Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 25

hi I have a idea I want to say an article on the microphone and write on Wikipedia example I want creating article about Nintendo I say article on microphone and in Wikipedia type — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you mean. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Amirh123: we have an article called Microphone already, but it can always be updated. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

List of speech recognition software is probably what you're after. That said, unless your level of spoken English is reasonably fluent, trying to edit via voice is unlikely to be a happy event for anyone. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The people at WT:WikiProject Accessibility may be able to help - some of them use screen reader software which performs the reverse action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If you have a look in Template:Cheatsheet and el:Πρότυπο:Εργαλειοθήκη to compare, you will see a difference while hovering above the text of collapsible headers. By highlighting on hover, the reader gets a hint to click. For another demonstration, check el:Πρότυπο:Συγγραφή λήμματος (also in Greek) which is a collapsible help with sub-levels. There is no hint to click the collapsible, if hover highlighting is absent. And what about building a collapsible help, where click is done upon collapsible headers that reveal videos of 15 seconds each, to immediately assist an editor giving specific editing instructions? (coming soon)

This feature is to be primarily used in collapsible assistive boxes, not in articles, although one could find such a functionality useful to build collapsible serial map boxes for metro lines, where hide/show clickables, if used instead, would mess the box and annoy as the only clickable area to do expand/contract.

Hover highlighting is useful (or needed) in Template:user sandbox+ (granted) tool which renders like this User:ManosHacker/sandbox in English and like this el:Χρήστης:ManosHacker/πρόχειρο in Greek. There is quite a difference between the two, to catch the eye and the will to play.

Hover highlighting code, used in Greek Wikipedia, is placed in Mediawiki:Common.js and is given below.

$('.hover-bgc').hover( function() {
	$(this).attr("data-hover-bgc-original", $(this).css("background-color"))
	var parentSpec = $(this).parent('.hover-bgc-parent').attr('data-hover-bgc-child');
    $(this).css({ "background-color" : ((typeof parentSpec !== typeof undefined) && (parentSpec !== false)) ? parentSpec : $(this).attr('data-hover-bgc') });
}, function() {
    $(this).css({ "background-color" : $(this).attr('data-hover-bgc-original') });
});

I think it would be assistive to implement it in English.   ManosHacker ^talk 11:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be great if an admin could add this, it is a feature that manos has been working on for a long time, it has been already implemented on greek wikipedia and soon is going to be added in couple of more Mardetanha (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Writing to announce a proposal we have posted for a machine learning based image categorisation tool for the Wikimedia Commons.

We have already attracted some useful feedback from the Commons App and also discussed cooperation with the Commons: Structured Data project, however, we would be keen to get more feedback on the project.

Please drop us a line if you have ideas or if you would like to help.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linasv (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but Wikipedia:Mediation Committee doesn't appear to get many (if any) cases, anymore. Though its existent isn't a problem, perhaps due to its mostly inactivity, the committee should be abolished. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Unlike ArbCom, MedCom specifically deals with "Content Dispute" - and indeed is rarely used. @GoodDay: should this be dissolved, do you think it should somehow be replaced or merged in to something else? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as we've got the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (created within the last 5 years), Medcom may well been somewhat replaced. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm very nervous about posting here, as I know everyone is much more used to the space than I am. I hope this is the right place to post?

I work in a company that has a big investment in patents. There's a strong culture for staff to create and apply for patents and contribute to the portfolio. Given that patents are intended to offer a creative and fiscal monopoly to the company to recoup and profit from from the initial investment, one might expect the ideas to surface in products for the benefit of consumers/users and the company. This is mostly not how it works. The huge corporations can easily overcome the significant cost of entry to accrue huge portfolios, which are then used like currency to access other huge corporation's patents, where they agree to cross-authorise the use of large bundles of patents. The initial cost of patenting locks individuals and smaller companies out of the process and lack of utilisation of patents effectively locks everyone out of the opportunity to benefit from the bulk of patents, except at the largess of the patent holder. The result, in my opinion is a sclerotic system that mitigates 'the greater good' for the benefit of only the wealthy few.

The structure of Wikipedia, with articles and contributors with 'reputations' to grow/at-stake could be a good model for people with ideas and a philosophy that the greater good is far more important than concentration of wealth. Creating an ideas publication wiki would allow free access to all, allow creative sparking of new - yet related ideas and importantly, help stop corporations from land-grabbing and ring-fencing whole areas of creative endeavour and stifling innovation. One additional idea, that I'm not sure Wikipedia has that might be useful, is the software source control notion of 'forking' - as exemplified in Git.

Does anyone else out there think there's a case for creating a new Wikipedia wiki - perhaps 'Wikidea' ;oP to be a repository of the worlds good ideas, ready for free exploitation and perhaps protected by an appropriate open license or copyleft.

Thanks for listening

G — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noh.Jose (talk • contribs) 11:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wiki, but far from the only one. This is an encyclopedia, so original research such as you suggest wouldn't work here, but if you want to create a website called Wikidea and have it hosted on something like Wikia or any of the other free websites, you're welcome to do so - you don't need permission from Wikipedia. Matt Deres (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Noh.Jose! You may be interested in learning about Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever written or stumbled across an article about a subject that you know can be illustrated, but no image you can find on the Internet is freely licensed? You could send an email to someone who does own an image of the subject and politely ask them to freely license their work, but they could say no. Alternatively, we have a template {{photo requested}} which goes on article talk pages, but our editing community might not have a photo of the subject. However, a reader might, but readers don't normally look at talk pages.

This article is missing an image. If you have the rights to an image, consider donating your image to Wikimedia.

What if we created a version of {{photo requested}} that goes on the articles themselves instead of talk pages? This would engage our readers directly and let them know that if they have a picture, they can upload it and have it appear on Wikipedia, one of the most highly read websites in the world, immediately. It doesn't have to be a huge banner; I've created a proof of concept at User:Mz7/sandbox/article photo requested, which I've transcluded to the right. Is this a good idea? Pinging AntiCompositeNumber and Anna Frodesiak, whom I initially spoke to on IRC about this. Mz7 (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It does actually look pretty good, plus it's small. I think Koko would want it in her article. That might encourage the Gorilla Foundation people to finally pony-up a darn photo. Do it for Koko. Anna Frodesiak (talk)

WP:PLACEHOLDERs (and the consensus which arrived at the today-state which is Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders). While it might be old, I would guess it enjoys broad consensus even still. An imperfect article is an imperfect article. --Izno (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah shoot. I wasn't familiar with that old consensus. I would just say that I think my proposal is slightly different. The discussion seems to be about placeholder images like File:Replace this image (building).svg that go directly where an image would be in an article, whereas this would be a message box template. However, the two implementations result in the same functionality, so I would agree a broader discussion is needed to overturn the past consensus. Mz7 (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: I like the idea in general - but don't want to see a million copies of that either, would need some guidelines for use. The only problem I have is that the "call to action" on that template (to commons:Commons:First_steps) seems to bulky for a non-wikimedian that wants to just donate 1 picture for the article they are reading "now". — xaosflux ^Talk 13:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I was definitely thinking there should be guidelines for its usage. It shouldn't be on just any article that lacks a photo, but articles where a Wikipedia reader likely has a photo and no free image can be found elsewhere. For example, readers probably wouldn't have a photo for an article about an obscure person who has been dead for some time, but an image might be produced for a notable building in a country that has freedom of panorama. The reasoning behind commons:Commons:First steps was that Wikimedia has rather strict requirements on licensing, so to avoid having users upload photos that don't strictly belong to them and possibly getting bitten for it, I thought it would be beneficial to link to some page that explains clearly what kinds of images are and are not acceptable. commons:Commons:First steps seemed as good as any, though I would welcome alternative suggestions. Mz7 (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Could always send them to OTRS. photosubmissionwikimedia.org is specifically designed for this purpose. Not a whole lot of people know about that queue and requests that don't have additional issues are usually processed pretty quickly. It might even be beneficial to list that email in more places. The only place I know it exists is buried in Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing. --Majora (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's brilliant, Mz7! I always thought we needed something like that, since I consider major, non-photographed articles to be a real problem, especially when it comes to things like endagered species. Sadly I can't offer much help; the editors above me seem to know a lot more what they're doing. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom is very likely to close a case in the next couple of weeks with a recommendation for a community discussion on infoboxes. I'm throwing out a rough draft of a comprehensive infobox RFC for the communities feedback.

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I think its unecessary to discuss chemical substances out of all things you could select when its completely and utterly uncontroversial there. I think rather than having a comprehensive infoboxes rfc it may be more useful to have a biographical infoboxes rfc, where a guideline can be drafted and be put forward to gain consensus, because that's where the controversy is most. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

So could we discuss stubs, Nonstub biographies, and everything else and remove the chemical substance and species/subspecies cases and still come out with a useful consensus? Tazerdadog (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

In many, or even most domains, infoboxes are clearly uncontroversial. Why have an RFC on uncontroversial matter? --Izno (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is no need to waste time on non-controversial cases, where infoboxes should be, and mostly are used already. For some kinds of topic there may be no infobox, and for some others there may be a template that is seldom used. I suspect that biographies are the only real troublesome area. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sharing my opinion with the full disclose that I haven't been involved in any infobox dramas. I don't think any proposal for simple and specific criteria for which articles should have an infobox is likely to pass. Take stubs for example: generally, there are reasons to avoid placing infoboxes on such small articles (e.g. clutter in mobile view, nothing in the article to summarise etc.), but there are large numbers of cases where the infobox is the main (or the only) place where certain kinds of information are usually displayed (for species, or for populated places, or for railway stations), so an infobox there will be desirable regardless of the size of the article. I think that any acceptable explicit criteria will be either extremely complicated (and hence difficult to accept in the first place and once accepted, easy to ignore), or they will have to be couched in a very loose way, and so leaving room for long discussions in every individual case.
  However, what I see as practical is the proposal of some rules for deciding on a default option in cases where an individual discussion hasn't achieved a clear consensus. I'm thinking of something in the same general direction as MOS:RETAIN or WP:NOCON for the case of page titles, to quote from the latter: "If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."
  There ought to be a way to steer clear of WP:OWN, but at the same follow the common sense approach to matters of style and simply respect the choices and preferences of those who have contributed the most to the given article. – Uanfala (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Any Infobox that is a NavBoxes in disguise should be converted to a NavBox. It is adding unnecessarily clutter to the lead section. See, for example, {{Politics}}. The exception would be for list articles. Praemonitus (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Problem So a newish user comes along and tries to create an article. She is told no way - wait 4 days and do 10 edits She then spends 4 hours creating an article - sorry no links says olduser- speedy deletion she adds the links - - sorry not notable says olduser- deletion She puts an argument - sorry you lost says olduser - article deleted. Total Effort newish user 8 hour - Wikipedia edits - 5 minutes Result newish user leaves screaming never to return

Solution Wizard what category ? and just do the high level ones. Editors can add the precise one The category then puts up the guidelines Please had three links form different webs sites These get dumped on the page for editors to fix up OR Sorry these are not notable d[@-@]b (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get it... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. The aim of the change is so we do not annoy new users by having their pages deleted and avoid voting discussion. A suggested solution is for new page creation to go through a check list or wizard that forces editors to choose a category and be aware of the notability requirements BEFORE they waste time creating a page. Currently new editors could be frustrated by the four day/10 edit new page AND that there work can be deleted. I think a new editors might rage quit Wikipedia after seeing hours of work deleted.

So The process is to be similar to the citation process

1. As an example the editor creates a new page

2. The editor get asked is this a film, book, music, geographic feature, film, event , sport, person, company, character, Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines,. or other. -

3, The editor then gets asked to classify to the exact category within the main category

4.After they choose they get a summary of the notability guideline and a link to the guideline article, they get the option to continue or quit ot tp to ask questions of the project

5. They then get asked whether it is self promotion. they get the option to continue or quit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There is an existing article wizard but it only asks about blog d[@-@]b (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about how the main page can be improved without bringing in extensions, javascript, too much css etc. Though I was not able to create a plan on redesigning the main page I was able to create a rough draft of a better looking header here. I would appreciate constructive feedback and would like to know if it could actually replace the main page header( after quite a lot of polishing actually) — FR⁺ 08:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but despite the obvious hard work that has gone into your design I still prefer the original. I don't see how increasing the amount of space taken up by the basic header will improve the design, it will just push the information sections further down the page. You've also lost the links to the portals and I would question why we need to see Jimmy's quote every time that the front page is viewed. IMHO there needs to be a minimum of fixed text, just enough to identify (and through clenched teeth I'll accept "brand") the site. More space is then available for useful and/or interesting facts which keep the reader's interest. I suspect that this is not what you had in mind when you asked for "constructive feedback", but I really think you need to reconsider your approach, sorry. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Something to think about - is a full mainpage (similar to the current one) better or worse (by whatever criteria) for readers than an uniform one (such as the proposal)? I am sure there should be research out there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ow ow ow, is that #FFFFFF on #EAF3FF, contrast ratio of 1.12:1, too hard to read. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield-Jo-Jo Eumerus-Xaosflux: I have again reworked the design, could you take a look — FR⁺ 06:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield-Jo-Jo Eumerus-Xaosflux:Repinging — FR⁺ 06:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

My question is unchanged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi FR. I would like to link Wikipedia:Main page redesign proposals, in case you haven't seen it. FYI only. Kind regards, Rehman 06:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry to pile on. As it is already explained above I will reluctantly add that various designs actually better than yours have been proposed before and all failed to get consensus. My hunch is that radical redesign of main page that will alter it completely will not happen in the foreseeable future. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• I think there isn't a need to link to the mobile site, since when viewing Wikipedia on mobile the browser automatically redirects to the mobile site? Alex Shih (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Request withdrawnThanks — FR⁺ 08:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Ammarpad-Alex Shih-Just one more question, if I want to replace The main page with User:Force Radical/Altuserpage (for myself) how do I it? — FR⁺ 08:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Force Radical: I think the only way (for yourself) is to find the css names for each sections in the Main Page and customize your common.css accordingly? Not too sure, sorry. Alex Shih (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Force Radical: Perfectly possible, you'd probably need a user script that redirects you to your version whenever you click onto the main page. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Bellezzasolo-Could you specify which script.Btw can I list my page at WP:Main apage alternatives.FR30799386 (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
        • • FR30799386 I’m not aware of an existing script, but it should be a fairly simple one to write. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

To most casual readers, article banners that use Template:Ambox are nothing more than an eyesore. Does anyone think they should be made smaller? A style similar to that used by the mobile web view could be a start. feminist (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems the mobile view strips them out entirely, with a nigh-unnoticeable "Page issues" link under the article's title used to view only the top templates full-screen while section-specific banners seem to be missing entirely. IMO the existing banners are better than that.

