest policy. Based on the examples provided on the policy page (permanent link, like the business owner or band manager), I was under the impression that extant financial relationships are the conflicts of interest that require disclosure and that terminated relationships fall under the clause How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. Levivich said otherwise, and while I am now bothered that the policy page itself doesn't actually bring up terminated relationships, I can understand where Levivich, and probably others in this thread, are coming from. With this in mind, when I answered Horse Eye's Back's question about if I had any conflicts of interest I should be disclosing when participating in this conversation by saying no, that I didn't have conflicts of interest that I should be disclosing—under the impression that the current state of my employment and education was at issue, not past states—I see that my answer fell substantially short of what others in the community expected. To the extent that terminated relationships matter to the conflict of interest policy, my past relationship to BYU overall is something I should've disclosed.

The long and short of it is that I have a terminated relationship with BYU: I was previously an undergraduate student and had a couple student jobs (none of which involved Rachel Helps (BYU), who I met through Wikipedia). Since then, a lot has happened. I came out as trans, I ended my education and employment at BYU, I'm at a different institution that doesn't have denominational/religious ties. I'm sorry for my misinterpretation and misapplication of the conflict of interest policy. I have disclosed this on my user page and think that under the conflict of interest policy it'll be appropriate for me to refrain from editing article space about BYU topics and appropriate that if I participate in current/future conversations about BYU-paid editors my terminated relationship with the BYU institution be disclosed (all this in addition to being more rigorous about how I understand and apply the COI policy).

As Primefac states, I don't disclose other information about myself. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think HEB even actually "identified" P-Makoto, as he didn't link to the social media profile in question or even suggest the profile and wiki username were the same. That said, mentioning the existence of a particular social media profile does go beyond what P-Makoto has declared on her userpage, so the better response would have been to state "I have seen evidence that contradicts your claim and I am emailing it to [admin active in this discussion]". JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While a lot of students at BYU are Latter-day Saints, not all are Most estimates put the percentage of non-LDS at BYU to be 2% or less. jps (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would impossible to hold this Wikipedia-in-Residence position without gaining the imprimatur from BYU. A critic of the LDS church would not be allowed to have this position. Wikipedia is endorsing ideological discrimination by supporting these programs even if in so doing they are introducing Wikipedia principles to a wider audience than would otherwise be exposed to them. jps (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI says (emphasis mine):

There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums.

Brigham Young University's mission statement begins:

The mission of Brigham Young University — founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life.