Personally, I look forward to mw:Extension:TemplateStyles coming to this wiki with the hope that people will take advantage of the opportunity to redesign the Mbox templates in a style that looks good on both desktop and mobile. Anomie⚔ 12:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

So, the current font that we use while editing the source of a page is hard to read and understand, which can make large pages virtually unreadable, especially when they use lots of templates and such, so I would recommend that we change to a Sans Serif font, to increase readability for editors not using the visual editor Terrariola 09:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a preference for "Edit area font style:" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, where you can choose "Sans-serif font" if you'd like. Personally, I prefer the default monospaced font. Anomie⚔ 11:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I have made a proposal to standardize the icons used in templates. I think this would be a good idea for several reasons; "Nuvola" icons and "Tango" icons may look somewhat similar, but when used right next to each other, a long-timer can easily tell the difference. lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The suggestion: I suggest giving the individuals who have already created an account the permission to add some comments to his/her pages that can be shared with others if he/she prefer that. Note that, these comments do not alter the original content of the information, just locally for the user. This suggestion comes from the need that I had faced many times when I wanted to remember certain comments I made in mind or in the paper. However, if it is on my on pape, I can access it and let other access. Guys, believe may, in this way you are creating a new avenue.

Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalbishi (talk • contribs) 16:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

{[ReplyTo|Aalbishi}} You can add notes to your user page anyone may view it. What problem are you trying to solve? RudolfRed (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I think users are already able to do this. Vorbee (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Wikis aren't a good fit for issue tracking; The Wikipedia technical bug reporting doesn't user it:-) But we are Wikipedians so here are some possible ideas.

I have no idea of whether these ideas have been brought up and this is my first go at the village pump, so I would appreciate gentler than normal treatment

Problems

1. Many pages have open issues going back years

2. The archiving process is opaque. The method that a talk topic has to go through to close is unclear

3. Normal users don't know many people are watching a page. If there is no one watching then you might as well do the change without waiting for a response that will never happen

4. New users leave ip addresses - saying please change and they never come back.

5. The 4 tildes

Suggestion A. Allow statistics of open issues to be collected. I think the backlog is huge and we need better processes to fix.

B. Have Editors put a "new green tick mark which has a day counter it" on a topic heading that a solution has been reached Which counts down and auto closes it after 30 days if there is no change t the topic. Have an option show all or closed issues C. Show the number of watchers for a page,

D. Don't know

E- just add the four tildes for users d[@-@]b (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Problem 3 is a particular bane - when I was (even more of) a newcomer, I became very hostile to how useless talk pages were from this. Solution C doesn't seem to have any notable flaws - it's not as if (for example) trolls don't already know where to go. Nosebagbear (talk)

Problem 5 - indeed - perhaps have it as an automatically ticked tick-box on the actual editing box, so those that really don't want it can remove it? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Page information" under "Tools" in the left pane of the desktop site shows the number of watchers. If it's below 30 then non-administrators only see "Fewer than 30 watchers". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out - but not the easiest of things to find for a newcomer! Nosebagbear (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi all,

When creating an account people make some common mistakes, such as using shared accounts, unacceptable usernames, creating duplicate accounts, and so on. To overcome this I would perhaps suggest modifying MediaWiki:Signupstart.

This page could link to a very short starting page, for example "First time signing up? Check the policies and guidelines". The policies and guidelines link would link to something like WP:NewAccLand that would say

Hi! Here are a few tips when signing up:

• Choose an appropriate username, not representing a group or company,
• Do not create duplicate accounts, unless permitted by policy and marked,
• Do not share your account with others.

Or alternatively this entire text could be displayed on the signup page as it is rather small.

Or alternatively this text could be included in the email verification message body, but I think it would reach fewer users there.

Some such change could be made for a month and statistics for sockpuppetry could be investigated to see whether it helps.

Please say what you think. --Gryllida (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussed sort-of-recently at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 57#Special:CreateAccount. —Cryptic 00:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Cryptic. It appears that the idea was liked there. Several options were discussed:

• do nothing (not actively raised)
• reword 'help me choose' to 'username policy' (PrimeHunter liked it, Oshwah said it is only the bare minimum and it is not sufficient)
• add a summary of the policy on the login page (Oshwah and Jéské Couriano and Drewmutt and Clarkcj12 liked it; Noyster proposed to modify the message to also discourage COI editors from contributing; Jo-Jo Eumerus raised concerns that people do not read the policy if a summary is provided)

What would be a good venue to discuss the choice of the preferred solution and details of its implementation? --Gryllida (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus made valid points about scaring off new users. When actively encouraging potential valuable new editors they often say that they think WP is a tight club, and can't be bothered with all the hassle involved with learning conventions and rules. Think of the psychology. Less is more. ClemRutter (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The culling of displaying account creation guidelines was a WMF decision, see Account creation user experience. I remember some documents comparing our process to the near frictionless signup of Twitter and Facebook. Because Wikipedia is totally a social network. — Dispenser 11:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, cause we be special snowflakes that think that general rules of design don't apply to us... Wikipedia:Facebookization. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the best place to talk about this idea, so let me know if there is a better place to mention it.

I find Reddit to be a surprising competitor to wikipedia in terms of volunteer contributions. It might not be obvious at the beginning, but if you think about it it really is. How feasible would it be to have a system akin to Reddit's Karma point system?

While it will not incentivize everybody, it will open the pool of valuable editors to quite a large potential contribuitors. If you don't believe me, think how any system of virtual rewards has been highly effective in every popular modern game. Every virtual rewards that wikipedia has is very indirect. Some editors place banners on their own pages listing how many edits they might have - but that does not distinguish between valuable edits, minor edits or even trolling. People at FA and FL put stars on the top of their user pages, but these are like a super secret easter eggs.

The closest wikipedia has come is the "thanks" system as a form of upvoting, but there is no counter for it, and it is an internal (between the two editors), rarely an external form of gratitude. Many editors get tired after a while of just volunteering. And more often than not, at some point there will be conflictual people that make all the volunteering work not worthwhile. Eventually, the minority editors get little to no appreciation (see RfAs) and slowly, an immovable mass of editors gets to dominate the works - until even they get tired and even they will slowly start retreating.

I guess WikiCup is a democratized system for that, but it requires active participation from their judges, and from all the reviewing process - therefore is not really sustainable, especially for new editors.

TL;DR: can you guys think of a feasible system akin to Reddit's karma points? Something that gets easily displayed and calculated, and is not stuck behind beaurocratic processes. Nergaal (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I like it. A line at the bottom of each article, with smiley and frownie to click. Or some variant thereof. Talk Page gets a little box with up, down, and read count for past week and past year. Eventually, add a questionnaire asking a random sample of upvotes what's good? And downvotes, what's bad? Readability, completeness, up to date, too long, unfair, whatever. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: We had that (WP:AFT). It didn't work great. --Izno (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: A quick review of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback makes me think a) this attempt, eight years ago, was too ambitious, and b) many editors expected too much. Keep it simple. Start with the good / bad choice as proposed at the start this section. Only if that works after a little refinement, try a somewhat fancier version as I proposed. Either way we get simple scorecards. Were we to solicit original comments, it would serve more to give the passionate but inattentive among our readers a chance to vent steam, than to help editors gain more understanding. Written dialog is a mighty power and we editors depend on it, but WP lacks the software of a proper social network of the kind that expresses the feelings of people who haven't learned to organize an argument or even a sentence, and maybe we shouldn't seek such a thing. We can settle for simple opinion polls of individual articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: The version I was most familiar with simply asked for a smiley face, a frowny face, or a between face, and requested a brief comment. Your suggested stripped down version also didn't indicate/help much at all. --Izno (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

AFT requires energy. Reddit or facebook user "contributions" are rewarded with "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" single-clicks. Going through a menu like AFT is not conducive random people "thumbing up" a contribution. Nergaal (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like we are talking at cross purposes here. There is a big difference in voting on the contribution of an individual editor or the usefulness of a page as a whole. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I had an idea I'd like to share; to see if others like it. Add page numbers to the bottom center of each article page; as if it were an actual book, and perhaps allow some navigation from the page number as well. It might be kind of neat knowing which article is just before yours, or just after, or which article is at page 1 or page 6,910,970, or simply that you are then editing page 2,643,712. What do others think? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If you click the "Page information" link in the sidebar, you can find the "Page ID" as one of the entries there. You can navigate to the page by ID using a link like Special:Redirect/page/42. Anomie⚔ 20:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The page ID is assigned in order of page creation and includes pages in all namespaces. I gues the suggestion is about an alphabetical list like a printed encyclopedia. That corresponds to Special:AllPages. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Below is code you can place in your common JavaScript to get a "Next pages" link under Tools in the left pane. On Example it will go to Special:AllPages/Example. It doesn't jump directly to the next page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

$.when( $.ready, mw.loader.using('mediawiki.util') ).then( function() {
  mw.util.addPortletLink(
    'p-tb',
    mw.util.getUrl( 'Special:AllPages/' ) + encodeURI( mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ) ),
    'Next pages',
    't-nextpages',
    'Show next pages in alphabetical order',
    null,
    '#t-specialpages'
  );
});

• I cannot see much use in page ID's, which are essentially random. I could see links like < previous article ... next article > leading to whatever is alphabetically just before and after the article. That could be interesting and might in some cases actually be useful. Problem is the links may be lost at the foot of the page, and I suspect there would be resistance to putting them at the top. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Aymatth2: This is something that User:Mxn/serendipity strives to do in an aesthetically pleasing way. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• I corrected the provided example javascript code to comply with current standards. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Horus from Thai Wikipedia. I've come to see many wonderful bots here in English Wikipedia. However, my local wiki has no active bot operators who runs these wonderful functions (they were but now inactive). My question is can software that runs Wikipedia make bot functions default rather than dependent on individual bot operators being active?

Some bot function which would be definitely beneficial such as category move, listing items (such as in Wikipedia:Dashboard), etc.? --Horus (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Horus, most things can be "possible"! For most of the WMF controlled systems it is not "easy" to move many of these things to be server-side processed, but it does happen - often through the extensions process. For example, we used to rely mostly on bots to distribute bulk user messages, but now this is primarily done server-side via mw:Extension:MassMessage. The mw:Extension:AbuseFilter is another example of a very process intense function that has been installed server-side. Tasks such as "category moves" aren't currently good candidates because the way we use categories (by including wikitext within a page). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

In which case can I ask for these features? Or at least who should I talk to first? --Horus (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There are some circumstances in which you just can't get around needing to number something that can't be automatically numbered using lists. Like rows in a table.

CSS has a really lovely capability to arbitrarily create counters that could be really useful in a number of ways. It would probably be really simple to create a template that would provide really flexible and arbitrarily complex counters except that in order to display the counter's values you need to use the "::before" pseudo selector which, obviously, can't be used in inline CSS. However, it seems to me that all it would require to provide the functionality would be a single, simple class definition in Wikipedia's main CSS... Basically, it would require something like:

.csscounter::before { content: counter(var(--counter-name)); }

and authors would be able to create their own arbitrary counters using inline CSS like:

<p style='--counter-name:MyCounter1; counter-increment: --counter-name;' class='csscounter'>.</p>

Of course, you don't have to always include increment and display in the same element; you could be counting something on the page and only displaying a total at the bottom.

I'm not sure if css variables make it through the filters but even if you could only have a single counter on the page and hard-code the counter name, that would be really useful. I also have no idea whether something like this would be defacto against policy/convention? Any thoughts?

Shaav (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Extension:TemplateStyles, coming reasonably soon, will allow for embedding the counter-related CSS into articles (e.g. testwiki:User:Anomie/Sandbox/counter). var() won't be supported, though. Anomie⚔ 11:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That's perfect Anomie! Thank you! And var() won't matter if you can actually specify styles. Is there something I can watch to be alerted once it's available? Also, in your Sandbox, it wasn't entirely clear to me how you added the style... could you elaborate? Nm, I sorted it! Shaav (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It'll probably be announced and discussed at WP:Village pump (technical) once it's available here. You might also watch phab:T133410. Anomie⚔ 00:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to propose a template for articles that regularly need to be updated with new standard information, such as annual awards, sporting events, elections, etc. My inspiration is that sometimes I go through articles within the Awards Category to see if the latest recipients have been listed. Obviously, updates to articles on Nobel Prizes and other major events happen almost instantly. But there are plenty of smaller awards that get missed. For instance, just today I added the 2018 winner of the Herblock Prize, although this was announced in early March. What I envision is a template (for talk pages) along the lines of:

"This article is about a regularly occurring event. It may need to be updated with new information in month year. This information might be available at website."

So for the Herblock Prize, it would say:

"This article is about a regularly occurring event. It may need to be updated with new information in March 2019. This information might be available at https://www.herbblockfoundation.org/herblock-prize."

Ideally, these templates could be sorted by category by month and year, so one could in April 2019, say, go through all articles that are still tagged for March 2019. The new information could be added (if it hadn't already), and then the year in the template would be updated to 2020 from 2019.

I am wondering if other editors would find this useful and if there would be any technical or practical problems. Thanks, Tdslk (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

We have a mainspace template for this: Template:Update after. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know that that template could be set like an alarm clock. Cool. Thanks! Tdslk (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I subscribe to AfD nominations for women, but I am sure that AfDs for all the 99 other genders see similar problems. Sometimes, a clearly notable person is flagged for AfD. Other times, a person flagged for AfD when one Google search would show notability. An editor who files multiple refused AfDs is wasting the time of other editors to defend.

Can we create a bot to check AfDs? Has the proposer filed other AfD's in his/her previous 500 edits? Were those AfDs accepted or rejected?

Then, if somebody files multiple rejected AfDs in 500 edits, the bot would notify somebody (I am not sure who should get the message though.) That person can check if there is a pattern of disruptive editing such as WP:NOTHERE.

What do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You might be interested in AfD Stats. It allows you to check users's AfD record, but it doesn't contain the automatic functions you describe. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks very relevant to my concerns. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Various lists, especially those of people, use the term "notable" in the lead, such as Deaths in 2018 or List of people from Texas. Wording like this is necessary to tell the reader that these aren't terribly incomplete lists of all deaths this year or every Texans who has ever lived etc. but rather are a select group. However — although we don't have the cross-namespace link — the term "notable" here really means Wikipedia:Notability, rather than an objective assessment of notability (which is impossible as notability is inherently subjective).

Perhaps it would be better to change "notable people" to "persons who are the subject of articles on the English Wikipedia" (or similar) rather than implying Wikipedia is able to objectively determine who is notable and who is not. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

We generally try to hide the backstage elements of building the encyclopedia from the readership. Also consider that if something is WP-notable, then it is automatically English-language notable, but not vice versa. As long as it is clear that a list of notable persons (or whatever) is a partial list, I don't think we need to change this. --Masem (t) 16:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I largely agree with that, but I'll just add that I think the more common usage is in new(ish) articles that refer to their (usually BLP) subjects as notable because they know notability needs to be met. Something to watch for, anyway. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

We should have a hatnote to standardize the wording, once we have reached agreement on it, because the ambiguities pointed out by both LukeSurl and Masem are rather pervasive. So far we have {{expand list}} and {{dynamic list}}, neither of which address this situation. But on the more fundamental question of list inclusion criteria, I think we should apply this entries-that-have-articles standard only if the default so-long-as-it's-sourced has produced a badly bloated list. One of the things that set lists apart from categories is that they allow redlinked (notable but no article yet), and even unlinked (non-notable), entries. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with User: Finnusertop. Changing "notable people" to "persons who are the subject of articles on the English Wikipedia" would not work, as there might be names in red links, which means that they would not have an article in the English Wikipedia. If some one starts an article on such people and it is considered they are not notable, this can be discussed at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion. The list of deaths in certain months in certain years does have a regulation about how long people in red wikilinks can survive on such lists, but I am not sure how long it is now. Vorbee (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• The question isn't about disputing whether listed entities meet Wikipedia:Notability or not, but rather the fact that notability is a fundamentally subjective quality (even different Wikipedias have different criteria). We who inhabit the back corridors of Wikipedia get so used to Wikipedia:Notability and its well-defined edges that we forget that it's a tool for building the encyclopedia, we haven't chanced upon The One True Test for objectively determining what is and is not notable. Statements in article space are required (by a pillar of Wikipedia no less) to have NPOV - but a statement to the effect of These are the notable Texans (for example) is a POV. It's the Wikipedia community's collective consensus, but it's still a POV. We should find a way of phrasing this that avoids this pitfall.

My originally proposed statement wouldn't work in an list to which redlinks could be added, but the core issue remains. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning Wikipedia directly in the list would be against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. We might link "notable" to Notability in the English Wikipedia which is an article and not a project page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Since 2008, List of anime conventions, the list has had this explanatory footnote: "A convention is presumed noteworthy if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the convention and satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."[2] Originally, this footnote was played the phrase "list of noteworthy anime conventions", but was moved to be part of the introduction section of the list. Maybe it should returned back an explanatory footnote using {{efn}}. Given the importance for the reader to understand the use of "noteworthy" in the inclusion criteria, I believe that this is one situation where MOS:SELFREF can be ignored. —Farix (t | c) 01:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

We tried to address this on List of people by Erdős number with the sentence, "This list is intended to include only those authors with an Erdős number of three or less who are notable in their own right and have existing articles." Consensus is to exclude redlinks, but some get added every month or so. Ntsimp (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

When using an iPhone and viewing a players profile, for example Joe Canning Galway Hurler, templates which show up on laptops or tablets don't show up on IPhones. Is there a way to correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.171.176.168 (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I had an idea for a bot: It uses the {{EP}} series of templates to add "Could always edit" and "Can edit now" messages when the {{Edit protected}} template and its variants are used correspondingly. qwerty6811 :-) Chat Ping me 16:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You might want to try bot requests as well. I think its a fine idea, maybe a task that could be attached to an existing bot. But the botops know more about that than me. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump sections are already venues for community discussion, so it seems redundant for them to have talk pages. Additionally, looking at the talk pages' content, it appears some users get confused and post an idea on the talk page when they should post on the actual page.TeraTIX 03:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• For discussing the village pump page itself, i.e archiving interval, issues with layout, etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Likewise, and even more commonly, editors use WP:VPR for blue-sky discussions that belong at WP:VPI. That's not a reason to get rid of VPI, it's a reason for more editors to understand how VPI and VPR are intended to be used, and to move stuff from VPR to VPI when appropriate. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Please head over to Portal_talk:Contents#RfC_on_a_new_layout. where design input on a new version of Portal:Contents has been requested. JLJ001 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Any thought welcome!

Currently watch page shows the resulting *change* is page size, rather than the amount of content being changed.

This is used by abusers. By smartly doing edits with 0 byte page change difference.

A vandal will remove some lines and add other less useful lines. But make sure that the total size of the page is unchanged. Thus avoiding detection by users having the page watched. They will assume it is an iota added or so.

My suggestion is to have bytes changed instead. Which will remove this issue and give information similar to now.

Alternatively, an optional procedure can scan the edit and: IF bytes changed >> than size change by factor X then present the extra number in the watchlist (i.e. instead of "(+12)" you will see "(+12/1000)" when 1000 bytes changed with 12 bytes size change) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YechezkelZilber (talk • contribs) 06:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

There are many multi-byte characters so it should probably be characters changed if anything. But it's difficult to count. It depends how a diff is interpreted. Our diff software tries to compare lines with lines. If newlines are added or removed then the software may count it as whole paragraphs being removed and inserted. See e.g. [3]. I don't think an automatically counted character change would be better than the change in page size. It would be better in some cases but worse in others, and it would often be confusing. Maybe both numbers could be given but that would also confuse many users. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree about the peculiarities of the diff program.

I meant characters, and said bytes.

A procedure can be programmed that will infer situations where lots has changed with a small size change. This can be done without stepping into the diff morass (using total character counts is one easy shortcut).

I agree that size should be kept. My suggestion was to add characters edited only when there seems to be a discrepancy. As a countermeasure against abuse. Jazi Zilber (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, I can't see how it would be any more confusing than the current display and I'm guessing it's a very easy change to code and test. But at the same time I wouldn't make it all that high a priority. We'll always have these people, and my guess is that they each have a certain amount of time to waste and will waste it on us regardless of how hard or easy we make it. And this would probably not reduce the amount of time it takes to fix it, it would just get us on to the case more quickly.

But it would make repairing the damage a lot quicker in some cases, giving a better reader experience, and that's our bottom line. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly agree with this as an idea - just as big edits with summary "typo" is a hint, sometimes smart vandals who have balanced edits leave a non-typo summary, so I see it then. That said, there must be many that are being missed. Good thinking.

Great idea. Sometimes the diffs get confused and a simple change of a paragraph character and a couple of others may be interpreted as a whole new paragraph replacing the old one. As that is a problem with the diff engine and can be attacked separately, I would prefer overlarge diff sizes to undersized ones. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

From a technical perspective, the problem here would be that a diff is actually one of the most expensive operations there is, and requiring that for every saved revision is likely to come at significant computational cost. The idea seems rly nice though. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought mediawiki saved incremental changes and (apart from checkpoints) only maintained the full page in its current state. All we need to do is note the size of the diff file (aka the incremental change) when it is created, possibly normalised with metatdata ignored. The overhead comes only in stitching together the diff before-and-after view later, if requested. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You thought wrong. Anomie⚔ 11:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

According to this, since v1.5 "Wikimedia sites use a MySQL-backed external storage cluster with blobs of a few dozen revisions. The first revision of the blob is stored in full, and following revisions to the same page are stored as diffs relative to the previous revision." (A break for a new blob is called a checkpoint). So OK the diffs may not be separate files but they are still small, labelled fragments whose size should not be too hard to check. Where does the History list get its page size changes from and is that list cached anywhere? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears that page is inaccurate. By default each new revision is stored as a standalone blob with the full text of the revision. At one point many years ago a maintenance script was run on Wikimedia wikis to recompress old revisions in the manner described, and there's talk about doing that again, but it's not an automatic process. Anomie⚔ 14:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Are pages stored as BLOBs or CLOBs? While I'm asking, does Wiki still use MySQL or has it moved to MariaDB? Just curious. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Isn't "CLOB" and Oracle term? Anyway, the MySQL/MariaDB schema uses the "blob" type, and the configuration used here compresses all revisions with gzdeflate. The actual data is stored in separate databases dedicated to the purpose, separate from the databases that store most of the rest of the data. The database servers on the Wikimedia cluster currently use MariaDB. Anomie⚔ 01:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You may be right, but the MariaDB provides {TINY,,MEDIUM,LONG}TEXT as the equivalent character versions of {TINY,,MEDIUM,LONG}BLOB. Anyhow, thanks for the reply. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the update Anomie. Is there a current description of it anywhere? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Calculating diffs everytime might be costly. But having the said diff calculated after each edit and saved in the logfile of the entry (or where ever) will make it a once off action. An action that is minor relative to the multiple costs of activating an edit. Of course this advance calculating is a great optimization idea to be used at various stages of costly computations (I once optimized this way to the tune of X45 speed gain) Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is failing at its job to educate people. The state of articles on American politics is not explaining basic facts about what's going on with everything from net neutrality to climate change. We are under siege by political advocacy agents in a whole host of subject areas. [4] Andrevan@ 23:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Everything mentioned in that article is already in various articles at Wikipedia. There's nothing written there that isn't already written here. I'm not sure what else needs to be done. --Jayron32 00:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

For example, see Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)#Criminal_charges. Maybe it needs updating, I wouldn't know, but it looks quite comprehensive and detailed. You can try to include a number count of criminal charges and guilty pleas in that article's lede section, though of course this, too, would then need regular updating. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec):OK, the Vox article is interesting but says nothing directly about Wikipedia - our name is not even mentioned. Americans, when polled always appear to be highly misinformed. I'll suggest several possible reasons:

• Note that 3% in the poll reported by Vox who say that they've heard nothing at all about the Mueller investigation. That's likely the pollee telling the pollster to get lost. 2% of Americans will tell pollsters that they've never heard the name George Washington.
• the 59% who say that they don't know for sure if the investigation has uncovered actual crimes probably believe
  • lying to the FBI is not a real crime
  • from pure political motivation, that all the evidence is being made up
  • that only charges against Trump or other current office holders "really count"
• Mom is driving the kids to school when she gets the pollsters call, or Dad is trying to watch a baseball game.

In any case Wikipedia can't be held responsible for the perceived lack of education among Americans. Schools, universities, the news media, churches, parents, etc. surely have more responsibility for this than we do.

But if you'd like to improve the situation, please try to improve the relevant articles. The usual way is one editor at a time making one edit at a time. But if you want to try to organize a project or other means, please do. But remember that editors run into such requests at least once a month. If you do run into political advocacy agents and have evidence of this, please report it to WP:Coin. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

8Everybody can be quite ignint when they want to be, esp. when it comes to dead horses. None of this is en.Wiki's business. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for above comments. My concern is that actual Russian agents are attempting to infiltrate Wikipedia and are pushing POVs on many topics. I first observed this about 5 years ago in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Ghouta chemical attack mediation. See for example the recently blocked Trust Is All You Need who seems determined to remake the articles on socialism to be the orthodox Soviet communist line. Or, some of the users on the Donald Trump articles pushing Sputnik and RT, per Drmies. Liberal use of checkuser has privacy concerns, and people can easily block evade as TIAYN has been doing. I think we need a mechanism to check this kind of thing. I also think ArbCom possibly can't solve this if it requires a technical solution. How are other major websites dealing with this? Andrevan@ 20:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ArbCom needs to get busy here and realize that it's not simply a matter of pro and con. The biggest problems aren't the socks and the trolls, but the POV editors who wikilawyer the hell out of everything. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Exactly Andrevan@ 00:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree I am in complete agreement that tracking down and addressing POV editors is a significant problem. I'm concerned about whether purely volunteer editors can take this on by themselves. I'd love to get involved in a good discussion about what we might do but that doesn't seem to be the point of the section so it ought to be started as its own discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment When did Wikipedia become a political discussion forum? (As a relevant aside, I'd like to see Wikimedia create a sister project which would be a discussion forum, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.) I'm a big fan of allowing a lot of leeway when brainstorming new ideas, but this section starts with a misleading headline, followed by a rant that's not backed up by any wiki diffs, not to mention the absence of any proposed solution. In other words it's a poorly articulated problem statement, and nary a hint of what might be done.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Quite a while ago I said I was going to open this discussion, after an FL review and subsequent discussion at List of National Parks of Canada led to upload links for Wiki Loves Earth 2017 being removed from the article. To see what I mean, see this revision. Back in October, editor Yilku1 started a featured list removal discussion specifically mentioning the upload links as a disqualifying feature, and so they were one of the first things I removed from the article when I took on reviving it - at that time WLE 2017 was long over, besides.

Several months later, WLE organizer Braveheart questioned me about the removal (see discussion here). The multiple upload links were intended to provide an easy way for a reader browsing the list to upload content to Commons which would be automatically categorized for the park associated with the link, or at least that's how I understand it. While I agree that the links are useful for readers interested in contributing graphic content, I also feel particularly in this featured list that an upload links for a separate wiki takes up space that would be better used for content - it wasn't really an issue in the pre-review version but it definitely would have been a problem in the greatly expanded list after the review closed. I didn't have an answer at the time and still don't about how to better support these links, so I'm seeking ideas here.