It doesn't seem like a mission-aligned organization to me. Levivich (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although to be fair, the editors with "(BYU)" in their usernames are disclosing with every edit, which is more than others do, and probably as much as Wikipedia can ask. Levivich (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we be aiding in organizing this sort of thing and providing institutional support? jps (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The part of BYU's mission statement that says "All students at BYU should be taught the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Any education is inadequate which does not emphasize that His is the only name given under heaven whereby mankind can be saved." seems to be in direct conflict with Wikipedia's mission, and its policies, which essentially prohibit emphasizing Christianity. But "aiding in organizing" and "institutional support" also increases scrutiny and communication, which is a good thing. More transparency and more eyes is good, and I feel like removing the WiR would mean less transparency and fewer eyes. Levivich (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we promote transparency, scrutiny, and communication through something like the COI policy instead of through the WiR program which typically serves as an endorsement rather than a scrutinization of the activity that may be contrary to Wikipedia principles? I worry that the pages that seem to indicate that the organizing is being done with the knowledge and support of Wikipedia as an institution may mislead people into thinking that such activity is being actively supported by our community which, I guess, it seems to me that we have been doing in any case if perhaps unwittingly. jps (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the WiR program is an endorsement of anything except our desire to have free knowledge. Galleries, libraries, archives, and museums have knowledge in them. If they want to pay people to make that knowledge free, why should we object? If there are, to some editors' tastes, too many religious organizations and not enough anti-religious organizations that are willing to pay people to share their knowledge, that isn't really a good reason to hamper our free knowledge goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they want to pay people to share their resources on Wikipedia, that's great. But if they want to pay people to advance their religious beliefs on Wikipedia, that's not great. Advancing Wikipedia's coverage of Mormon topics is not the same thing as sharing the resources of BYU. I'm not sure how much of each is being done, but I've seen enough of the former to wonder how much sharing-of-resources-not-related-to-Mormonism is being done. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "advancing Wikipedia's coverage of Mormon topics" is importantly different from "advancing their religious beliefs".
(Also, if, and to the extent that, our articles might contain serious misrepresentations of their religious beliefs, then advancing their religious beliefs would be indistinguishable from improving Wikipedia. If your religion believes ____ and the Wikipedia article says something completely different, then nobody is served by preserving the error.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding it hard to believe that the employees of a proselytizing institution of a proselytizing church in a proselytizing religion who are paid to edit Wikipedia are doing so without proselytizing. Levivich (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, an NPOV summary of anything having to do with any religion would include the mainstream scholarly view that the religion was false, that whatever the holy book said was not true, that the whole thing was invented by people and, basically, that there is no such thing as a "god." Writing such things in Wikivoice would be blasphemy in many, probably most, religions. How can somebody with serious religious commitment possibly write about their religion in an NPOV way? I don't see it, maybe I'm being close-minded or unimaginative, but it seems like an "obviously not" situation. Levivich (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think... JoelleJay (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And here I was under the impression that the mainstream scholarly view, among those who actually study this subject (e.g., not biologists) was "it depends on how you define god". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except biologists (and other academics in a variety of discipline) absolutely do study this subject especially as "god" is conceived of by Mormons. Mormon declarations of faith almost without exception argue for the existence of an interventionist deity. Are there progressive Mormons who stray towards some of the accommodationist and modernist approaches? Absolutely. But the vast majority of their literature (read "sources") argues in favor of claims which are demonstrably false when it comes to the empirical evidence. jps (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do they? Can you name several key biologists or their important publications in this alleged subspeciality? Not in the "Albert Einstein said he believed in Spinoza's god" kind of way, but the sort where you'd actually publish it in a biology journal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with Einstein believing in Spinoza's god as a reference? Why do any of these ideas need to be published in a biology journal? It's not as though the believers in god are publishing in those venues. Nevertheless, believers make definite empirical claims about biology as it pertains to their faith in god all the time in their own venues. To the extent that those claims are noticed by biological experts, we include them in Wikipedia. If no biologist has bothered to comment on the subject, we exclude it per WP:NFRINGE. Are we just talking past each other here? jps (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about all the archaeobiologists and population geneticists whose work directly contradicts Mormon claims like "American Indians are descendants of Hebrew BoM characters"? JoelleJay (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jps asserts that biologists...absolutely do study the subject of whether god(s) exist. That's news to me, so I've asked for sources to support the assertion. I mean, it's entirely possible that a biologist also happens to be a theologian or philosopher, but I've never heard of one studying the biology of whether there is any such thing as a "god." That claim is at least {{citation needed}} in my books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No he didn't, he asserted that biologists study "the topic", which in this case is Coriantumr and broadly other claims of historicity of Mormon figures. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would the existence of a God(s) even begin to fall under the scope of biology?? (also this entire discussion is very interesting) vghfr, harbinger of chaos 02:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with biologists...? JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jps asserts above that the mainstream view is that no gods exist. I suggest that the mainstream scholarly view from relevant disciplines (e.g., philosophy) is that the answer to the question about whether gods exist depend entirely on what you mean by the word god (or good or evil or beauty or truth or any number of other intangible concepts). Some definitions are unfalsifiable; some are self-disproving; some are real. Donald Trump exists, and this man worships him; for some definitions, that makes at least one god "real". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT your comment about biologists is a reply to my comment of "you'd think", which is in turn a reply to Levivich's comment. You're the first one in the thread to say anything about biologists. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is instead a reply to the comment by jps that includes (as my comment does) the phrase "the mainstream scholarly view". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I finally understand where the divergence between your and my interpretation of this discussion lies, but I think it is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I am happy to concede the point that any biology journal that published an article on "the existence of God" would almost certainly end up being cast aside by us as an unreliable source for good reason. jps (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When looking at the source text, your comment appears directly after mine and is indented as such. The first time jps mentions academics studying the topic is at 17:12, in response to your comment at 17:04. Is Discussion Tools or whatever combining comments for you or something (it does that for me sometimes)? And still, no one at any point is claiming anything about "biologists" until you bring it up. JoelleJay (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One last time:
  • Jps said: "an NPOV summary of anything having to do with any religion would include the mainstream scholarly view that the religion was false, that whatever the holy book said was not true, that the whole thing was invented by people and, basically, that there is no such thing as a "god.""
  • I said: "the mainstream scholarly view, among those who actually study this subject (e.g., not biologists) was "it depends on how you define god""
In other words, I am making a distinction between "beliefs held by people who are experts in unrelated fields" (e.g., biologists) or "beliefs held by some academics in general", and "beliefs held by the very small minority of academics who are actually experts in this particular field" (i.e., philosophers, including philosophers of religion). Jps has agreed that non-experts do not generally publish research into whether there is no such thing as a "god". In case there is any doubt, I agree with him.
I urge you not to assume that providing the visual convenience in the form of indentation – which was the recommended practice for 90% of the time you and I have been editing, and has only shifted recently due to the Reply tool and specifically its ability to silently resolve edit conflicts, so you don't even have a chance to adjust it – is proof that every comment posted is a reply exactly to that one single comment. If the content in a comment doesn't appear to be directly related to the immediately preceding one, that's because it's probably not exclusively or directly related to the one immediately preceding it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich wrote that comment. And gee, forgive me for thinking that your comment--placed directly below and indented after mine 13 hours after I made it--that pointlessly and apropos of nothing claims biologists don't have the standing to weigh in on the mainstream consensus on topics of faith, might just be directed at me, a biologist (as you know) who is weighing in on topics of faith.... JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused because these four pages say rather different things about what a WiR is and does: meta, outreach, glam, article, including whether or not a WiR should edit articles about their institution. But I don't see any of them characterizing WiR as an endorsement of the institution by Wikipedia; if anything, it's an endorsement of Wikipedia by the institution. Still, the missions of Wikipedia and BYU are so different, for example: the BYU honor code prohibits same-sex relationships and beards, whereas the Wikipedia UCOC prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or physical appearance. So any official-seeming affiliation does seem awkward, to say the least. Levivich (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't do anything to stop anybody from organizing their own paid editing campaigns of Wikipedia if they do this with their own time and money. But we are under no obligation to host these campaigns on our project pages. I'm suggesting that by allowing such on-wiki organization, the appearance of our acceptance and toleration of this activity cannot help but be assumed. If nothing else, they are using Wikipedia's servers for that purpose, after all. That's as about a big as an endorsement as many of us volunteers ever get from Wikipedia as an institution. jps (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Joelle and jps broadly above. The reality is that even if people are disclosing their COI (and frankly I don't think most are, at least to the level of adhering to the spirit of our directives, which would strongly discourage most of this editing) it's still a problem. I encountered the issues with this kind of editing firsthand at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of Mormon monetary system, where an article essentially treated an ahistorical topic as real until the AfD, and even then BYU editors managed to sway the deletion discussion to no consensus, and argued that content published by BYU or the LDS church counted as independent for the purposes of notability. This is simply fundamentally incompatible with building a neutral encyclopedia, and it's a distinctly different and bigger issue than museum editing (which, to be clear, can have issues with distorting our coverage as well.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In part prompted by this discussion I have been taking a look at our Mormonism content and I have to say I am alarmed. There seems to be an undue reliance on "in universe" sources, and this results in an "in universe" POV which seems coy on certain topics and out-of-kilter with what independent sources are saying (nothing in Mormon on the role of women? really?). I am reminded of, a decade ago, when the Christian Scientists tried (and failed) to make Wikipedia a mirror of their "church line", fended off largely thanks to the efforts of the late great @SlimVirgin. I wonder if the LDS movement has succeeded where the Church of Christ Scientist didn't. Bon courage (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only edit to Mormon I could find from a BYU-employed editor going back five years was Rachel Helps (BYU) reverting a probable Latter-day Saint's edit good-faith but misguided edit. If Mormon is in bad shape, it's probably because it seems like an unnecessary fork from pages like Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
A more instructive edit I think is this one, in which Rachel Helps (BYU) added cited content saying that Mormon apostle Dallin H. Oaks's interpretation of the Christian Fall has no textual basis in the Book of Mormon. That didn't seem particularly orthodox. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "women" does not even appear in the Mormonism article. Which is ... quite something. And Mormon gets 4,505/hits day, much more than the Mormonism and LDS articles. So it's not some kind of neglected fork – it's the daddy article.Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "men" only appears three times. And the word "women" does not appear in the Atheism article. So I'm not sure what the point is? -- Colin°Talk 16:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I had a weird sample, but browsing through academic books on mormonism in the WP:WL it seemed like the role of women was much discussed. I don't think the role of women in atheism has been a topic of much academic interest? Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a handful to get you started on improving that article:
  • doi:10.1080/09589236.2018.1523053, "“Atheism is not the problem. The problem is being a woman”. Atheist women and reasonable feminism" (2019)
  • doi:10.1163/18785417-01002002 " Feminist Women’s Attitudes towards Feminist Men in the Canadian" (2011)
  • doi:10.1177/03616843221115338 “Breaking Free”: A Grounded Theory Study of Atheist Women in the United States (2022)
  • JSTOR 24462263 "Black Women, Atheist Activism, and Human Rights: Why We Just Cannot Seem to Keep It to Ourselves!" (2013)
  • JSTOR 24462265 "The Non-religious Patriarchy: Why Losing Religion Has Not Meant Losing White Male Dominance" (2013)
I don't know how it compares to men specifically, but it's easy to find journal articles about atheism and women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was looking only at books to try and get a higher-level view of the themes. In fairness, there are Mormonism and women and Mormon feminism articles. Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But no atheism and women. We do have Atheist feminism, though. One of the sources I link above says that both feminism and atheism are only considered desirable (i.e., by society at large) when men hold those views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a view; hard to test mind you. I suspect 'society at large' differs quite a bit between countries. Anyway, we have gone into the undergrowth. Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E-post 📧 hottentott newest version available now in 169.224.86.103 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 02:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after more thought, I would support an ANI proposal for TBANs from from LDS, broadly construed, for Nihonjoe, Thmazing, P-Makoto, the (BYU) editors, anyone else associated with BYU/AML. We've spent enough editor time on this. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people have indeed spent a lot of time posting in this thread. And in all that time, we have seen them post no diffs evidencing a structural problem; no evidence of the need for escalating warnings and blocks; and no list of deleted articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a particularly big fan of diff culture, but I can say that I have been going through the contributions of the four student editors employed by Rachel Helps. As I've mentioned on her user talk page, the question for me is actually one closer to, "which of their edits are not problematic?" To give a few examples: here we have the addition of devotional interpretation to an obscure story from the Book of Mormon, here we have uncritical discourse added trying to claim an uncritical connection between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, here we have some anti-semitic canards added about "saving the Jews", here we have a section being added which looks like a discussion amongst Mormons about the implications of a story that mentions drinking animal blood -- unnoticed by anyone who isn't Mormon, I guess?, here we have some precious commentary that pretends an authorship for part of the Book of Mormon by someone other than Joseph Smith, here we have insertion of commentary by BYU professor Sharon Harris about how themes in this part of the Book of Mormon "preserves teaching of the prophets". Should I go on? This is systematic and widespread treatment of Wikipdia as a kind of devotional study group for the Book of Mormon. jps (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the first link. Instead of "devotional interpretation to an obscure story", I see "expanding a stub about a WP:Notable subject by adding information from a relevant (and notable) author and scholar".
This kind of framing is consistent with the fear I'm perceiving from some editors in this discussion. It's automatically suspicious because of who they are, rather than what they wrote. I wish we could have discussions about religious content without anti-religious discrimination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this isn't anti-religious discrimination. This is concern over extremely specific beliefs about a text which are entirely religious in nature in the sense that the text itself was written in the nineteenth century by a person who claimed it the text was actually composed much earlier. Devotees of this person then attach interpretations to the text to add elaborate apologia and hermeneutics in support of a particular doctrine or dogma held by the devotees. Wikipedia could include such discussion if this was noticed by scholars of religion who believed that such commentary had larger implications for the religion, the social context, etc... but that is absolutely not what is going on here. Jana Riess is writing the primary-sourced devotional herself. She is not providing a scholarly contextualization to the text. She believes the text is as Joseph Smith claimed it to be and so can hardly provide disinterested or critical commentary. Nor should she: that's not her goal. But Wikipedia is not done any service by documenting what essentially amounts to a Sunday School lesson without any further context. We need to serve the dissemination of knowledge including knowledge about what people believe. We aren't here to promote those beliefs by stating them in plain text as fact. jps (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one begins with "The servant in the allegory is interpreted to represent the Savior, or Jesus Christ."
I have trouble imagining that this would be upsetting to anyone if the sentence were in an article about a Shakespearean sonnet and said something like "The servant in the poem is interpreted to represent the spirit of caring for others".
It is normal and encyclopedic to provide (all) common interpretations of stories, religious or otherwise. It doesn't matter what the author "believes". What matters is that this is (apparently) a common interpretation of the symbolism in the story. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the egregious use of the passive voice to indicate that this is an inarguable point, there is absolutely no context for this statement being made and sourced to the devotional written by Riess. It would be one thing if the text said, "Jane Riess believes that the servant in the allegory represents Jesus Christ." but it is entirely unclear to me whether this view of Riess is one that is widely held by Mormons or whether it is her own special interpretation. Did you see whether there was any scholarship done to confirm how widely accepted this interpretation is? jps (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find that a lot of POV pushing happens in the form of "It's only this one cited author who says..." I wouldn't want to write that unless I had another source suggesting something different, or at least some rational basis for suspecting the existence of a different opinion.
In this particular conversation, it feels like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth: "Don't trust them, because they're just giving the official church view" on moment, and then "That needs to be given in-text attribution to a single human, because we can't trust that it's the official church view" the next. One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others), and not in a good way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's pretty standard that religious belief is at once heavily controlled by authorities while also subject to wild in-house confusion about which detail beliefs are proper, widely held and licit, and which are not one or both of those things. A huge chunk of European philosophy in the Middle Ages was all about stressing over similar types of problems. The best scholarship identifies this tension and uses careful scholarship and data to make sense of it. I see little in the way of that in these contexts. It's all declarative sentences about what belief connects with what other belief without clear identification of provenance, evidence, or interfacing with critique. jps (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that articles on religious topics should be sourced (and sourceable) exclusively to publications by adherents and apologists? Because that is what I am seeing in a huge number of LDS articles. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't, but I think that the solution in such cases is to add independent content rather than removing the little bit that we've got. In other words:
  • It is best to have both Mormon and non-Mormon interpretations (assuming they differ, which has not been demonstrated);
  • It is acceptable to have a Mormon interpretation and hope that we will m:eventually improve the article to include any other significant viewpoints;
  • It is worst to have no interpretation at all, because a bare plot summary is not an encyclopedia article.
In the case discussed above, one might consider some slight copyediting (e.g., expanding "it is interpreted" to "it is interpreted by Mormons" – though if nobody else interprets it any other way, then that would actually be non-neutral), but I don't see any problem with the existence of the content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except in many cases there are no non-LDS interpretations, or at least not enough that the article doesn't rely heavily on adherents' views. If no one outside of adherents pays attention to a topic, that topic is not notable enough for a standalone. JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a genuine concern that it's non-notable, then you know how to do a WP:BEFORE search and what to do with the results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When we have no mainstream contextualization for fringe content, that content should be removed, not retained as-is in the hope that context does exist. If we don't have any coverage of that topic as a result, then that is better than having non-neutral coverage of it from adherents. JoelleJay (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article is neutral when it fairly and proportionately represents the views of all the reliable sources that exist, not when it fairly and proportionately represents the views of all the reliable sources that Wikipedia editors wish existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? And? If there's no proportionality possible on a fringe topic then we do not cover that topic even if there are otherwise-reliable sources on it. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of proportionality is whatever extant reliable sources say about the subject. There is no "but I say it's spinach, so if the article only cites those fringey sources, then it isn't fairly and proportionally representing my views" clause. The NPOV policy explicitly says the opposite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV says fringey ideas are either to be contexualized as such with mainstream views, or omitted. That's in WP:GEVAL. Whether something's fringey is not, however, wholly down to editor say-so. Bon courage (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not somethings fringe comes down to mainstream views. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 02:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And mainstream views come down to available sources. When 100% of reliable sources say that this character in a religious story symbolizes something, then the mainstream view is that this character actually does symbolize that thing.
The problem with "contextualize or omit" is that you can't omit the whole subject of the article. You either have to get it deleted, or you have to do your best with the sources that exist at this point in time.
We run into this problem in other areas, too. There are medical subjects that are definitely notable (e.g., drugs entering Phase III trials to grand acclaim – in the business news section), are purely mainstream medicine, and for which there are exactly zero sources in the world that MEDRS would consider "ideal". When this happens, we find ways to cope. We don't "contexualize or omit" everything about it just because ideal sources don't yet exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the way we are dealing is by not having an article on the topic until we have reliable sources (in a medical context, MEDRS compliant sources) containing significant coverage of the drug exist? BilledMammal (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, we can't get those articles deleted. An upcoming blockbuster drug is a legitimate business subject, and billion-dollar business products tend to get hundreds and thousands of words in reliable sources. They pass GNG and CORP with no trouble at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drug trials are (probably) not fringe. There is indeed a tension between NPOV and N for certain fringe subjects and so yes there needs to be a way to cope; but NPOV is not the flexible part of that coping process. Sometimes a successful argument for article deletion is that it's not possible to write a NPOV article on the topic. Bon courage (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really think keeping an article with no contextualization is the proper, MEDRS-compliant way of handling a topic on, say, some ayurvedic decoction that has gotten huge, credulous coverage in Indian RS media and review articles in "selectively-indexed" ayurveda journals but has zero coverage in mainstream medical sources? JoelleJay (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that there is tension between subjects that the GNG and CORP declare to be notable, and what I can source exclusively to the MEDRS-ideal standard.
If you can't delete the article because it's a notable subject and you can't find sources that support your POV, you have to go with the WP:BESTSOURCES that currently exist, rather than adding unverifiable information or blanking the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all getting a bit abstract. Has the community in practice ever kept articles on FRINGE topics that don't have appropriate mainstream sourcing, in a way which leaves the fringe view unchallenged? If so, what? Bon courage (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you utilize the strict guidance in FRINGE and NOPAGE and do not retain an article on the topic. JoelleJay (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...if, and only if, you can convince the community that the subject really is FRINGE, really isn't notable, really should be NOPAGE. But when the complaint amounts to "they used a religious source to say what the symbolism is for Parable of the Olive Tree, and I can't find any non-religious source that says anything about the symbolism in this story is", I really don't think you will be able to declare that subject FRINGE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"they used a fringe source to say what the symbolism is for Parable of the Olive Tree, and I can't find any non-fringe source that says anything about the symbolism in this story is" seems like an excellent argument... Note that religious and fringe are synonyms in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "religious" and "fringe" are synonyms, and I don't think that WP:FRINGE supports your interpretation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that religious and fringe are synonyms in this context. Emphasis mine.
Treating this parable as a work of ancient literature, interpreting it as though it correspond to and is contemporaneous with historical and non-LDS theological events, is fringe. The mainstream scholarly consensus is that the BoM was invented in the 1820s, thus it should be distinguished from religious narratives actually written thousands of years ago and for which modern academics' approach to interpreting symbolism is informed by historical context and prior religious scholarship. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the complained-about edits. Do you see anything in there that is Treating this parable as a work of ancient literature? I don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you focusing on a single diff? I was evaluating the article as a whole. JoelleJay (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because that diff was specifically complained about, and because the article as a whole can't be blamed on the student editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the article from before JPS edited it, which can be attributed to BYU editors. JoelleJay (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The student editor cut the number of words by about 25% and made sure that there was at least one inline citation in every paragraph. The article was created in 2009 by an editor who does not appear, at a glance, to have any connection with this library program.
Looking at the last version edited by the recent student, I still see nothing that says it's treating the parable as a bona fide work of ancient literature. Maybe you could provide a quotation that concerns you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very concerned at the way that this discussion has been going. As it has progressed, it has gone from some possibly legitimate concerns about specific edits to a collection of statements and accusations that can only be considered 1) examples of anti-Mormon religious bias; and 2) hostile to the conventions of scholarship. Here are a few observations that I think are essential to understanding some of the things that are actually at issue in this debate.
  1. Accusations of biased editing have to be accompanied by actual examples of bad editing. A large number of people are saying, in effect, that certain editors are students at BYU; BYU is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a proselyting entity; therefore, anything that these students say on Wikipedia must be viewewed as proselyting. This is bad thinking and clear bias. It doesn't work to say, "what entries don't have problems." It doesn't work to simply assume that anyone who professes a belief is incapable of presenting elements of that belief in appropriately nuetral terms. The line of reasoning above is simply an ad hominem attack. It cannot be accepted as a valid argument. Let's look at some actual edits and have discussions about them
  2. The Book of Mormon is a legitimate subject of scholarship, commentary, and Wikipedia articles. Like the Bible, the Qur'an, the Discourses of the Buddha, and hundreds of other religious topics, the Book of Mormon has millions of believers and has had a significant impact on history, culture, and religious practice in the United States and the world. The topic has been studied by thousands of serious scholars, some of whom professor membership in one of the dozen or so denominations of the Smith-Rigdon Restoration movement and some of whom do not. A great deal of very good scholarship published by major university presses (Oxford, Illinois, Harvard, North Carolina, etc.) has been writen and published by people afiliated with BYU and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To rule out this scholarship is to rule out scholarship on the Book of Mormon altogether and would not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
  3. The question of the Book of Mormon's origens is an open question. This is not an evaluation, it is a fact. Around 20 million people believe it to have ancient origins. It does not matter if you agree with this. Lots of people don't. But to say that it MUST be treated only as a nineteenth-century text, and that this should be the official editorial policy of Wikipedia, is to require editors to take a side in an open controversey. That is not appropriate. I have read many of the pages that Rachel Helps and her students have written. All of them that I have seen have been agnostic on the question of the Book of Mormon's historical nature. They frequently talk about the way that certain passages support both an ancient and a 19th century origin. What I have seen here is an insistence that articles come down on the side of the nineteenth century. This is not an appropriate way to handle open questions, nor is it applied to other logically implausible beliefs of other religions (i.e.e the resurrection of Christ, the visions of Mohammad, the reincarnation of them Buddha). The insistence on including material critical of LDS claims is anti-scholarly, since actual scholars are trained not to criticize anybody's religious beliefs but only to analyze and explain them.
  4. Explaining what people who believe the Book of Mormon believe is not the same as arguing that the Book of Mormon is historical or theologically true.What BYU Professor Sharon Harris believes about the Book of Mormon is relevant to anybody who wants to understand how the book is seen and used by adherents. Quoting Dr. Harris in the context is no less relevant than quoting what St. Augustine said about Genesis. Any good Wikipedia article on religion is going to explain how the text is used.
  5. Treating the Book of Mormon differently than other religious texts is straight-up religious discrimination. Every religious text makes truth claims that cannot be supported outside of the faith community, and yet Wikipedia has thousands of pages on the Bible, the Qur'an, and other religious texts that explore these texts from a nuetral perspective with lots of citations to scholars who believe these texts that explain how they are used by the communities that believe in them. We do not demand that everything written about the Qur'an include anti-Islamic sources or that everything written about the Bible avoid anyone who works for Notre Dame or Baylor. We cannot treat the Book of Mormon differently because its implausible truth claims are a few thousand years more recent. I would not be surprised if there are a few edits on the Book of Mormon pages that do not meet schoalrly standards of neutrality. Let's talk about those and maybe recommend some suggestions. But these sweeping denunciations of anyone who works for BYU or participates in the LDS Church are discriminatory and bigoted and have no place in a genuiine community of knowledge.
BoyNamedTzu (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing, do you need any further evidence than the post above? Do you want to join this editor in saying with a straight face that Wikipedia should say, in its own voice, that maybe the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith in the early 19th century, or maybe it was written by God? Do you still claim that there is no evidence of a "structural problem"? What we have here is a group of Mormon editors blatantly pushing Mormon theology in Wikivoice. Just look at Origin of the Book of Mormon and tell me you don't see a problem there. Look at this post above and tell me you don't see a problem here. Levivich (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need any evidence at all. But the community should - and I trust will - demand far more evidence than than the thin claims you have posted above, before applying the kind of draconian bans you call for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK it's beyond me why you're defending this. Levivich (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That you take what I said as "defending this" makes your own biases clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am unapologetically biased (lol get it?) against anyone who wants Wikipedia to say that a book was written by God. Or "maybe" written by God. I hate to reference WP:YWAB but yes when it comes to Wikipedia editing, I am biased in favor of the claims of science and against the claims of religion, why aren't you? Levivich (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just flinging unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations. For shame. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The attempt to adopt the Wikipedia:Scientific point of view as policy failed years ago. The neutral point of view does not support having Wikipedia being against religion; it supports Wikipedia asserting facts, including facts about people's beliefs, opinions, and claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fact that Joseph Smith, and not God, wrote the Book of Mormon. Levivich (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also and equally a fact that people believe the opposite. There is nothing wrong with us writing the fact that millions of people believe _____. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I even made an allegation? There is an editor here who is saying Wikipedia should present, as an NPOV significant viewpoint, the viewpoint that the Book of Mormon was divinely written. Do you think that's OK? If your answer is "yes," you're "defending" it, and that's wrong. Your answer should be no, that's not OK. I am not making any allegations, I am just fucking shocked that your answer (which you're weirdly not giving) might be anything other than no. Do you think Wikipeida should say the Book of Mormon was written by God is a yes/no question. There are editors who are answering that question with "yes." That is why those editors should be TBANed. My viewpoint here is damn logical and based in ample evidence including on this page. Levivich (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What illustrates the problem is that you do not understand the difference between viewpoint neutrality (which I advocated) and taking a side nin an open debate (which you are advocating). No legitimate scholar, and nobody who should be quoted on Wikipedia, fails to understand this difference.And nobody who doesn't understand this difference should be editing Wikipedia. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. The "viewpoint neutrality" is neutrality among the viewpoints of independent scholars, not the viewpoints of believers and non-believers. No historian thinks that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate. No scholar says the Book of Mormon -- or any bible -- was written by God, or by angels, divinely inspired, etc. The views of believers and non-believers are not the two views that Wikipedia should present neutrally. To argue that Wikipedia should treat faith as a "significant viewpoint" is patently nuts. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you do not understand how v iewpoint neutrality works in scholarship. Scholars are trained not to try to attack or defend religious truth claims. This does not mean that they say, "hey, maybe Jesus was resurrected after three days," They simply use language that explains what people who believe that Jesusn was resurrected believe and why they believe it. What you are advocating is a patent editorial rejection of truth claims. You will not find that in the independent scholarship of the Bible or the Book of Mormon or any other religious text. Schoalrs don't work that way. It is entirely possible to write about a religious texts without validating or rejecting its truth claims. All of the "independent scholars" you cite do exactly this., So should Wikipedia. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars are not "trained not to try and attack or defend religious truth claims," I have no idea what you're talking about. Scholars debunk religious claims all the time, with, e.g. archaeological evidence. It's a huge industry of scholars specifically writing to debunk religious truth claims. When we accurately summarize scholarship, we will also say that, for example, the Bible was not written by God, and neither was the Book of Mormon, or the Qu'ran, or the Torah, and so forth. "Anti-religious" is just another word for "pro-truth" when it comes to summarizing sources for Wikipeida articles. Levivich (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of NPOV is a description of how we treat WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. The idea that the Book of Mormon was written by "ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from 600 BC to AD 421" is simply nonsense supported by no rational source. Wikipedia doesn't given credence to nonsense. Bon courage (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but this particular example needs a somewhat more subtle approach than "It's all 19-century fakery, so get over it". Because millions of people have been told it has an ancient origin, it would be appropriate both to say that it has a 19th-century origin and also to point out whatever features appear to suggest a pre-19th-century origin (e.g., if a particular story is known to be derived from older material) or to report facts like "____ is commonly put forward by proponents to justify their claim of an ancient origin". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, nuance is good. But ultimately as far as summarizing knowledge goes, Wikipedia is not going to say there is an "open debate" on the matter of authorship where these ancient prophets are on the table. Bon courage (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So is the idea that Jesus was resurrected after three days, or that Mohammad traveleld to Jerusalem in a night vision, or that Rama was the seventh incarnation of Vishnu. As a general rule, scholars of religion do not attack the truth claims of the religious texts that they are studying. Most Wikipedia articles about Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism do not attack the truth claims they are trying to explain. The idea that articles about the Book of Mormon should do so is plainly discriminatory. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If editors started asserting myth as truth without superb sourcing there would be pushback, yes. YOU are asserting there is an "open debate" about the reality of the ancient USA-dwelling prophets, which is textbook WP:PROFRINGEing. A comparison more apt would be Scientologists saying there is a "debate" over whether the E-meter measures emotions, or "debate" about whether Hubbard really did fly the Thetans to a volcano in a B-52 (or whatever). You're wanting to elevate nonsense claims about the real world onto the plain of rational academic discourse where they do not actually belong or exist. Bon courage (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That there is an open debate is not an assertion. It is a fact. When millions of people believe something, then you cannot say that nobody believes that thing. When hundreds of scholars publishing in peer-reviewed journals and presses believe something you cannot say that no scholars believe it. It is a viewpoint that has to be acknowledged.
And as far as "rational academic discourse" goes, all I am suggesting is that Wikipedia use the saqme standards that EVERY PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC SOURCE uses in neither accepting nor rejecting the truth claims of the religious texts being discussed. In the canons of academic writing and scholarship (with which I am extremely well acquainted), this is not a controversial statement. It is simply how it is done. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are asserting there is an open debate. In Wikipedia, that means in RS. Loads of people believe a lot of silly stuff: like that vaccines cause autism, black people are stupider than white people, or that the Holocaust didn't happen. It doesn't mean there's an open debate on these things; it means people are deluded and wrong. Wikipedia has rules on neutrality, and they are not negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go take a look at Talk:Functional medicine#Source review and behold: peer-reviewed academic sources that Wikipedia rejects in accordance with WP:FRINGE guideline. Levivich (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop holding up "scholarship" as an example when you reject the viewpont neurtrality conventions of actual scholarship. Religious studies scholarship has adopted a very clear set of guidelines for how to discuss religious truth claims. They are always treated nuetrally. These scholars do not see it as their job to either defend or attack religious texts--simply to explain them. If that is not what Wikipedia wants to be, that's cool. But you are going to have to re-edit pretty miuch all of your articles on Christianity and Islam and stop saying that you are summarizing relevant scholarship. Because that is not what you are doing., BoyNamedTzu (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be a lot easier to re-edit pretty much all of Wikipedia's articles on religion if churches would stop organizing efforts to edit pretty much all of Wikipedia's articles on their religion. Levivich (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it. In fact it seems its Mormonism which is getting special treatment right now. Compare the matter-of-fact Authorship of the Bible's lede with that of Origin of the Book of Mormon, which goes so far as to entertain the idea that, you know, God might have written it. The idea that it might have been written by humans is ascribed merely to "Non-Mormon theories of authorship". Bon courage (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The unfalsifiable, spiritual aspects of any faith are treated on WP as topics of religious belief, and as they do not necessarily assert themselves as historic or scientific, we do not necessarily need to debunk those aspects in their articles with the overwhelming scientific evidence against their plausibility. But while we don't need or want Wikipedia to say explicitly "the Mormon god does not exist", we are required to contextualize any claims regarding the historicity or scientific accuracy of religious topics with the mainstream consensus view, and when that consensus differs from religious dogma it is the latter that is regarded as FRINGE.
And unlike with Abrahamic, Vedic, and other ancient religions where there can be intersections between stories from scripture and real geography, people, and events (as validated by examination of contemporaneous narratives, anthropology, archaeology, geology, etc. by independent non-adherent scholarship), we actually have ample evidence that the characters and places novel to LDS scripture never existed. And thus the consensus (among those actually qualified to contribute to consensus) is that BoM is strictly a 19th-century creation of Joseph Smith and that concepts like Zarahemla and Nephites are purely literary. There is no "open question" because the views of adherents are not treated as equivalent to those of independent academics. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as one example, Andrew Tobolowsky is the Robert & Sarah Boyd Associate Professor of Religious Studies at College of William & Mary, and in his book The Myth of the Twelve Tribes of Israel: New Identities Across Time and Space (Cambridge 2022), he directly debunks Mormon truth claims (and other claims to Israeli descent), which he describes as "redescription posing as description" (p. 184). So, yes, religious studies scholars do debunk religious truth claims. Levivich (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also maybe just a little odd that in the last four months this user has only shown up on WP to defend Rachel Helps and P-Makoto, with their comments here at VP and their Jan 2024 comment at ANI being literally their first edits to wikipedia-space... This kinda smacks of meatpuppetry/canvassing. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no disparity of treatment between Mormon texts and (say) the Bible, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures or the works of L. Ron Hubbard. Simply follow the WP:BESTSOURCES. When a text (say the Bible) obtrudes into the real world Wikipedia tends to be robust, again following the best sources. Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the concerned editors have found any sources that are any better. I think their concern is about having articles that do use the best available sources, but those best available sources are not valued by them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question of the Book of Mormon's origens is an open question. This is not an evaluation, it is a fact.
Holy shit. JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that; I've also opened a discussion about the use of such sources. BilledMammal (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rwelean = User:Rachel Helps (BYU) (self-declared, both directions). Rwelean twice created The ARCH-HIVE, a Mormon art collective. They won an AML Award in 2019. Rachel Helps was a judge on the 2019 AML Awards, is a board member of the AML, and is or was a a contributor to the Arch-Hive blog, zines and podcast. I can find no indication that Rwelean or Rachel Helps has indicated her COI with the collective anywhere. Fram (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had no interaction with the LDS and have no particular feelings for or against it, but our coverage of that topic has often struck me as unusually partisan. I always assumed that they had some sort of blanket exemption from our usual policies on neutrality and that there was some consensus somewhere that we would refer to them using an in-universe style as we do with plot descriptions for works of fiction, etc. If there isn't then we do need to review our coverage. Certes (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using the rules on works of fiction for discussion of the Book of Mormon seems to take a definitive view that the Book of Mormon is a fake created by Joseph Smith. While there *may* be a point that the Book of Omni should be covered differently from the Book of Samuel due to evidence that Jerusalem existed, treating it the same as the first half of Genesis doesn't seem unreasonable.Naraht (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[40], [41]: "Do you have to be Catholic to go to Catholic University? No, students of all faiths and backgrounds are welcome at Catholic University." Wanna try again? jps (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because, according to my TradCath friends, CUA is too worldly and corrupted by liberalism. I am on my phone, so I can't look it up, but I can think of several Catholic colleges that have at least a de facto policy of being nearly all Catholic. It may be enforced through informal social control, but it is part of the culture.
On the protestant side, which I know better from my college se several years agoarive protestant colleges tend to have a statement of faith one has to agree to for admittance and staying in good standing. It is oftentimes used as a selling point in their marketing. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, none of these tradcath/uber fundamentalist colleges have Wikipedians in Residence exclusively employing students to write articles about their faith for Wikipedia. How would you feel if they did? If Liberty University had a Wikipedian in Residence that started to write detailed exegetical treatises sourced entirely to Fundie journals, would we just be okay with that, you think? jps (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments get really tiring absent examples of similar organized edits by editors of other denominations and sects who have a conflict of interest regarding the subject. (And yeah, there's potentially the same issues with using, say, Jesuit publications uncritically on a subject close to the Catholic Church or related to Catholic teaching, depending on the context. But that's a digression from what's being discussed here.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other ways in which this is a straw man:
  • this is about employees, not students -- the aforementioned BYU "students" are student employees, paid to edit Wikipedia
  • Catholic University doesn't have a WiR
  • BYU's Mission Statement and CU's Mission Statement are really not comparable, except as examples of how religious-affiliated universities can have wildly differing academic policies and goals
  • Ex corde Ecclesiae isn't at all comparable to a university's mission statement or code of conduct
  • Authorship of the Bible isn't comparable to Origin of the Book of Mormon, except as examples of NPOV and non-NPOV articles
These are some of the reasons I won't be calling for a ban on CU students editing Catholic topics. Levivich (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ජපසAs was pointed out above, you do *not* have to be LDS to go to BYU. You need to have the fact that you are a believer of a specific faith by a faith leader *and* you can not leave the LDS faith while at BYU and remain there. But a believing Jew with a sign off from their Rabbi that they are a believing Jew *can* attend BYU, same for a Catholic, a Muslim or a Protestant. I'm not quite sure how it work for a Quaker, but for the most part.Naraht (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot be an atheist and attend BYU. I documented that above. You need an ecclesiastical endorsement. There is also no academic freedom per se. If you criticize the LDS Church in, let's say, your campus job writing for Wikipedia, you are running the risk of being expelled. That's just BYU's policy. jps (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I look forward to the principled call to ban Catholic University students - it is worth pointing out that these students are being paid to edit wikipedia by an avowidly Mormon organization; that substantially changes things. Obviously simply being Catholic isn't a COI; but being employed by the Catholic Church or by an organization that works to advance Catholicism clearly is. This strikes me, now that I'm looking over it properly, as closer to the latter. And in that respect the arguments over whether you have to be a Mormon to participate strike me as missing the point - certainly the context means that their employers can be overwhelmingly confident they are likely to be Mormons, but whether they are or they aren't, anyone participating in this project could reasonably believe that that there is a risk of being removed from it for saying things their employeer disagrees with. That's a very straightforward and uncontroversial WP:COI. --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, there's a lot here. I'll respond to a couple of random points, make some suggestions, and then butt out.

  • Technically you can be an athiest and attend BYU, though I don't know why you'd want to. Basically you'd have to live by their rather strict code of conduct (conservative dress code, curfews, no sex outside heterosexual marriage, no alcohol, and on and on) and submit to a yearly interview with a nondenominational chaplin to answer questions about how you're living up to the code of conduct. And you'd have to take several religion classes. It's odd, but their house, their rules.
  • "The question of the Book of Mormon's origins is an open question." Well, technically that's true, but not in the way you're thinking. There is some scholarly debate about whether Joseph Smith composed the thing in real time, secretly wrote sections the night before and then "dictated" them while reading the notes out of his hat, or published a manuscript that was ghost-written by a colleague. And within Mormonism (broadly construed) there's some debate as to whether the golden plates actually existed.
  • The concern about people getting excommunicated and losing their jobs for writing things critical of the LDS church is real. The September Six (6 Mormon scholars excommunicated in 1993) come to mind. I highly doubt that's a concern for us lowly Wikipedia editors, but it is something to think about. In the specific case of Rachel Helps (BYU), she has been in my opinion a model editor, and it bugs me to see her dragged through this every couple of months because she's doing the right thing and disclosing her COI. She's already said that there is zero oversight of her editing and no expectation to take positions that favor Mormonism. And I've seen her take positions that don't favor Mormonism but that are true to the reliable sources often enough to trust her objectivity.
  • I reviewed jps's diffs of Rachel's student editors. I see newbies who need education, not wholesale AN/I bans. We all started out passionate about some niche topic and made some poor edits before we learned better. They need to learn that Wikipedia isn't like a Fandom Wiki where you can assume all the readers are "in world".
  • As for editing articles about religion in general, I think many people here are missing the point. As much as we may want to reach out through articles and slap readers of religious articles with a dose of cold reality, it's beyond the mission of Wikipedia to point out each time a religious belief is scientifically false. In a way it boils down to WP:Reliable Sources. Wikipedia should reflect the best scholarly sources. And when sholars write about religion, they aren't bludgeoning readers with all the ways the religions they're writing about are wrong. When I was editing articles about Mormonism I picked up the habit of trying to find the best sources about the subject—the books that all the other books cited—and purchasing those. I still have a shelf full of them. The books are, for the most part, respectful and nuanced. Scholarly articles about religion are similar. They compare and contrast and analyze religious beliefs, but it would be an odd article that came right out and said "this belief is false, that belief is false, all the beliefs are false."
  • I wonder if it is time to take another look at WP:Religion. The page needs some work, but there's a lot of good advice and guidance in there that could help newbies struggling to think outside their world to understand NPOV. It could also help senior editors trying to find the best way to write about some odd religious belief. We obviously can't write articles that are completely "in-universe" but it's also unnecessary to pepper our religious articles with the words "falsly claimed." There needs to be a balance.