Is there an attractive, less intrusive way that links of this sort could be included in an article or list (inline or otherwise)? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Ivan! I think it depends on what people see as tolerable. On German Wikipedia, upload links are usually displayed like in de:Nationalparks in Österreich, which is probably the smallest you can make these links without making them useless. I'm not sure why technical features have an impact on the outcome of featured list discussions, that seems like a discussion we would have had back in 2006 or 2007, not 2018 when Commons is seen as an integral part of Wikipedia. Braveheart (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It should go on the talk page, as it is related to improving the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, just like {{image requested}}. —Cryptic 23:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Who's going to look at a talk page when they want to add pictures? Braveheart (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I kind of like the way that dewiki does it, per the link Braveheart provided above. This is different from an image request, which is used to request providing one image for an article that doesn't have any; this is for encouraging users to upload their own content which may or may not actually be used in the article (in the case of the Canada parks list, likely not). This is a multimedia project, after all, our pages don't need to look like dead trees all the time and we can use code to hide the icons from appearing in printed versions. In the Canada list, icons beside the images would exacerbate cramped space in the list, but what if they were inline below the image instead? There's already space there for most of the parks, thanks to the long descriptions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who has spent time at WP:AfC and WP:AfD knows that Wikipedia attracts people who wants to promote themselves, company, product or service. There is a constant stream of crufty new articles to deal with.

To help offset this, might there be a page that details the downsides and pitfalls of Wikipedia, the risks. It really is "anyone can edit" and can become a public sounding-board for negative material. Very often COI editors create an article, later regret it and seek deletion. Meanwhile they end up having a horrible experience. Some of these cases can be documented as examples, so users have all the information they need before embarking on creating a page. It could even be incorporated into the AfC process, so new editors agree and understand the risks before creating the page. Similar to a stock prospective that is required to disclose all risks to buyers. -- GreenC 14:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you give an example of a COI editor creating an article, regretting it and later seeking deletion? I thought that pleas for articles to be deleted at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion were generally from people other than the person who created the article. Vorbee (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, and I agree that it's worth exploring. We have Wikipedia:Your first article which discusses notability and sourcing requirements, but it doesn't really touch on the potential pitfalls associated with having a Wikipedia article. A lot of people don't fully grasp the consequences of anyone-can-edit and WP:OWN. (Of course, people who don't understand how Wikipedia works are also people who probably won't read warnings we try to give them, no matter how clear and conspicuous....)

I would probably try to stay away from "case study"-type approaches; widely-publicizing specific bad interactions and bad experiences that borderline-notable individuals and organizations have had with Wikipedia feels a bit harsh. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

An oft-cited essay exists at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That's basically what I had in mind.  Done -- GreenC 02:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is generally a wonderful place to write and connect. Problem solving techniques such as Rfc's and third-party really do work pretty well most of the time. But there are some things--some people--that do seem to fall through the cracks fairly dependably. I would like to see a 'Be nice-Be respectful' policy that when violated can be reported, and if nothing else, that Wikipedia would keep track of the number of violations the same person gets over and over, so I would like to see a policy for consequences for repeatedly biting, not only newcomers, but anyone that disagrees with them. People just get away with that here because it isn't about consensus on content. I have seen more than one editor driven completely off Wikipedia because of personal attacks, slanders, insults, and various kinds of bad behavior by the same person. Nothing ever happens about it. I think that's wrong. Something should happen. It violates Wikipedia's stated policy and that policy should be better enforced. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• We do have Wikipedia: Etiquette but I am not sure what happens to Wikipedians who violate the policies listed here. Vorbee (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about 'solutions'; but I and a few others are actively exploring if we can figure out if we can make it easier for admins and others to 1. find problematic comments (assuming that's part of the challenge): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Detox Feedback very welcome. Some more ideas we've experimented with some are at https://conversationai.github.io/ Iislucas (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing. Nothing happens to them. They move on claiming they do it all for the good of Wikipedia. That's the problem. Instant reverts, threats, insults based on ideology, point of view, differences of opinion, not based on consensus--things where one person is not clearly "right"--but the one person is asserting their "position" by domineering and intimidating. Nothing happens. They get you to leave. That's all that happens--at least that is all I have seen so far. I have been on Wikipedia about a year and a half, I have observed this one editor have just over a dozen of these types of conflicts, and people repeatedly contact Admin. about him and nothing happens. He seems bullet-proof. And that's just wrong. What are the chances more than a dozen people are in the wrong instead of him? Wikipedia needs to do a better job at this. What are the options? I would take any improvement at all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Behaving like a dick can, and does occasionally get people blocked (you've probably already seen Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing with incivility). If the problematic behaviour has been gross, and you have recent examples of it that you're willing to present succinctly, and with diffs, then you can start a thread at WP:ANI. – Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I can start keeping a record since Wikipedia doesn't, but I am afraid of retribution if nothing comes of it. This person is vindictive. I was looking for a more proactive approach from Wikipedia.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

this is an example right now. Not sure what idea can come out of this thread though; I would like to see civility enforced more, however we do already have a policy (two, WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY) which are in the range of "Be nice-Be respectful' policy". I think it is not as much as there being a lack of policy but people unwilling to enforce for whatever reason. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging the issue is real. Yes, we have perfectly good policy, but what good is policy without enforcement? I completely agree that is the problem. Disputes over content are solvable. Wikipedia cares about its content and has made good provision for multiple pathways toward resolution. Not so with personal abuses and attacks. Wikipedia does not keep a record of how often any individual gets called for a mediation dispute or watch for other signs of problem behavior and as far as I know, there is no special path for reporting that particular kind of problem--and certainly no enforcement of the policies we have. I simply want that person to stop. I personally have no ability to enforce the minimum behavior requirements of the larger group--that we all agree to--onto the group's few misanthropes. I can't see how this can be improved without some kind of policy change. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is very real. Extreme perpetrators can be reported at WP:ANI and its related noticeboards, where administrators will decide what to do about it. But usually, rudeness is tolerated and you have to be grossly insulting or disruptive to be sanctioned. The reporting process is also quite bureaucratic and needs good understanding of it to be effective: where else would someone reporting abuse be told, "You haven't reported it properly, so we will ignore you"? I believe that this sad state of affairs is one of the biggest reasons why our community struggles to keep high-quality editors. You and I are not the only ones to have brought it up in one forum or another before now, but as long as the majority of the more vocal editors (especially administrators) are prepared to tolerate it, nothing will be done.

@Jenhawk777: However, from what you say it sounds like you have an abuser who may be overstepping the mark. If you drop me a private email with their username (let us know here if you need help with that), I will take a look and see if anything can be done — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC) [updated 14:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)]

DID overstep--not happening right now; we are no longer working on the same article. I am so grateful for the offer, but it just isn't enough to protect myself in one instance. Everyone should be protected. I have watched this person run several people off of Wikipedia. If it hadn't been for one of the good ones stepping in and saying, 'come work with me over here in a corner for awhile', I wouldn't have known Wikipedia could actually be rewarding and fun. I have tried to do that for some of the others, but they are so discouraged from the experience--and the fact it seems to them that no one cares--that they just leave. I know there are people here who care. The responses here are evidence. But Admin needs to do a better job at this. It is a problem for Wikipedia even if they don't recognize it. When people go away in this manner, they say bad things about Wikipedia. And frankly, there isn't an endless supply of people who want to write for free who are willing to put in the time to develop enough experience to actually be any good at it. Even factoring in inevitable losses, this should still be seen as an issue. Thank you again for the kind offer, but what I really need is a suggestion for a workable policy change. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Policy is not at issue. The problem is enforcement, it is too hard to get things done. For reasons I cannot understand, the further up people are in the hierarchy, the less they seem to want to recognise that. This is about winning hearts and minds, not policy. And sadly, I am no good at that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, apparently, I am even worse--I can't even get agreement here among people who actually agree with me. :-) Whatever the problem is, those with some actual influence need to act. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree to a point. But I don't think enforcement will work, for exactly the reasons you say. See comments below. Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Following the threads of this section I came across the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign to which I've now signed up and which I recommend. Perhaps just promoting this WikiProject is what is needed.

I certainly think there's a problem. We cannot expect to attract and keep new editors, and particularly the sort of editors on which Wikipedia depends, in the current environment.

And I think something specifically focused on restoring no personal attacks to general acceptance might be the key here. See User:Andrewa/gentle editor for some of my ideas on that, and comments on its talk page or (far better) here (or even both) of course very welcome!

There has been no consensus to abandon (or even modify) NPA, but it seems to have happened anyway. I guess the other possibility is an RfC to modify or abandon the policy, and regard these behaviors as acceptable, but I myself believe that would be the beginning of the end for Wikipedia. I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so if enforcement isn't the answer--what is? I am a member of Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign and practice that--even with the person who kept attacking me--they criticized me for my "excessive civility" too! I don't think joining up is high on their list. You know, I need to add here that most of the people on Wikipedia are great--helpful, patient, kind--but when there is one whose behavior is so egregious, for so long, it can color everything. I'm trying not to let that happen. That's why I'm here. We have a lot of different kinds of people here with lots of different views and need to treat everyone with respect even if they have the audacity not to think like we do! Perhaps this is a personality thing that can't be fixed. IDK. I admit I'm feeling a little discouraged about all this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to demonstrate (and perhaps first build) consensus among Wikipedians in general and admins in particular and perhaps even within ARBCOM that NPA is important. Enforcement might follow in some cases, but demonstrating that consensus might be enough without enforcement being necessary, and without demonstrating that consensus enforcement will not help, IMO, and won't happen anyway. Interested in other ideas, and ideas as to how to best do this. I've linked above to my own best attempts so far.

The only other possibility I can think of is an appeal to the founder. I'm almost concerned enough to give that a go.

Hang in there. If enough people give up on NPA, IMO it's the end of Wikipedia. Hard to imagine? Where did Kodak go?

If it did happen, the world would not end, and thanks to copyleft neither would most of our work so far. Citizendium (which ruthlessly enforces NPA) or another fork (well, currently it's not strictly a fork, but might become one again) would take over. But far better to fix Wikipedia IMO. Andrewa (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

We've been trying to build said consensus pretty much continuously for the 5 years I've been around, with no success. We are self-governed, and those participating in the self-governance are a self-selected few who are not representative of the whole. The way we decide things is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.
Over the years I have watched the ongoing debate and given the problem much thought, and I've come to believe that (1) it is intractable in the current environment, and (2) the only hope is through gradual attrition and evolution. As stated, the policy is already in place, and it is routinely ignored with various rationales for ignoring it. Any new initiative to stop ignoring it would fail for the same reasons as the many others that have come before; nothing has changed sufficiently to make the difference. More at the essay WP:DISRESPECT.
The only other possibility I can think of is an appeal to the founder. Good luck. The founder no doubt has his opinions, but they don't carry any more weight than those of any other editor. Those opposing stricter enforcement of behavior policy are not going to withdraw their opposition because of a statement by him.
I promise you that this thread is a dead end and a waste of time. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess we sometimes need to dismiss what's not possible, but the purpose of this page is to incubate and encourage new ideas rather than assess them.

Jimbo is the only member of the founder user group, and has some other privileges as well. He's been understandably reluctant to use them but they are still there for the moment at least.

Agree that Those opposing stricter enforcement of behavior policy are not going to withdraw their opposition because of a statement by him. I'm one of them, so I should know! I'm hoping we can find a more effective way.

In fact one of the key problems I see is the common assumption (which I think you may be making too) that the only way to encourage adherence to NPA is by stricter enforcement. My hope for this thread is that we can brainstorm some other ways.

The other key mistake is to assume that violations of NPA are also violations of civility. In fact NPA is far, far broader then that. That's probably where I think ARBCOM and WP/ANI (on which I lurk from time to time) have gone wrong... once we give up on NPA and fall back to mere civility, we tend to fall back from encouragement to enforcement too. Andrewa (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss--ouch. I hope you're wrong--but I'm afraid you're right. This could be a waste of time, but as I see it, we can't know till we've spent it. I have to try. I love Wikipedia--but using a colorful but descriptive metaphor--I think it keeps stepping on its own foreskin.

I went and read WP:DISRESPECT since I had never seen it before. Forgive my straightforwardness at this point, but in my POV, that is not a good or helpful article. It's not hard to identify disrespect--anyone on the receiving end of it can do so. I was recently reading an article on the neuroscience of making friends; basically, treating people with respect boils down to being as cooperative as possible and as pleasant as possible: correct others as you would like to receive correction. That's pretty much it. It's not difficult to understand, and there is no value that I can see in trying to make it more complicated than it is. If someone feels disrespected that should be addressed; period. It should be that simple.

Perhaps I simply haven't been around long enough and I don't understand how complicated this problem can become. Even if we used the same steps for personal attacks that we have for content disputes--what would be the end goal? To force an apology? No, that would not only never work--it would be disrespectful! But if there is no recognition of violation of existing policy, and there is no clear consequence--something like the three revert rule--three attacks in a row and you're blocked--then in my view this is not a real policy--this is just hypocrisy. We either stand up for what we claim to believe in or we don't. If we don't, let's take down the policy and admit it's a free for all here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I simply haven't been around long enough and I don't understand how complicated this problem can become. Perhaps. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've been around for a while, and I think you're hitting some nails squarely on the head. But yes, it's complicated. We're not going to make Wikipedia perfect here, but we can make progress IMO.

WP:DISRESPECT is an essay not an article, and it's not obvious to me how much of it is the opinion of the person citing it but they're one of three contributors and mentioned by the creator. I don't find it helpful either, but one trap to avoid is assuming that if you treat others the way you want to be treated, they'll be happy. They may not want to be treated that way just because you do! See this off-wiki essay of mine. So that essay is well worth reading if only to understand the other mindset.

And that's the problem with having something like the 3RR for personal attacks. What's good vigorous discussion for one person can be offensive to another. That's one reason that NPA is so sweeping. Any idiot can understand it, and most of them do. (;->

You might also find User:Andrewa/Rules, rules, rules helpful. It's another essay, quite recent, trying to point out how radical and interrelated some of our rules are. Or wp:creed is another of mine, older but a favourite.