Oh, and some final notes: @jps: I appreciate the careful and respectful way you're going about this. And Horse Eye's Back, you really should take a step back and stop wikihounding other editors. ~Awilley (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting all articles on LDS topics need to be "debunked"; what we (or at least I) mean when asking for non-religious sources is that such topics should be contextualized with their reception in the broader world rather than relying solely on adherents' interpretations of primary sources. However when it comes to faith-based assertions of historical or scientific plausibility (as with the claims about Native Americans, Egyptians, ancient coins, etc.) those must be disclaimed in wikivoice and cannot be presented as if they are valid scholarly perspectives. This becomes more of an issue the more detailed an article is on niche aspects of scripture; while there may be plentiful content from LDS authors theorizing on what the economic system looked like in the time of Nephi, if no scholars who don't believe in the historicity of BoM have given the topic enough attention to write about it--with a perspective that clearly treats it as ahistorical--then we shouldn't be including those details on WP. This should be the case even when opinions are attributed to specific LDS authors, since simply stating "FirstName.LastName of BYU considers [exegesis of BoM story]..." does not clarify to the reader that the entire topic is fictional and thus no in-universe perspectives on it are valid as historical analyses. JoelleJay (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're already in agreement on most of this. It's obvious to me that we can't be talking about religious belief in wiki-voice as if it were real. And where there is a direct conflict with science, whether that be 7-day creationism or claims about Native Americans, yes, we should obviously debunk that. The part that's not as clear to me is why an article like Nephites could not be developed into something like the article on Noldor. Mormon scholars might find the economic system of the Nephites fascinating, just as members of The Tolkien Society might be fascinated by the family tree of Finwë, or Trekkies might be fascinated by the Klingon language. Yes, there's the sticky complication that some (though not all)[a] Mormons and Mormon scholars truly believe that "the universe" is real, but I wouldn't disqualify their scholarship based on that alone. I think that beginning paragraphs with phrases like, "in the Book of Mormon narrative..." or "Mormons believe that..." are tactful ways of making sure that readers don't accidentally get fooled into thinking we're talking about the real world. ~Awilley (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Mormon scholar Richard Bushman for instance has said that he thinks that the Book of Mormon is "right" in the sense that it encouraged him to live a good life, but not "true" in the sense that it is backed by evidence and science. [1]

~Awilley (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I mentioned above, I feel like this misses the point that these are paid editors. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that an editor employed to edit Wikipedia by an organization whose ultimate parent org has a dedicated mission (whether religious, political, or whatever) is going to be working to advance that mission and will reasonably understand that editing in ways that starkly diverge from their employers' interests could get them terminated. That's a pretty clear-cut WP:COI, even if the restrictions on their editing are never formally stated. Would we accept political think-tanks employing editors who spend their time on Wikipedia advancing the think-tank's mission? If not, how is this any different? --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I don't know if WhatamIdoing is well placed to answer this or it should go to someone else, but how many jobs at the WMF depend on the Wiki[m/p]edian-in-residence programme? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me if someone's brought this up before, but Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Wikipedians_in_residence,_reward_board already addresses Wikipedians in residence. That section states "WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Wikipedia, and they should operate within the bounds defined by Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence at Wikimedia Outreach. They must work closely with a Wikipedia project or the general Wikipedia community, and are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there." Jessintime (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jessintime, I believe the concern here is that if "their organization" is a religious one, then writing about religion is automatically, inherently, and unavoidably "public relations or marketing" for the religious organization.
    (Additionally, one editor has stated elsewhere that they believe creating any article for pay is a COI, even if neither the WiR nor the organization have any connection to the subject.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No I get that (and their employer isn't just a religious one, it's the church itself). I just felt it was important to point out the actually policy, which I don't believe anyone had done at this point. Jessintime (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A personal analysis and proposal