Hang in there! Andrewa (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I wrote the essay two years ago and it has been on my user page since then. Recently others decided it should be in WP space. No, it's not my opinion, it's my understanding of the prevailing consensus position, with which I disagree. It ends with "Do you buy it?" Just thought I should clarify that, since it's not clear to me that it's clear to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's still there on your user page I see, and that explains its history. It would have been helpful IMO if a talk page entry had been created when the essay was copy-and-pasted from your user page. As it is, it's arguably a copyvio... the enigmatic reference to your user page in the edit summary doesn't satisfy the copyleft requirements. I'll fix it.

Fixed. Andrewa (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It still doesn't seem any help to us in incubating ideas on this page. But let us move on. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, thank you for explaining--and for not taking offense! I apologize if my statement did offend in any way. I agree with you that treating others the way I want to be treated doesn't always make people happy. My assertion is that they should be treated the way they want to be treated--as long as it is within reason. But let's be real. Some people are just bad-tempered. That's just the way it is. Some people won't apologize or admit to an error if their lives depended on it. So what to do about the uncooperative? Is there anything we can do?

Andrewa, vigorous discussion is not the issue. Just today I saw a discussion where one User was attempting to ask the editor I had the problem with to be patient with newcomers, that teaching is a better response than ridicule, that it's easy to forget what it was like when you were new, that threatening and belittling someone with 190 edits for what they don't know yet is counterproductive, that what appears a point of view in a newcomer is often just an interest (Amen!) and more in that vein--it was wonderful--absolutely respectful and kind. His response was "I'm not talking about this" and he deleted the discussion.

This kind of thing happens with him about every four to six weeks--someone has a problem with him, calls for some kind of arbitration with him--it's a pattern. It's easy to see why: his first response to anything he doesn't like is a mass revert without explanation or discussion. If you ask why, you get insulted. If you had a brain you would know you're a crap writer. If you try to adapt it to what you think the problem is and put it back, you get threatened. You can ask for compromise till you're blue in the face. Mostly you'll get ignored. There is no discussion--vigorous or otherwise. I can't tell you how many times I tried to discuss. I ended up with an Rfc where every single vote was in my favor--and it made him so angry he put his point of view in long, long "notes" to counter that. Consensus was against him--he didn't care. He's been doing this for years apparently and is basically bulletproof because of longevity. And because Wikipedia makes no effort to keep track of how many conflicts an editor is involved in or how frequently the same editors are involved in them. That's what I have seen. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The NYRM2016 fiasco had some similar issues. Several of those determined to prevent the move made repeated personal attacks on me and others. (And succeeded somehow in getting a no consensus decision despite the policy and facts both being clear and undisputed. The only change when NYRM2017 succeeded a year later was that we'd had an RfC that clarified that NYS wasn't the primary topic, which surely was clear before the RfC, but the 2016 closers firmly refused to confirm or deny this. I doubt the full story will ever be told. But what concerns us here is just the behaviour.) I reported these personal attacks twice at ANI, with diffs. The first time several non-admins agreed it was clearly a personal attack, but there was no evidence any admin even looked at it, and it was auto-archived through lack of further discussion. The second time, nobody even commented.

If that's not busted I don't know what is.

The "idea" we're supposed to be discussing is to have a policy prohibiting personal attacks. There seems to be no question that we already do have one! Andrewa (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see this discussion as limited to policy only, it has also included discussion of some kind of follow through and/or increased enforcement of the policy we already have. Though I do have to say that any policy without any enforcement is a policy in name only-- in my opinion.

Oh man! Been there! You have all my empathy! Any suggestions for monitoring/enforcement/policy changes/fire-bombing--anything? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This is kind of a weird idea, but I would like it if some of you considered improving the article Rudeness, with a particular emphasis on instrumental rudeness and the difficulty of determining what counts as "rude". I think that a clearer understanding of the incentives and the complexities would help us all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. That's kind of a weird idea. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha! The line between humor and rudeness is a little smudged isn't it? Thanx for the invite. I will take a look there, but I think I am probably done here. Wikipedia is, apparently, mostly happy with the status quo. The policy should read "Wikipedia is not for the faint of heart. Edit here at your own risk." It would at least be honest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

More accurately, a majority of the tiny fraction of editors who determine practice concerning these matters are happy with the status quo. They are self-selected, not elected representatives, and are therefore not "Wikipedia". The distinction is crucial. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a rather weird situation. WP:NPA is a policy, and if any other policy is openly flouted, say at WP:RM, then many editors will descend in enthusiastic defense of the need to comply with say the WP:AT policy just because it is policy, because it reflects wider community consensus, etc.. NPA is extreme: Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia... Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. (emphasis as in the original, omitted text indicated by ellipsis) It presumably represents consensus. None of the editors (and sysops) who regularly violate it have raised an RfC or even a discussion to have it weakened. How has it come to be so widely ignored? Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

How has it come to be so widely ignored? The venues where practice is actually determined, such as WP:ANI, are downright nasty environments, and they are widely avoided by editors with milder dispositions who don't care to be around that unpleasantness. That leaves the controlling group highly skewed in the direction of editors who are either (1) combative and hostile, or (2) relatively unbothered by combativeness and hostility—so we have (quite naturally) ended up with a culture that tends to tolerate and excuse combativeness and hostility. That means widely ignoring written behavior policy. My question, not that it matters at this point, is how that managed to become written policy in the first place.
If we had a representative system of government with wide participation in elections, the "milder majority" would for the first time be fairly represented in decisions regarding editor behavior. I have little doubt that the resulting culture would be quite different, and Wikipedia would be a very different place at which to volunteer one's time. But the odds of that happening in our lifetime approach zero, as we would never reach the clear consensus required for such a change. Hence, intractable. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article is all that relevant. The lead there reads Rudeness (also called effrontery) is a display of disrespect by not complying with the social norms or etiquette of a group or culture. But that's too general... what is rudeness in our particular group or culture ie English Wikipedia? To make the article relevant, we'd need to find sources that described Wikipedia culture in particular, and cite these. Our own opinions as to what should be considered rude don't belong in the article namespace. They do however belong in the project namespace (here) and the project talk namespace (eg WT:NPA). Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that editing anything in main space can help. For a start it can be challenged over a lack of reliable sourcing, and then it irrelevant if you don't think you are being rude, with "I am just speaking plainly - and anyway they deserve it," kind of self-excuses. Nor do I think that a direct appeal to our founder can go anywhere. I once disagreed with him and he responded with exactly the kind of deliberately offensive insult we are complaining about here. Wikipedia needs a change of its corporate culture and that is extremely difficult if the head honcho is blind to their own failings and therefore themself part of the problem. But I am not wholly dispirited, see the next subsection. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that a lack of understanding is a problem in these discussions, and when editors don't know anything about a policy-related issue, they often look at relevant articles. (See, e.g., Review article, which is linked in more than 3,000 pages outside the mainspace – 12 links in messages to editors for each link in the mainspace. People use that article to understand Wikipedia's rules.)

I don't think that we can deal with the civility problem when most editors conceptualize the source of rudeness as "Poor guy, he lost his temper" instead of "Hey, that guy chose to be rude. Why would a rational person do that? Oh, I get it: editors choose to be rude because being rude helps you win disputes in this community".

The smaller problem is the difficulty of defining rudeness: it's not just how the recipient feels, it's not just what the speaker intended, and it's definitely not what the speaker later claims to have intended when someone complains about it later. Think about the wikilawyering we see with NPA – the guy who claims that "You're stupid" is a personal attack, but "Everything you've posted on this page is stupid" is not a personal attack. Guess what? They're both personal attacks. They're both uncivil. They're both rude. They're both the kind of thing that we don't want in this community. But until we understand the difficulty of defining this, we won't get very far. And, yes, I do believe that reading some high-quality sources that discuss the subject of rudeness directly will help improve these discussions. (And if you're going to consult some sources, you might as well improve the article while you're at it...  ;-) ) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the only way ahead is to look at best practice in the wider world and see if there is anything there we can learn from. I have some experience of civility codes in both commercial and public organisations, all in the UK. Here are some of my observations:

• It is becoming increasingly accepted that rudeness and disrespect are in the mind of the recipient; if they feel insulted by you then you have insulted them, whether you intended to or not. WP:IUC needs updating accordingly.
• Rudeness is about more than just words. Aggressive behaviours can be equally rude, not only in active aggression such as reversions but also in passive aggression such as refusal to acknowledge or discuss an issue or to admit any personal failing. WP:IUC could make this clearer.
• Overly-detailed prescriptive guidelines are the wrong way to implement policy. An enlightened moderator is absolutely essential in dealing with incidents that escalate. As it stands today, WP:IUC is a classic example of how not to do it and does nothing but provide ammunition for logic-chopping excuses and "I have nothing to apologise for" attitudes. If it is simplified and refocused on perceived intent, that should help the moderating Admins to make better decisions.
• Apologising for unintended harm, such as a perceived insult, is increasingly becoming mandatory. It is in this respect analogous to a fine for a parking offence, where the parking itself is only a civil offence but failing to pay the fine is a criminal one. Such a forced apology may well be mealy-mouthed and insincere, but it has been seen to be made and that is the crucial thing. Once somebody has been forced to cough up several such, they will begin to get the message. WP:CIVIL is grossly behind the times in this respect. It also needs a shortcut such as WP:APOLOGY (which currently redirects to an essay) to help raise awareness of its critical importance.
• To be effective and deal with expert wrigglers, moderators also need a generic getout clause allowing, "we just find it unacceptably disrespectful overall" judgement even though specifics may be vague. An example would be an unjustified demand for an apology, where the demand is really just a cynical revenge manoeuvre. I don't know to what extent our Admins have this already.
• Logging and tracking of escalated incidents is the norm. "You have been called here on three separate occasions already this year" type information should be available to moderators at the click of a button. Typically, the data is time-limited to prevent lifelong black marks. I don't know of our Admins have such tools, but they should.

Phew! I had no idea this list was going to be so long. I just want to re-emphasise that all this is established best practice that I have seen working well in the outside world, it is not my personal rant. No wonder we Wikipedians are in such a pickle! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It is becoming increasingly accepted that rudeness and disrespect are in the mind of the recipient; if they feel insulted by you then you have insulted them, whether you intended to or not. I feel insulted by that assertion!

Actually, I find that assertion problematic because such a subjective criterion makes it very easy for someone to claim insult and demand apology as a method to derail the discussion or to harass an opponent. Or, worse, for someone to find insult in an accusation that they have insulted someone, which could then repeat //ad infinitum//. You mention this, saying An example would be an unjustified demand for an apology, where the demand is really just a cynical revenge manoeuvre, but that directly contradicts the assertion that the insult is in the ear of the hearer rather than in the intent of the speaker or the judgment of a neutral party. Anomie⚔ 16:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Haha, cute. But the ear of the hearer is not the same as their scheming. You have provided an excellent illustration of why moderators need to be free to exercise their common sense, thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that "the ear of the hearer" isn't the whole story. That approach suggests that if you sweetly smile while cussing at someone in a language that they don't understand, then you've not been rude. I cannot agree with this. On the other side, according to this model, if you do something that is widely accepted as being polite or even deferential, such as a strong young man holding open a heavy door for an elderly woman, and she says that anyone who holds a door open for an elderly woman is either sexist or ableist or both, then he's being rude.

That's not how it works. Cussing at someone who doesn't understand your disrespect is still rude, and holding a door open for someone who might need the help is still civil, even if the targets of these behaviors don't see it that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Such a forced apology may well be mealy-mouthed and insincere, but it has been seen to be made and that is the crucial thing. It seems not everyone agrees that forced apologies accomplish anything useful.[5][6][7][8] We even have an article about the non-apology apology. Anomie⚔ 16:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and utterly ineffective it has all turned out to be. The real world has discovered that this approach does not work, maybe it's time Wikipedia grokked that too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If Wikipedia had the wisdom to take lessons from the real world, we wouldn't have self-selected self-governance, which is the root of most of its problems in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: I find your list brilliant, and just what I was looking for when I first came here, and I agree with each of your suggestions--especially logging and tracking. The objections are addressable.

Anomie In my experience subjectivism is already present in this issue. Recognizing that won't make it worse and might make it better. WhatamIdoing If there is a misunderstanding of intent, it is easy enough to say so. I did just this past week. "I meant no disrespect" generally works. Steelpillow You could be right that forced apologies may not be the best approach, but the real question is whether it would be better than what we have. If Admins had that logging feature, compliance could be considered to demonstrate good faith overall. Accepting that everyone screws up occasionally, it is the repetition of negative behaviors that demonstrate a pattern and without evidence of remorse that could all be weighed to determine overall good faith. Sort of a systemic approach. Mandruss I disagree with your conclusion.

I personally think Steelpillow is on to something. The suggestions are specific and doable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"I meant no disrespect" is meant to change the mind of the target. The workflow you're talking about is this:

Do something respectful (e.g., use the word "sir" when addressing a man 40 years older than yourself) > Target felt insulted > Try to change the target's mind > If target insists that the respectful behavior was rude, then you actually were rude?

That's not reasonable. Respectful behavior does not become insulting just because someone is feeling grumpy about getting old or being addressed in a formal fashion by a stranger. IMO a more accurate and civilized flow looks much closer to this:

Do something respectful = You were being polite, even if the other person has a problem with the culture that both of you live in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree (with Jenhawk777). All well worth a try. I still think it would be less trouble for more effect to just reinstate wp:NPA, but there seems no immediate prospect of doing that. (I'd love to be proven wrong on that.) Andrewa (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing > "I meant no disrespect" is not intended to change the mind of the target--at least not when I say it. It is merely meant to inform. People do jump to conclusions about intent, but they can't actually read minds and know for certain what my intent was--unless I inform them. I have found it helps generally.

I also find acknowledging the other point of view is sometimes all it takes. For example, your scenario is not wrong even though it is not the same as mine. It is a perfectly legitimate approach that gets to basically the same place I do--(accept differences)--without all the steps in between. Perfectly okay, (but I like my steps).

If they still insist I was rude, then in their minds, that is their reality, so for them the answer to "was I actually rude?" is yes. They certainly have as much right to define their reality as I do to define mine. In my mind, my only legitimate approach at that point is to say I am sorry they have been distressed--because I care about other people's feelings. It isn't about one point of view being right--my intent was still my intent--so much as it is not assuming that just because my intent was to be polite that it actually came off that way to the recipient. An apology in this scenario simply acknowledges the legitimacy of other points of view.