Disclaimer: if not mentioned, any similarities between personal names in the below links and Wikipedia usernames should be taken as entirely coincidental. As a volunteer Wikipedian, I would expect paid Wikipedians in Residence (WiR) to adhere to WP:COI scrupulously. Rachel Helps has not done this, and neither have the cadre of editors with whom she collaborates. If anyone is unaware, Rachel Helps operates two accounts on Wikipedia: Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), her "work account", and Rwelean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), her "personal account". In practice, she often does not appear to know the difference. Let's take a look:

I think it quite clear that Rachel Helps has been engaged in COI activities on Wikipedia for years, with her conduct far below what is expected from a normal editor, let alone a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence with a position of prominence. I therefore propose (EDIT: apparently not within en.wp's purview) to remove her from her position of Wikimedian-in-Residence, and to place on her a topic-ban from LDS Church and BYU subjects. I look forward to your thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the GLAM organized out of the BYU library ought to also be reconsidered? It's a separate but related issue here. Also, there are right now apparently four students who are being employed to write Wikipedia articles at the direction of Rachel Helps. If she were to be topic banned, I assume that would mean we would treat her assignment of such topics to her students as a violation of WP:MEAT or something.
I think the issues you raise are important and need to be considered. Some of them are separate from the main issue I am concerned about which is that BYU seems to be paying editors through Rachel Helps to add content about Mormon religious issues, and I continue to find poor writing, sourcing, and editorial approaches on page after page dedicated. The cleanup that will be required to recover from this is tremendous and I expect there will be some pushback from other editors who may have gotten used to a pretty unusual approach to article writing when it comes to content about the Book of Mormon.
On a personal note, this is something of a perfect storm of problems for me. If any one of the ingredients weren't there (paid editing, Wikipedia "endorsement" through WIR/GLAM, the restrictive ideological rules of BYU, and the proliferation of really poor article writing), I don't know that I would have brought this up. But all put together it's just too much for me.
jps (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like Wikipedia:GLAM/Harold B. Lee Library is an endorsement, but I'd like you to consider the fact that if we delete it here, it could be re-created at outreach: or other wikis. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" includes people who want to write about their religion based on the reliable sources they happen to have access to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can request no recreation of outreach:, but wikis are constitutionally independent, so that's something I just have to lie with. As we cannot prevent recreation at other wikis ever, I don't think it is a reason to drop the discussion. We also cannot really stop her from continuing to employ and assign these projects with pseudonymous accounts and the like. I will reiterate once again that my concern has nothing to do with wanting to ban people from editing the wiki for being religious. This is wanting to put a stop to the following tetrapartite scenario: (1) paid editing that is (2) only open to people who pass BYU's religious tests that are (3) assigned by someone who also is required to pass BYU's religious tests about (4) said religious content. As I've said, if any one of these points was not true, I would not really be that upset about the situation, but as it is I think this is unjust to the students first and foremost. If a student in their time working on Wikipedia became a critic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, they almost certainly would end up disciplined by BYU. That is antithetical to the way foundational principles of my collaboration with this community. jps (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since sanctions are being proposed, should this be moved to WP:ANI? Also, do Wikipedians have the power to remove a "Wikimedian in Residence"? I was under the impression this is bestowed by an employer rather than under enwiki's control. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"bestowed by an employer" You a correct (even if you were not, the role is "Wikimedian in Residence", not "en-Wikipedian in Residence"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, having already been one twice (and beginning another) neither the en:wp, the WMF, a local chapter, or any language community need to give an approval; it is a personal relationship between a Wikipedian and an organization (unless money from the WMF or a chapter is involved of course). As a WMUK trustee, I expressed concerns about this informality over 10 years ago, but nobody else was very interested. As far as I'm aware, this case is the first to raise serious concerns. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't we just block the Wikipedian-in-Residence account and not the personal one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If no one has any objection to my opening an ANI section, I shall do so shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good idea.
I think that most of the complaints you make above could be leveled at most of the editors in this discussion. For example, you accuse one editor of helping a newbie, and you suggest that this indicates an inappropriate off-wiki connection (as opposed to the many totally appropriate ones, like teaching an edit-a-thon participant how to edit). I have helped many editors I don't know, because tools like User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult let us know about new articles in subject areas that we're interested in.
Similarly, you accuse an editor of personally knowing someone mentioned in an article on the grounds that he corrected the name based on some other source. You assume the other source is personal knowledge (how many of your friends' middle initials do you know?). I have made similar edits based on Google Scholar using middle initials, or otherwise with uncited sources. It's true that my preference is to remove family members' names, but I think that "A person with access to the internet figured out someone's middle initial" is poor proof of a conflict of interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone else is playing inside baseball with a ball you can't see. There is factual information behind those accusations/assumptions but they can't be shared on-wiki without violating outing restrictions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. "how many of your friends' middle initials do you know?", in particular, seems rather like attempting to hit the ball and whacking yourself in the face without realising. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've added more middle initials to Wikipedia articles than I have ever known for my friends. "Hey, guys, I've been doing opposition research and have concluded that these people know each other at work/are friends on Facebook/whatever" is not good behavior (and might even be a violation of the Wikipedia:Harassment policy), but it doesn't require silly claims that adding someone's middle initial is proof of anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, how about (Redacted) (the ball you couldn't previously see)? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you think you have information about an editor's real-world connection to a subject:
  • Do say "I think I'll quietly send e-mail to ArbCom about this right now".
  • Don't say "Someone with access to the internet allegedly knows her middle initial, and other editors should accept that as proof of a conflict of interest".
WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ANI thread is open; all participants above should have been pinged per WP:APPNOTE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස: The only editing I ever did to the Corianton: A Story of Unholy Love article was breaking up some paragraphs that were too large. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this was directed to me? jps (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස: Sorry, it should be directed at AirshipJungleman29. Sorry for any confusion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware. If there was any more information regarding your potential COIs, it would have been a contravention of WP:OUTING, and ArbCom would have been contacted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TIL this 2020 COIN: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University with extensive discussion of WiR in general and BYU WiR. We're having the same conversation again four years later. Levivich (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 03:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence that "Part of me suspects that if SlimVirgin's illness had not progressed this issue would have been addressed before I ever came across it." and after reading the linked discussion I no longer just suspect... I am pretty damn certain, she was on the ball but couldn't beat the clock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RIP. jps (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism in Just Shoot Me!

The entire Neilsen Ratings section is gone. I don't know why, it's just gone.

Just Shoot Me! Link 3.14 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're still in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the chart? 3.14 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just_Shoot_Me!#Nielsen_ratings Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. The display makes it look like it's blank, but it's just the chart, right> 3.14 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making Hotel Wikipedia more suited for Wikipedia, also recording the official theme song.

Can we make Hotel Wikipedia more Wikipedia-y? For instance: Steely knives? What about plastic keys? Also, can we actually record the full song? 3.14 (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3.14159265459AAAs: m:Hotel_Wikipedia is at Meta. If you have suggestions to improve it, use the talk page there. I am not sure about recording it, but I think that parody is allowed under fair-use. RudolfRed (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to that direction. 3.14 (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vami_IV

Guys, maybe we should honor Vami_IV for all the contribs he's made? 3.14 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably support that. How do you suggest going about it, other than the obituary we already made at WP:RIP? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a Wiki-page all about him? Or we award him a completely new barnstar? 3.14 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first idea is against the rules of Wikipedia, but I like the second one. If you would like to make him a new barnstar, go ahead. There is no reason why you can't. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, such a barnstar was already made. It's at Template:The Completionist Barnstar and he was its first recipient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. 3.14 (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should put something to reference him in our User Pages? 3.14 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia WP:DISCORD had a custom banner honoring him for a week or two too. It has been really nice to see the community come together to honor Vami_IV in various ways. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an example, I've been working on it. Click my sig to see it. Check the userpage. 3.14 (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because Wikipedia might, like IV, die. sounds a bit blunt. Might want to reword that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK to open a NPOV noticeboard ticket after Dispute Resolution noticeboard is archived?

Hi - I'm new here and have made a great many missteps already! I've been trying to move the trap-neuter-return page to neutral point of view. I'm a current practitioner of trap-neuter-return (TNR). You can check out the Talk to see how it's going. I opened a Dispute Resolution ticket: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#trap-neuter-return

It is not moving forward because a second moderator was requested and I posted in Teahouse to see if a moderator could be recruited and that is now archived. From what I understand, the Dispute Resolution ticket will be archived for inactivity at some point (anyone know how long that takes?). I was wondering if it would be ok, after the DR ticket is archived, if I could post on the NPOV noticeboard? This is really where the page should have gone from the start. Do I need consensus from other editors on the page to do so? (This is how it ended up in Dispute Resolution instead.) Not sure where to go from here. Nylnoj (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, posting at WP:NPOVN is fine. The idea behind noticeboards is to get additional and neutral editors to join discussions and help build consensus when things get tricky or stuck. Sounds like this situation might benefit from that. Although don't post in too many more places lest you get accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, since by the end of this you'll have posted at WP:DRN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:VPM. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll wait for the DRN noticeboard post to get archived and then try the NPOVN board. Nylnoj (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updates on designing a new Community Wishlist Survey

Hello everyone, there is new information concerning the redesign of the Community Wishlist Survey.

Firstly, in case you missed them earlier, the updates we have provided so far are:

Update 1: Early decisions on the future of the Wishlist.

Update 2: Introducing Jack Wheeler the new Community Tech Manager, also responsible for redesigning the Wishlist.

Update 3: How we can define a "wish".

Currently, we have two newer updates:

Update 4: Since we are planning on keeping the Wishlist open all year and also looking at how the community have participated in vetting/refining wishes, should wishes be editable?

Update 5: We have shared a preview of the new Wishlist.

Please have a look at any of the updates that interest you, particularly Update 4 and 5.

To keep the conversation in one place, please leave your feedback on the central talk page for all the updates (preferably). However, you can leave comments under this post too.

On behalf of Community Tech, STei (WMF) (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpernickel

Pumpernickel is great. It's bread. It's a Fortnite emote. Additionally, there's a Great Gable song called "Pumpernickel." Tell me if you also like pumpernickel! GetLost4Gud (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this has anything to do with Wikipedia, but I love the bread and have never heard of the other meanings. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a reliable source, you could add the song to Great Gable (band). The gaming term is covered in https://fortnite.fandom.com/wiki/Pumpernickel, which contains much more detail than would be appropriate for Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?????????????????????????????? 3.14 (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Tounsaint Movie

Hello i want to create a article about a unmade movie called Toussant and directed by Dany Glover, this was very noticed at the time. GEORGEB1989 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your sources? Please see Wikipedia:Notability (films) for what you will need to be able to cite to establish that the film project is eligible for an article in Wikipedia. For future reference, the Teahouse might be a better place to ask for help in editing or creating an article. Donald Albury 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not donate to the Wikimedia Foundation

I'm posting this rant here because I'm furious. I've just learned from a discussion in WT:MATH of some basic rendering bugs in SVGs served by Wikipedia. Which is perfectly normal. Except that these bugs have already been fixed upstream for years, and Wikimedia Foundation just can't be arsed to upgrade MediaWiki to the version of the library with the fixes T97233. Wikimedia Foundation also refuses to switch to a less buggy SVG rendering library T40010 or to let the browsers do the rendering themselves T5593. They just couldn't care less. Because of this other users were saying that we should give up on SVGs and revert to PNGs. That's depressing.

To compound the pattern, there is the well-known issue that graphs are "temporarily" disabled. Because again they couldn't be arsed to upgrade a simple library for years, and suddenly it had to be retired due to a security issue. And now they can't be arsed to do it either. It's specially heartbreaking to read the thread in Phabricator T334940 where user after user volunteers to fix it only to be told "no" by WMF.

This is why I will no longer donate to the WMF until they get their shit together. I hope people join me so that they get a wake-up call. I don't know what on Earth they did with all the money I have donated over the years, but clearly they don't have their priorities straight. I'm not demanding them to do some great software development project, but the bare minimum to keep the website running. It's been abandoned, it's been left to rot. It still runs on Debian Buster, ffs, and that will be end-of-lifed in three months. Then we will have one of the largest websites in the world running on unsupported software.