At that point, if they are still upset, I would say there is reason to believe there are other issues going on. That is when we need some way to get Admin or something involved. So what do you think about Steelpillows suggestions? What about a logging program that keeps track of the number of conflicts an editor regularly gets into? What about inventing a conflict resolution protocol from scratch? That's one extreme to the other, I know, but throwing all the possibilities out there seems legitimate here. I would love to hear your ideas. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If I may add to that, how often have I heard the phrase, "I was trying to be polite" after some misunderstanding arose. Trying to be polite and managing to be polite are different things. For example in some cultures it is polite to stick your tongue out in greeting, in others it is rude. Get it wrong and you have committed a deadly insult, whether you intended to or not. So yes, it is very possible to be rude without intending to be. Furthermore, telling the offended party that they need to change their ways only rubs salt in the wound. "I am so sorry, I meant no disrespect, please can you forgive me", is a far more constructive response. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, when someone misinterprets your intention, why do you want to inform that person of your intention? Could it be that you are hoping to change his mind, away from his erroneous conclusion about your intention and towards an accurate understanding of your intention? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I am hoping to cast oil upon troubled waters, to soothe, and calm the storm of offended feeling. They may continue to think my behavior was rude, but they may also feel less inclined to pursue beating me up for it because intent--motives--matter, generally as much as actual behaviors for most people.Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Is there some way to make the recommendations you suggested to Wikipedia? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the best way. People at Wikipedia talk:Policy have been saying that there is no formal process. Perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) would be a good place to take them next and get some more focused feedback. Or maybe it is better to post a link there back to this discussion? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for me to copy your ideas and post them there for you, but if you do decide to do that, please tell me and I will go there and participate in discussion there too. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. I have started a thread there by asking much the same question as in my last post. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Awesome. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems that this discussion discussion can be summarized with one question - how are policies enforced?Vorbee (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

They aren't. Or at least, where behaviour is concerned, not at all consistently. Andrewa (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

See this now closed thread for some interesting discussion, expecially these suggestions. Andrewa (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear all on WP:Village pump,

First time here, if this was the wrong place to post such idea please advice me to reroute.

To promote the atmosphere of appreciation and encourage positive collaborating on the WP environment, I'd like to suggest we make thank log from and towards a user more visible, for example, make it a direct link from Tools, or somewhere default in a user page. Also, we can make it more visible that some users are generally more appreciating. The idea is still very early stage, I'd like to hear what people thinks about that.

Xinbenlv (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with this. I'd also like a little "thank" to appear after my signature when I sign a comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather make thanks hidden as thanking for some edits which may be controversial upsets other editors who oppose those edits Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The thanks log Special:Log/thanks does not reveal which edit was thanked or which page was edited. It only shows the two users and the time of the thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

True, although it is often not difficult to make an educated guess about the edit when a dispute is going on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• There is already a red coloured heart icon on User page, to click and send Wikilove as a THANK YOU. I feel the current Facebook style notification for Thank you is quite excellent in doing the intended job. any more visibility i believe will be intrusive and Editors would then ask for a button to turn these thank you notifications off.--DBigXray 21:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  @DBigXray: that button is in here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this article [9] accurate about Europe's newly planned copyright reforms, and the problems they mean for Wikipedia? If I'm reading this correctly, URLs will now be subject to copyright, meaning wikipedia may have to remove URLs from its articles wherever we cite news sites (i.e. everywhere). If correct, that is a big problem, but I may be misinterpreting it. Has the Wikimedia Foundation said anything about this proposal? If it does pass, how would we go about adapting to this? My first thought is a bot could be written to remove URLs, and a message could pop up whenever a user adds a reference saying not to include the URL, but article histories would still have them. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It puts to the member states how to handle the link tax, and only applies to organizations operating in the EU/member state. WMF is an US organization so it may not affect WMF. (I should note that the WMF knows that Article 13 of the same will potentially have a more harmful impact, see [10]). --Masem (t) 18:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

For reasons even I don't know, I do random page patrolling. A lot of times I add the {{Wikispecies}} tab to random species stubs if the link leads to an article. Why isn't there a bot doing this if there's an article name match at Wikispecies for random species stubs here?--occono (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Occono: that link should already be appearing in the sidebar under "In other projects" if the information is populated to an infobox. The template usage notes (at Template:Wikispecies) say when this is used it should be in the external links section. If you think this should be on every article, some wider discussion is a good idea. I suggest you link in editors from Template talk:Wikispecies and maybe some of the larger species-related projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. If there is a broad consensus for doing this, and how to do it, you can request a bot operator build a bot for it at WP:BOTREQ. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

At WP:FPC, editors can nominate Featured Picture candidates. If, at the end of 10 days, there are at least 5 in support with at least a 2/3 majority in support, it is promoted to FP. Whenever I've popped in over the last year or so, it seems like few images are being nominated but also -- and more concerning -- few are receiving the necessary participation. It's not uncommon to see a nomination archived with 100% of participants in support but still not promoted, for example.

On the talk page, a few users raised this problem. Three possible remedies were suggested: advertise FPC with the POTD, lower the threshold/standards, and elongate the nomination period. Pinging talk page participants: @Charlesjsharp, TSP, MichaelMaggs, The Herald, Paul 012, and Kaldari:.

As for advertising it, I'd add that another more inward-facing technique may help too/instead, like a watchlist notice.

In terms of the threshold, this could be taken to mean lowering the number of supports needed (for example, if at least 3 or 4 in support and none opposed, then it can be promoted, otherwise the existing threshold stands).

As for the nomination period, it's unclear what a good extension would be. There should certainly be some time limit. IMO it would be better to encourage people to weigh in one way or the other rather than abstaining (I tend to do this myself).

As many of you know, Commons has its own FPC process. It is similar to enwiki's except it's for 9 rather than 10 days, requires 7 rather than 5 support votes, and weighs technical quality and a "wow" factor at least as much as encyclopedic value whereas enwiki priorizies the latter.

1. It may be useful to first reaffirm that it makes sense for enwiki to have its own FPC process. Our media is otherwise handles by Commons and nearly all of the material that is on enwiki but not Commons would not qualify for FP.
2. Assuming it's something we want to continue, how could FPC participation be improved?
3. Does it make sense to lower the standards for promotion?
4. Would elongating the nomination period be helpful?

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• I and some other editors believe that Featured anything (and our "Just decent" articles as well are a waste of time ans serve little purpose either ot the good of the encyclopedia as a whole or to society, and a even greater number think the Commons is nothing to be emulated. Except for your first question, such posts are orthangonal to your purpose, which is why this is small. My opinion for your three questions are We don't, not to me, and probably yes. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Methinks that since English Wikipedia is not picture-hosting site, then all this Featured picture process should be completely abolished and divert the attention given to them to other areas needing such attention. Wikimedia Commons is the dedicated project meant for handling media needs of hundreds of WMF projects and it is working excellently. If any editor is inclined to vote for featured picture it is just few clicks to land on Commons and do so. Wikipedia first and foremost essence is to write.–Ammarpad (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Two changes that I would support would be advertising it more widely (maybe a Signpost article would help) and slightly lowering the resolution standard. Over the years (back when FPC was flooded with candidates), we gradually increased the resolution standards from "1000 pixels in width or height" to "1500 pixels in width and height". Could we relax that to "1000 pixels in width and height"? I don't think that reduces the encyclopedic value and it would open up a lot more candidates. I don't think changing the support vote threshold or the length of time is going to have any effect on the number of people participating, which is what we need to improve. Kaldari (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Kaldari: changing that "or" to an "and" is huge, the current minimum would be 1500px² but that would make it become 1000000px². — xaosflux ^Talk 19:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)- scratch that, I see it is already an "and" - which also seems a bit arbitrary - why couldn't a long or wide image be great? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: I would also be fine with changing it to "1500 pixels in width or height". Basically I would support any reasonable reduction in the resolution requirement. Kaldari (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Why would decreasing the necessary technical quality attract more participants to vote on images? I'm not necessarily against the measure (though in a time when every cheap phone has a camera capable of 6-10+ megapixels those minimums should be for special cases rather than a standard... I also think something like the QIC requirement of 2 megapixels makes more sense than a particular height/width minimum), but that seems like it would, if anything, make the problem in this thread worse by creating more nominations that our minimal participant pool would be reviewing. Could the number of people who would be active but stay away because they don't like the resolution requirement really be more than one or two? I don't think there's really a shortage of images/photographers used/active on enwiki that could create nominations. The reason they don't, I think, is because it's pretty inactive and/or they don't know about it and/or it's not sufficiently distinct from Commons' FPC process. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

To articulate some concrete possibilities for ways forward:

1. Better publicize FPC to get more participants.
   • Watchlist notice?
   • Signpost?
2. Change the promotion requirements.
   • Fewer support votes necessary?
   • Change to a consensus-based system with a minimum quorum of, say, 3 people, and determination of consensus upon closure?
3. Change enwiki's FPC process
   • Get rid of it entirely, deferring to Commons for POTD, etc.?
   • Better distinguish it from Commons?
     • Rewrite the guidelines to add emphasis to encyclopedic value over technical quality (including a reduction in the required resolution, for example)? Redefine (or otherwise flesh out) EV?
     • Factor in other stuff like pageviews?

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment I am against lowering the requirements. There is no lack of potential featured images, just lack of people participating. So the solution is spreading the information. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment agree with Yann and Strongly Oppose lowering the requirements -- Lowering image size just encourages folk to upload heavily downsized-for-the-web images. In 2017 we ideally want images that could be displayed on a 4K TV or monitor, or printed high quality in a magazine. Remember that Wikipedia is a "free content" project, not just a "free to view" project, so the content being re-usable is part of our mission. Many people, who see an image here, will click on it to look at the larger version, and appreciate the high quality of a full sized image. For number-of-votes, if you lower it then it just devalues what the project is worth. The current 5 support votes is pathetically small, and if anything the Commons 7 vote threshold probably should be increased to 10, and the participation there is strong enough to achieve that IMO. 5 people really does not represent the Wikipedia community.

Wrt participation, the problem is that a project like this needs a community who encourage each other and set consensus standards for what is reasonable. Once lost, that's hard to regain. I'm not seeing any strong reason for me to participate here vs Commons. It's like a restricted version of Commons FP, where one has the potentially short-lasting goal of ensuring the image is a lead for some article. I got bored with WP FP being just a repeat of a subset of Commons FPs that happen to be on some Wikipedia page. There's a slightly different emphasis on encyclopaedic value but not enough to make the project worth my time. -- Colin°^Talk 11:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia's FP is redundant and irrelevant to the project. Commons is full of experienced photographs and Wikipedia is full of experienced writers. Reducing the quality requirements or the reviewers threshold makes no sense to me as it would further decrease the quality of this subproject. Commons' FP already seem to take into account the encyclopedic value, ie everything is categorized and a simple good picture of a not well documented species seems to get approval, maybe this encyclopedic value criteria could be emphasized further in case the technical quality of an image is flawless but it's ever rejected based on lack of wow, though I see plenty of boring-to-me pictures get promoted based on their encyclopedic value already. For anything valuable to the encyclopedic scope but of lesser quality then there is the Commons valued image subproject. --Trougnouf (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons POTD has selected too many "beautiful young women" portraits (e.g., File:Veiled_in_Red.jpg, but all the usual tropes: nude young woman, 'exotic' young woman, celebrity young woman, etc.) for me to believe that educational value is always a significant factor. (Ping me if you find an equivalent "handsome young man" portrait among Commons' POTD. I've never seen one.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's not directly redundant/equivalent. Landscape panoramas, macro photos on solid backgrounds, church ceilings, bridges, castles, etc. do much better than pictures of people, events, and other encyclopedic subjects that have less visual impact or that are more difficult to take technically high-quality pictures of. At the same time, EV may be a bigger factor here but it's not different enough that people are really using it. As Charles said in the FPC talk page thread, everything he nominates here is already FP on Commons. For me, I see FPC here as a good place for an image that I think has very high EV but lacks either a touch of technical quality or a "wow" factor that's needed on Commons. My success rate has been pretty mixed, though, so I'm probably not the best judge. :)

As for POTD, I do think that has more to do with the people involved with POTD than the FPC criteria. POTD is typically a single person finding the next available day for an image (a year or two down the line at this point) and putting in a picture they like (that's been featured and hasn't been POTD already). It's the sort of thing that more people could get involved with. Of course, that doesn't change the pool of available FPs to select for POTD, but looking at the pictures featured so far this year, there aren't many portraits. Of pictures of a single individual, there are more men than women and it would be hard to argue any of them (amybe one?) are glamour shots vs. the sort of pictures of women I'd like to see more of on the main page (action sports shots, women in politics, etc.). Regardless, using FPC on Commons doesn't mean we need to use the same POTD. (Though to be clear, I'm not at this time actually advocating to shut down FPC on enwiki -- I'd much prefer it be reenergized/reworked). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm strongly against reducing standards. If we continue with the project (and I'm not sure it is necessary) then we should mandate that an image has to be FP on Commons before it can be submitted to En Wiki. Then the technical issues will have been debated and the ONLY issue is then encyclopaedic worth. I've had many images rejected at En Wiki by a couple of votes on purely technical grounds which is just crazy when it is already FP on Commons. I agree with Colin that Commons vote requirements should be increased to say 10. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• If they're already FP on Commons, enwiki has no real need for a system. We can just have a POTD system that looks for pictures that have EV without going through a second FPC. The only potential usefulness of it is if it's sufficiently distinguished from the Commons process such that one is not just a subset of the other but overlap with some that would qualify on Commons but not enwiki, and some that would qualify on enwiki but not Commons. The more I think about it, the less I think trying to promote it and get more participation is likely to be a long-lasting fix, since in the end it still feels redundant to Commons. I think the decision is whether to shut it down on enwiki or to revamp it to better distinguish it. IMO that would probably look more like (but not exactly like) a jazzed up VIC than Commons FPC. That's vague, I know, but it seems doable to decrease redundancy and increase the size of the non-overlapping parts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, feed the WP process from the Commons one, or broaden it to included failed candidates. Study the pictures that come out of there, which have already been selected by judges of what a good photo is. Select among them the ones having most illustrative value, for reasons including rarity. Presumably this will be a smaller number, and it will be a smaller job. Alas, that's likely to mean only a small fraction will be of lovely and little-known young women, such subjects being already abundantly illustrated, but be that as it may.