Keeping the website running is the top priority. Without the website Wikipedia is nothing. And WMF needs to understand that. Tercer (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that under all of that you remain optimistic that the WMF will one day get their shit together. I will continue to donate, but on the other hand I have no expectation that they will get their shit together (I'm not ever sure I actually want them to, IMO a weak WMF is good for the project as a whole). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well without your help it won't. And please don't be so cynical, there's nothing good about a "weak" WMF. Tercer (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think in many ways the WMF is like a standing army... We want them to be strong enough to fight our external enemies but not strong enough that they become a threat to our freedom and way of life at home. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) For the record, the reason graphs are disabled isn't (AFAICS) that the Wikimedia foundation isn't willing to upgrade to Vega 5, but instead that Vega 5 itself has more unfixed (?) security vulnerabilities. Otherwise this seems accurate, although I've already been abstaining from donating for years so can't abstain again. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a compound issue. Vega 2 was end-of-lifed 7 years ago, and WMF kept using it regardless. Last year the time bomb finally exploded, and there was a rush to upgrade to the (incompatible) Vega 5. While doing that they realized that there was a security vulnerability in Vega 5 as well, so work stalled. They decided that the upgrade would only happen if they managed to sandbox it somehow, and it has been stuck in limbo ever since.
Now if WMF had been doing the bare minimum, it would have been upgrading Vega together with upstream over the years, so they wouldn't be hit with a Jurassic security vulnerability in the first place, it wouldn't need to handle tens of thousands of incompatible graphs all of a sudden, and when the security vulnerability in Vega 5 appeared they would have only one problem to handle. And hopefully they would actually handle it instead of telling the volunteers to pound sand. Tercer (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An issue with SVG files sounds irksome, but doesn't rise to an existential level of outrage where I want to undermine the entire project using cancel culture strategies. -- GreenC 00:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an issue with SVGs files, it is a generalized failure to do basic maintenance for years. If you don't like my strategy I'd love to hear a suggestion for a more effective one. Tercer (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you they could be spending more on maintenance, always. So, maybe document. Make lists. Show the problems, be vocal. I deal with this also, in some projects, basic problems go unaddressed for years. But we do see movement, the recent changes at Toolforge converting from Grid to Containers was a major effort. They are upgrading from Buster as far as I know. I wanted a recent version of GNU Awk for many years and they finally did it at some point. The bot override for spam black list was finally implemented after about 10 years. The EventStream API is buggy, they know it and there is no timeframe when it will be fixed, but they know. It can be slow. -- GreenC 15:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I put up a proposal on VPWMF. Another fun fact for you: the planned upgrade from Buster is not to Bookworm, but to Bullseye, so they will upgrade from being 5 years outdated to 3 years outdated. Tercer (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 The WMF itself is a non-profit, but with the lucrative pay the higher ups receive and the other ways they choose to allocate their abundant funds, it's clear that they see you and me as nothing more than a product, where "donations" are the income we generate for them. (See also: WP:CANCER, Signpost May 2023, Signpost August 2023) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for the information. So it's not a lack of money but precisely the opposite: they have so much money that they don't know what to do with it. They're burning millions on supersalaries for the CEOs and donations to unrelated projects. Just the waste that you have pointed out would be enough to hire more than a dozen full-time devs. Tercer (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since the WMF was created it has tended to place more emphasis on job preservation and expansion than "boring" things like infrastructure. Most people do not donate money to the WMF anyway, but everyone reading this, by definition, donates some time to Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proud to donate time to Wikipedia. I would also consider helping to fund Wikipedia if I could. English Wikipedia and sister projects need hosting, technical, legal and similar services, but they cost a fraction of the WMF's budget. Over two decades, the WMF has quietly elbowed its way from facilitator to governor, grown exponentially, and diverted the majority of its budget to activities that some of us consider irrelevant and inappropriate. I don't donate to the WMF. I would advise others to donate if and only if they feel that their money will be spent wisely. Certes (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never donated money to the WMF myself, but I think people who wants to should keep doing so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Folk who denote want to know that the lights will be kept on and the roof kept on. I see no reason not to donate to it. It of fundamental importance. Its unfortunate that they are fuckwits who don't know how to use the money wisely but the software has been running fine for decades without a hitch, even though it is canker on the face of humanity, which is a good thing as it's enabled a very large community to come together to build a rather nice encyclopeadia. scope_creepTalk 09:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point. For me, the question is what difference my hypothetical donation would make, i.e. which currently unfunded activity it would enable. If it would be spent on making the servers faster or more reliable or on fixing bugs on our wishlists, then prima facie we should be donating. However, one would then have to ask why those vital activities were considered so unimportant that they happen only if donations increase. Instead, they should be prioritised above inflated management salaries, eco-friendly diversity workshops and other expensive, ultra vires and WP:NOTHERE activities. The WMF has ample income if it is spent on what our readers come here for rather than becoming a bizarre hybrid of corporate behemoth and socialist activist. Certes (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very unlikely that an increase in donations would lead to improved software. WMF simply doesn't see it as important. It would just invent new methods of setting money on fire. If they started a donation drive specifically to fix this antediluvian horror I would actually chip in. Tercer (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully my response on this related thread on VPWMF has some clarifications on how we do and prioritize maintenance at WMF. Mark Bergsma (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About GNOME Products

I apologize first for my weakness in English. I am not very active on the English Wikipedia. But some time ago, I saw the article on the GNOME Panel while doing a Google search. Then I proposed its deletion. Later, I saw that there are articles on Wikipedia for almost all of GNOME's products. You can find them in the following categories: Category:GNOME Applications, Category:GNOME Core Applications, and Category:GNOME Developer Tools. Some of these articles do not have more than 3-4 references. Many of the others do many references, but always they are all primary sources. Those that are not primary sources are just passing mentions. I don't think they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I would like to draw the attention of the experienced Wikipedians to this issue. ―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 16:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, many software articles rely entirely on primary sources, so the problem is bigger than these specific articles. Some articles I see in your list do have independent, reliable references (even 3 quality references can establish notability). Others may not have these references now but if those references exist elsewhere they should be added to the article. But, if you see an article that relies entirely on independent references and there are no other independent, reliable references that could be added, then those can be nominated for deletion. As I said, many articles suffer from this problem so your contributions are welcome. Mokadoshi (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:NEXIST. The sources that exist in the real world (e.g., on websites, in newspapers, as books in libraries) are more important than the sources that have been cited in the current version of the article.
This is checkY good:
  • Editor #1: There are very few sources cited in the article, and they are not very good.
  • Editor #2: But I looked for sources, and I found a dozen books, so we should keep the article.
  • Editor #1: Thanks for doing that search. I hope you will improve the article some day.
This is ☒N bad:
  • Editor #1: There are very few sources cited in the article, and they are not very good.
  • Editor #2: But I looked for sources, and I found a dozen books, so we should keep the article.
  • Editor #1: I don't care! Your library might have a dozen books, but we should delete the article anyway, because articles need to cite all of the sources right now.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Wikipedia blocked

I was blocked for three months from another korean Wikipedia. However, I thought the blocking was unfair, so I challenged it in my user discussion. However, the administrator blocked the user discussion without reasonable refutation, repeating the word that the blocking was justified. I have also sent an email to the administrator, but there are too few active people in the Korean Wikipedia and no one is reading it. I need the help of the English Wikipedia users. Mamiamauwy (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing we can do here. English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over Korean Wikipedia, just as that one has no jurisdiction over us. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that someone here has some familiarity with Korean WP and has some advice to give. But en-WP has no authority over other WP:s, so your problem must be solved there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You reached out to me via the embassy but the embassy can only help you if you don’t speak Korean and need help for co-ordinating help between different langauges. --Kjoonlee 11:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition of the same thing in different articles

Hello, I'm working on Turkish makams, I started with Rast. In it, I have a section comparing it to Western scales. It starts with:

Since the makam is based on 53-TET, it is impossible to directly tie it to 12-TET Western scales. However, using the 48-TET model, while worse than many other models in approximation, allows for such comparisons.

I want to continue with other scales, and this information is relevant. But do I repeat it for each scale? I had read that abundancy was okay on Wikipedia, but there must be a better way than this. I'm open to your suggestions. Egezort (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm that's a really interesting question. My first thought is maybe instead of having a full section on each individual makam's page comparing it to 12-TET Western scales, creating a table of all the comparisons on the overall Turkish Makam article, and then linking to that table from each individual page? I can't say that I know enough about tables or makams to know if that's a feasible idea though. I'll keep thinking about this Librarian of Sand (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some elements of the periodic table repeat the same thing. The 'Introduction' section of flerovium (a good article), tennessine, and oganesson (both featured articles) are the exact same. 115.188.147.27 (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the repeated text is substantial and there is an obvious main article to which it is most relevant, consider writing it once and using labeled section transclusion (LST) or {{Excerpt}} in the other places where it should appear. Despite its name, LST is not limited to entire sections in the sense of the text between ==Heading==s. Certes (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

quick Question

what is the most used template on the english Wikipedia

I suspect it is the reflist template, but i would like to know if i am correct or if there is maybe another one. 5.2.195.104 (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:MostLinkedTemplates. As I write this the top ten are Lua modules, then there's {{Yesno}}. Reflist is #41 on the list. Graham87 (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a very useful question unless it contains some qualification. I suspect that what the OP means is, "what is the most used template in article space on the English Wikipedia that is coded directly by humans?" or something on those lines. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably {{Banner holder}}, then. (Which is surprising— we have more banners than reflists?) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra banner holder has all of ONE use "in article space". — xaosflux Talk 22:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with "coded directly by humans" 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the one that fits all those criteria really is reflist Mach61 03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about templates that are only (or commonly) used with subst? Is there any way to count those? RudolfRed (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Used on the largest number of pages, or used the most times total? Some templates, such as {{cite web}} get used many times in a single article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Special:WantedPages. Mach61 03:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please check latest edits by DBrownHarris to this article. It broke the "flatlist" template in the Infobox. I also think there aren't enough references. This is following a question on Commons about the picture, which was removed here. This editor also has a conflict of interest in this article. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]