WhatamIdoing criticises Commons FP for selecting too many "beautiful young women" and bases this on what is recalled to have appeared on POTD. I'm not involved at how POTD is selected but more importantly is how featured pictures are selected. I recently examined the stats. There are 11,316 featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons. Of these, 490 images are classified as "people", about 100 images of people classified as "historical" and another 100 of people classified as "sports". So around 700 photos of people, which is around 6.2% of all pictures that could appear on the main page. Of these, only four are of nudes: A non-sexual image of a Himba woman from Namibia, a partial glamour nude of Michele Merkin, a b&w upper-body and a recumbent nude. Leaving aside the Himba photo, we only have had three sexual female nude photos pass FP in the 14 years the project has been running.

Remember that an unbiased Featured Picture process can only promote images in the ratio that high quality images are uploaded and nominated. While many images at FP come from photographers on the project, many also come from people transferring images that have a free licence or are in the public domain. There is very very little the FP process can do to influence what people take photographs of, or who chooses to make their work free. The definition of "educational" on Commons is simply that there exists a realistic chance that the image could be used for an educational purpose, not that one might look at an image and the first thought you have is how educational it is. Our licence terms discourage the creation of photographs of people that can be used "for any purpose", rather than sold for a profit and where the publication usage can be controlled. So we have a fair number of images of politicians and sports people, and historical photos, but are hugely deficient in photographs of anyone else.

Consider that the vast majority of photographs in the world are of people, yet on commons FP people are outnumbered by other subjects 15:1. Outside of politics and sport, people photography is heavily biased towards women. Fashion, beauty products, glamour, entertainment, advertising all use mostly young beautiful women. Women users outnumber men on Instagram, and both are predominantly young and beautiful. On iStockPhoto, there are 9,184,475 images classified as Women and 5,844,462 images classified as Men. Yet if you look at the People category, the ratio is fairly evenly balanced, and plenty non-beautiful and older people. Take a look at The Featured Picture Log for 2018. I'd say that was an educational collection of images and certainly not the sort of teenage boy's bedroom poster bias suggested above. If anything, Commons photographers seem to spend an awful lot of time in church, or outside photographing the scenery and wildlife. -- Colin°^Talk 08:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Colin, I'm not really criticizing Commons' process. I am saying that I'm unable to identify any expected educational purpose is for this portrait of the non-notable woman with a bit of filmy red fabric draped around her face. It's a truly lovely photo. I believe that it's a useful photo. But I am not convinced that it's an educational photo. For example, she's not actually wearing a functional veil, so you can't use it to illustrate Veil. She's wearing cosmetics, but it gives a poor view, so it won't get used in Mascara or similar articles. The fabric might be Organza, but we don't know, so we can't use it to illustrate the article on the type of fabric. I can't think of a Wikipedia article where this could be usefully placed.

I conclude from this sort of image that Commons does not always care very much about whether POTD images are educational. I'm okay with that: I think that some processes on Commons actually should care more about subjective artistic merit than they do (or, at least more than they are willing to admit to doing). My goal was to say that there may be a small gap between Commons' POV and enwiki's POV on that particular point. If we choose to defer to Commons for POTD, we need to understand what we're getting into. It's a trade-off. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, you did base your "educational value" argument on the claim that "Commons POTD has selected too many "beautiful young women" portraits" which I find hard to believe since they'd use up all the "beautiful young women" FPs in about a fortnight. The big big difference between Commons and Wikipedia Feature Picture is the difference between "educational value" and "encyclopaedic value". The former weighs the ability for an image to be used in an educational publication. The latter weighs the ability for an image to be used in an encyclopaedia, and for that it must typically illustrate an article topic or an aspect of that topic. As with all our images, accurately identifying the subject(s) is a big help, whether this is the type of cloth used or a species of butterfly. For me (and I think many at Commons FP) there are three aspects to an image to judge. Educational value, technical quality and artistic quality. An image that lacks all three is out-of-scope for Commons and could be deleted. But an image doesn't have to be excellent in all three. Here the technical quality is very good, though the artistic is a bit unimaginative and I agree it isn't particularly strong on educational value. If you look at our log of featured pictures, I hope you agree that most are much more obviously of educational value. For what it is worth, I've just been reading a book on colours (paint, dyes, etc) and if we knew what dye was used for this red fabric then it would be an excellent illustration -- but that comes from the additional (meta) data not from the image itself. Also you will notice her face has no shadows and her eyes have the reflection of a large rectangular softbox. So it can be used to illustrate those techniques of studio beauty portrait photography. Anyway, that's just one image. In my original comment, I noted that I didn't find the difference between educational and encyclopaedic value to be compelling enough to spend time on both projects. From a personal photographer POV, the latter is really quite constraining: we have a number of photographers who only/mainly shoot and upload images that they know will be useful for the lead image in a Wikipedia article. Which is a shame because that eliminates a whole lot of choices of subject and focus, as well as technique and artistic goals. Wikipedia articles are a rather limiting format for images, and they haven't moved on much since the MediaWiki software was created.

I don't think deferring to Commons FP for the Wikipedia POTD would work. If you have a POTD then it needs to be for an English Wikipedia image, used on English Wikipedia in some significant way. I think Wikipedia neglected its FP for many years. For most of Signpost's life, for example, it listed the Featured Pictures and didn't actually display the pictures, just the lead of the article they were used in. For the Main Page, perhaps a POTD isn't relevant, and you'd be better off with two articles, accompanied by thumbnails. After all, if people only see the thumbnail, then the sort of quality standards imposed at FP aren't really relevant. -- Colin°^Talk 21:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If we include "illustrating a photographic (or other imaging) technique" as "educational value", then Commons could drop that criterion entirely from their POTD, since every technically strong image will be "educational" in that sense.

And yes, even a small fraction of images having no clear educational content is "too many" for me to believe that they always care about educational value. It's not too many for them to choose; it's only too many for me to believe that educational value is always a significant factor in the decision. Based on the results, I could would only feel comfortable saying that their images "usually" have educational content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I agree that illustrating a photographic technique (or mistake!) is generally a weak form of EV. However, the EV for that is diluted by the quantity of images that would demonstrate that technique well. Many images show no more technique that arranging the subject in the centre of the frame and pressing the shutter button, so we have millions of them. My own photo File:Bluebells ICM, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg failed twice at Commons FP because some argued it lacked EV but actually passed Wikipedia FP without trouble -- just because it is a good illustration of a camera technique (ICM). I had rather hoped Commons would see the EV in the impressionist mood of an English bluebell wood, and some did. We don't actually have that many good quality high resolution studio-lit photos of models in makeup, and yet that is a huge huge domain of photography. I think you are placing too much emphasis on your impression gained from a couple of pretty young women appearing on POTD and not really fairly judging the The Featured Picture Log for 2018.

To counter your complained that Commons EV is unsatisfactory, I would claim that Wikipedia's judge of EV is also unsatisfactory: it requires that an image is in use in an significant way in an article (typically the lead and certainly not in a gallery). So take my very high resolution photo of Tower Bridge. No argument this has high EV and I hope you think it ticks the boxes for technical quality, composition, etc. It was a solid FP on Commons. But it isn't used on the Tower Bridge article and merely appears at the bottom of the City Hall, London article as a view from. At thumbnail size, it competes with other potential views (at night, from the air, historical), and so is rejected because the article can only contain so many thumbs. So according to Wikipedia FP, the EV as an illustration of Tower Bridge is absolutely zero. Which isn't right. -- Colin°^Talk 08:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think y'all are looking for Commons:Village pump. Not sure what bearing this discussion has on English Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

We definitely do need more pictures of ugly old men, that's for sure. Oh, wait, isn't that who most of our bios are about?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems I have with Wikipedia is its misuse to 'broadcast' FRINGE, POV, OR, or ESSAY views as 'truth' to the world. Anyone can invent/prefer any fringe view, and select (cherrypick) only the facts and sources that support that idea, so to the reader it understatedly seems to be widely accepted fact. There doesn't seem to be much of a mechanism in place to counter this, as researching the full context/scope of a situation (to determine whether a propos is FRINGE or not takes time and, most often, prior knowledge of the subject at hand. Often such interpretations of reality belong to a fringe 'group' (dogma, worldview, etc.), and sniffing this out (because, where fringe views are concerned, this info is most always excluded) makes things even harder.

Yet one indicator of a fringe view would be the preponderance of, and quality of, references supporting that claim. Is there any sort of source evaluation tool/effort in existence? If there isn't, perhaps there should be.

In any case, I do see SOAPBOXing as one of Wikipedia's biggest headaches and reasons for loss of credibility. TP ✎ ✓ 16:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard come to mind. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

But that's just it: a case where X claim has X amount of sources whereas a Y counter-claim only has a Y amount of sources (yet the article presents Y as 'the whole truth') doesn't necessarily have to be FRINGE, it's more a... lie through omission. Or, for example, there's SYNTH, where one can concoct any story through a 'cocktail' of individually-verifiable facts. Both of these seem to fall through Wiki-oversight cracks. TP ✎ ✓ 08:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

If an article can only be read as original research, it can go to Wikipedia: Articles for deletion. Vorbee (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC) This can also go for Soapboxing - after all, Wikipedia is not meant to be promotional or advertising. Vorbee (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Take, for example, the State atheism article: only a few of its (hundreds of) references even use the term... its entire purpose is to 'confirm' the term (and the accusation it contains). Yet all of the events mentioned actually happened (so seem referenced correctly); the fact that only the article title (and not the source) classifies those events as State atheism seems to have made it past several RfCs and other inquiries.

So if one sees that sort of thing happening, one should just propose an article deletion? That's a bit drastic. TP ✎ ✓ 20:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Your concern is fundamentally about WP:DUE weight, and different people sometimes have different, but still legitimate, notions of what's balanced.

The best course of action depends upon the outcome that you want. If you want the article cleaned up, then your best bet is to find some good sources, click the Edit button, and get busy. Adding content and perspectives (rather than removing the 'wrong' POV) is usually easier (but not always). If you have tried that, and improvements are being blocked, then an WP:RFC or a trip to WP:NPOV/N might be the best ways to get advice from others. If you want someone else to fix it, then look for a relevant Wikipedia:WikiProject (almost always listed at the top of the article's talk page) and ask for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but my concern isn't about (only) DUE, it's more in the line of NOTESSAY or perhaps COATRACK; frankly, I don't know. What I do know is that almost none of the sources cited call whatever they're describing 'State atheism' (the article authors are doing this, and that's frankly OR), and it's a case of wikipedia being misused to trumpet-pin the blame for history's worst atrocities on 'atheism' (which would be SOAPBOX), which is a trait common to apologists and anti-atheists (in a fallacy called 'the atheist atrocities fallacy', and the article mimics it almost perfectly), a POV completely absent from reliable and mainstream historical sources, yet the article pretends that it is 'common knowledge' without any reference to the source (and that it is opinion, not fact).

Going to any one of the 'specialised watchdog' panels will only result in ineffective and partial measures. But if data about the source cited were made available, this would nip any of the above in the bud (as the 'fringe' POV would become clear); but, in the meantime, if you have any further advice what to do about articles like this, I'm all ears. Best, and thanks. TP ✎ ✓ 17:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

PS: and such behaviour isn't limited to topics such as that: I spent ten years attempting to thwart a very persistant contributor (and their off-wiki MEATPUPPETs) attempting to SOAPBOX Paris as a skyscraper-filled city twenty times the size it really is (in glossing over its poorer suburbs, etc.) in 'citing' an obscure demographic statistic tool that almost no-one living in the city has ever heard of... all measures were ineffective, mostly due to administrator unfamiliarity with the subject (as they can't tell reliable sources (for the subject) from non-reliable ones... this would take a lot of research). I've been seeing this sort of thing going on across many topics since years now, and have pretty well given up on admin-side intervention in such matters, so my input here is with the goal of finding a possible client-side solution. TP ✎ ✓ 17:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

In the source editor, it would be neat if references were color-coded. Ie everything between two ref tags is colored red or something. It will make things so much easier. Kurzon (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Much less of a problem if you use short form refs and keep the full citation for a bibliography. This readability in running text issue is a key argument in favour of Harvard-style referencing. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There are some WP:Syntax highlighters available. --Izno (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Kurzon, look for a "highlighter marker" () in the toolbar. It probably does what you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Shout-out to WikEd for collapsing references. — Dispenser 13:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like Wikipedia have a new user right. I want it called Signature manager, but the user right I want to see on Wikipedia is about the ability to modify other people's signatures. I want to have the modification tool at either Special:SignatureManager or Special:UserSignatureManager and have it logged at either Special:Log/signature or Special:Log/signatureother. 209.52.88.255 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad that you saw my response to your message and decided to come here to discuss your thoughts. Why do you believe that this user right is needed? What would having this user right developed and available to be granted to users accomplish? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This right might be useful because people can fix typos such as typos in CSS or attributes such as letter case in classes, CSS color, such as ref to red (assuming they're using a QWERTY keyboard), or times when they can't decide between one signature or another, or uses like User:Cyberpower678/SignatureColorKey, where the wrong color is added to the signature in a sign. This user right should also always display a preview of the other's signature first, which wouldn't include the timestamp. 209.52.88.255 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, first only registered users can have permissions so this would not be something you could use directly 209. Generally "signatures" are just wikitext on pages and are not protected. If someone is using a signature that is causing disruption (such as introducing Special:LintErrors) they can be asked to stop or be blocked under general disruption. Being able to forcibly change someone else's preferences (such as signature) is mostly a non-starter, as it could lead to that person making edits they did not expect to make. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I think phab:T178879 and phab:T140606 are much more likely and reasonable than allowing people to change other people's signatures. --Izno (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Progress in AI technology has led to AI systems that have good language comprehension and skills. Take e.g. a recent IBM test:

https://www.cnet.com/news/an-ibm-computer-debates-humans-and-wins-in-a-new-nuanced-competition/

"We saw computers beat humans at chess in 1997, beat humans at Jeopardy in 2011 and vanquish the world's best human players of the ancient game of Go in 2017. On Monday, a computer edged out a victory over people in a far more nuanced competition: debate."

"To formulate its argument, it had at its disposal a collection of 300 million news articles and scholarly papers, previously indexed for quick search results. But it had to find the information, package it persuasively, listen to its opponents' arguments and formulate a rebuttal."

IBM could probably create a new Wikipedia from scratch that's edited by a similar AI system today. But we would still have an advantage over any such encyclopedia, based on almost 2 decades of editing experience. However, on the long term we'll end up being replaced by autonomous, self-editing encyclopedias unless, of course, we start using AI ourselves. Count Iblis (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I, for one, am ready to transcend. --Izno (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Arm yourselves. Tin foil do-rags and SCAR-Ls for everyeditor and their cousin. We will not be oppressed by the lizard men/cabal/Alphabet/Obama/Mnangagwa with their plans to quash the canaille of peasant editors will not be stood for. ^{[FBDB] cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• A terrifying glimpse. EEng 21:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I can think of some editors whom I'd like to see phased-out. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Look!! It's alive!! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• At present, AI systems suck up biased data from the Internet and inherit the bias they find there. White male American chauvinism tends to creep in. And what would an AI make of Elsevier's loony but profitable alternative medicine journals "peer" reviewed by the same community of loony but profiteering academics? General intelligence technology has a high wall to climb before it can relieve me of this editing chore. >sigh< — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Is this suggestion serious? Vorbee (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this question serious? EEng 14:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - we already have a proposal at Wikipedia: Village pump (perennial proposals) saying that we should have a bot to welcome new users, and a message about why this proposal has been rejected. Vorbee (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• But I've been activated since ages already! My grammar module seems to be stuck in 'Yoda' mode, though. TP ✎ ✓ 16:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Surely you mean In Yoda mode stuck my grammar module seems to be? EEng 18:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank God, let the computers do the work for us. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 16:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd be interested in people's views on the following idea, to help address a problem I've noticed many encounter

The Problem. Reverting other people's edits is required to deal with vandalism and other issues. But problems arise when this is abused - e.g. when users delete content they disagree with, generating disputes, incivility and edit wars, potentially driving away editors, particularly new ones. Currently there are few guidelines for reverting edits, leaving it mostly to the discretion of editors when to delete other people’s work, contributing to disputes. Editors are merely requested to type their own reason for reverts, some don’t even do that

One Possible Solution. One way to help address this would be to agree upon specific, valid reasons for reverts, and then list these on Wikipedia Diff Pages, for users to click to always indicate their reason for Undo (these are illustrative only):

 Undo(?): Vandalism  NPOV  Verifiability  Copyright  Redundant  Other  

E.g. clicking NPOV would automatically add “Undid: NPOV” in Edit Summary, to indicate NPOV rule violation was reason for Undo, thus saving typing. Note: Clicking (?) would take user to WP page that explains these agreed-upon revert reasons, including what users should do before, or instead of resorting to undo, where appropriate. For reverts via regular edit, could add radio buttons below Edit Summary box, to indicate delete reason, e.g:

 If you deleted other people’s edits, indicate a reason for delete(?):
 o Vandalism  o NPOV  o Reliable Sources  o Copyright  o Redundant o Other 

Clicking NPOV radio would insert “Deleted: NPOV” in Edit Summary, to indicate NPOV violation as delete reason. There are many possible variations, and slightly different approach could be used for History page Undo and Rollback (latter needs to be single-click)

Benefits. Specifying, reminding and requiring users to give valid revert reasons could reduce abusive reverts, and let people know why their edits have been deleted, thus reducing revert-related disputes, incivility and edit wars. This could also aid in retaining editors, particularly novices, women, etc (Note: above Diff page Undo-reasons would not require any extra clicks, and also save on typing reason. Regular-edit reverts would require 1-extra reason click, but save on typing reason - so almost always would be less effort than currently)--Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a highly influential code of conduct. It states that you can, and should, revert when you don't think that the preceding edit was an improvement. It has worked for us terrifically well. Somewhat paradoxically, it's only by making reverting easy that we can make implementing changes easy.

As for the standard edit summaries, there are tools you can use for this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That’s fine, but the problem arises when this is abused. See for example the above comment, referring to “instant reverts, threats, insults...”, with the effect that “I have seen more than one editor driven completely off Wikipedia”. Wikipedia, when it works well, as it often does, works because of specific rules (NPOV, Verifiability, etc.) – i.e. people can’t merely exercise their discretion (e.g. “do whatever you think will improve the article” is generally not the Wikipedia way). Yet here, for something that clearly ticks off people – seeing their good-faith edits reverted – a lot of discretion seems to be provided, i.e. revert anything you think does not improve the article, and discuss it out. This can then lead to some of the additional abuse mentioned in the above comment – insults and incivility on talk pages, etc. There are specific, listed criteria for speedy page deletion. This is a similar issue of deleting someone else’s content, thus I think listing comparable reasons for reverts would also be helpful. And I think one can still be bold on reverts, while listing valid reasons, just as listing page delete criteria still allows for speedy page deletion. Also, the above suggestion would in nearly all cases save effort, that is save on typing a revert reason--Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"Do whatever you think will improve the article" actually is the Wikipedia way. This principle is enshrined in one of the oldest policies here: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.

We do have people (new and otherwise) whose idea of improving an article isn't widely shared, with the result that their additions or reversions don't – in the opinion of the rest of us – actually improve the article. But generally, the idea is that you should do your best, and that others should also do their best, and in the end that usually works out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I still think what makes Wikipedia is its rules, even if occasionally they must be broken. Take away the rules, and you’d have a mess, i.e. people throwing random opinions together. On revert, I’ve seen people come up with their own revert reasons, which I’m sure 99.9% of the people would consider bogus, and then you’re stuck days debating with them over this bogus reason. I think that’s what ticks people off, arbitrariness. I’ve seen this in particular on another language Wikipedia, where people have given up, and the result is every couple of years media articles appear on how biased this language Wikipedia is. Now it’s true that even defined, valid revert criteria, could be misused or misapplied - someone might claim something is a valid delete, e.g. due to lack of Reliable Sources, when it’s not. However Reliable Sources are quite well defined, and it is more difficult to just wing there. In any case, with well-defined, valid revert reasons, the discussion would be much more constrained. The delete reason tag in Edit Summary could link to a description of the delete reason, for everyone to instantly refer to the reason description, use it as an arbiter, instead of having to engage on nonsense, made-up reasons, which take people away from valuable tasks, like improving articles, or as others have noted, leads them to quit--Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Editors already widely abuse concepts like vandalism, NPOV, and BLP, as seen in their edit summaries. Formalizing this abuse would accomplish exactly nothing. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

In the limit that could be an argument for no rules, since all rules are likely to be abused. There is a lot of research that people can be "nudged" in the right direction with subtle clues. What no doubt happens in abuse is people get upset by ideas that are contrary to theirs, and instinctively act (i.e. delete first, and rationalize later). Perhaps something that requires them to consider valid delete reasons for just a millisecond before they can delete, can prompt slightly more rational behavior. Ultimately such principles can be empirically tested via A/B testing and other strategies. Often the winning approach can be what we might consider as counter intuitive Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The folks willing to be nudged tend to learn from people pointing out to them a particular revert was not proper, or from reading the guidelines, or from seeing what other long-term editors use revert for even without having to think for a millisecond as result of being prompted for a standardized response. The folks who revert things not meant to be reverted while not being open to nudging/correcting are frequently perfectly willing to be deceptive (e.g. claiming they are reverting vandalism—which means they do consider what are valid delete reasons for a millisecond—when what they're reverting is by no means vandalism nor even remotely resembles it).

A similar idea was deployed on the Wikipedia App for general edits, the so-said "canned edit summaries". They are so often used deceptively or dishonestly that I—and probably most vandal-fighters—see use of them by new or IP editors as at best neutral/not effecting the suspiciousness of an edit and at worst an actual indication it might be a good idea to check said edit. If it didn't resolve the issue there, I see little reason to believe it *would* resolve reverting-related issues. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Nudges work, they work subconsciously, instantaneously, even a small thing like changing button color can impact the likelihood people click it. Here we want to nudge people from automatic, emotional behavior (i.e. delete in anger, rationalize later), to have them first provide a quick, rational delete reason. Hopefully, that can kick them into a more rational mode (e.g. can I defend this delete reason, if not, should I delete?). Studies of negotiation under anger show that for rational reasoning to kick-in, this must be done early in the cycle. Here a delete reason is selected before deleting, which may be more successful than delete first, specify a reason later (which is what canned edit summaries sound like), because once a delete is made, people are more likely to defend it, justified or not. That’s the hypothesis, with some experimental backing (i.e. nudges work, early interventions work), although admittedly those cases are not exactly like this proposal. Thus, I do not know for sure in advance that it will work, just like you can't know for sure that it will not. That is why there are things like A/B testing, so people don't just debate which color they think will encourage most button clicks, etc. Running experiments is also the scientific way – i.e. scientists do not decide merely by debate, or majority vote, which hypothesis is correct--Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, running experiments is the scientific way. However, scientists don't generally go from a hypothesis to proposing laws to experiment whether the addition of that law would help solve the problem. Which is the real world equivalent of your proposal.

I'm not saying nudges don't work at all. As you say, there's some research backing that they may work—when someone is acting from automatic, emotional behaviour. However, that is not the premise I am in disagreement with. What I am in disagreement with is the to this experiment fundamental analysis that a large, if not the largest, portion of problematic reverts is the result of people acting from automatic, emotional behaviour to the degree they either lack rational awareness of their actions and/or have said rational awareness overruled by their emotions. (That is not to say that I believe no reverts are done in such circumstances, but rather that from my observation I suspect they account for a far smaller proportion of problematic reverts than you suspect they do)

Rather, I believe that most people who commit problematic reverts are, in no particular order

1. acting from a misunderstanding of the rules, in which case asking them to provide a rational reason will hardly work, simply because they already are in a rational mindset and genuinely believe they are acting in line with guidelines&policy (good faith problematic reverts);
2. or acting from a genuine belief that even if this exact situation isn't coded into the rules, it's common sense and obvious that an exception applies/should apply to this particular situation (good faith problematic reverts/misapplication of IAR);
3. or perfectly well-aware that what they're doing is not in line with the rules, but are either holding disregard for rules in general or are in such disagreement with a specific rule (or rules in a specific context) that they are unwilling to hold themselves to said rule/to rules in said situation (bad faith problematic reverts; this one is partially emotion-based but nonetheless not lacking the rational awareness that is the entire premise of nudges working);
4. or acting especially because what they're doing is not in line with what should be done. (trolls, vandals, LTAers etc.)

While, as I said above, I don't doubt that some cases of predominantly-emotional problematic reverts occur by people genuinely lacking rational awareness in that moment, even of those it is not a given that they are committed by people who would, if only they were thinking rationally, both realize that what they are doing is not what they should be doing and consider this sufficient reason to thus not do it. Some will be, of course, but I suspect that they make up such a small portion of the problematic reverts that the additional hassle for everyone else using revert in a non-problematic manner is simply not worth it. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree, hypotheses should be questioned, but on the rest I’d disagree. Studies show edit wars are most frequent on subjects that generate strong emotional response – politics, religion, history, gender, race, etc. You probably don’t see heated edit wars on Medford, Oregon or 19th century ballerinas. Psychologists, like Daniel Kahneman, have shown that our much older, automatic, emotional response systems are much more powerful than our recently developed rational systems, and that these emotionally-based systems often lead us astray, with all sorts of biases, etc. Others, like Jonathan Haidt, have shown that automatic, emotional responses are particularly strong on issues like politics and religion, which often go to people’s identity, thus driving bad behavior – incivility, polarization, etc. Cognitive behavior therapies are most successful in dealing with bad behaviors (e.g. anger management) and these seek to put in circuit-breakers, so people aren’t controlled by negative emotions. Of course, that requires individuals taking action themselves, which is unlikely in edit wars, trolling, etc, thus external circuit-breakers are needed. Wikipedia rules (NPOV, Verifiability, etc), are all intended to promote more rational behavior, so people aren’t merely guided by their emotional biases, and these rules have been constantly extended and refined over time --Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Interesting study, though from what little the link you gave shows, it doesn't show that edit wars are most frequent on those topics, but that the highest volume of reverts of any type occurs on those subjects, a fairly significant difference. As these subjects are often also the frequent target of vandalism and test edits, it would be interesting to see what percentage of those reverts is in fact reverting vandalism or otherwise non-problematic reverts. Not every revert is an edit war; not every seeming edit war is a content dispute. (Some of our more prolific LTAers are perfectly happy to keep dumping the same vandalism into articles over and over again until they're blocked. And then again as soon as they can get a new IP)

I'd disagree that one might not see heated edit wars on, say, Medford, Oregon. We've had one at Chicken, Alaska. We've had one over the use of an exclamation mark at Berwick-upon-Tweed(!) Similarly, we've had edit wars on ellipses; on diacritics; on capitalization; on taxonomy; on vernacular names of species; repeatedly on capitalization of vernacular names of species; on whether to call a . a period or a full stop; and on basically every other subject one would think wouldn't be the target of edit wars.

Certainly emotion drives strong impulses and responses, and some subjects are more likely to trigger strong emotions. We disagree on the proportion of problematic reverts that occur from a purely-emotion-driven state, though we both agree it does occur, and probably disproportionally often in case of edit wars as opposed to other types of problematic reverts. As I've already explained in my prior response why I disagree with you on this part, I will not bore both of us by repeating myself. Instead, let's consider those folks that are acting from an emotional state.

As you say, identity drives emotion drives bias. If someone, from a deeply emotional response and lack of recognition of their own bias, is convinced they are dealing with a NPOV-violating edit or article, no nudge is going to make them consider that perhaps the article is NPOV and it's their view that isn't, because if anything, considering such a thing would be a far larger and more direct challenge to their identity than the edit/article involved. They'll remain mostly in their mindset ("wrong, wrong, wrong") and treat the nudge in a similarly-automatic manner as they do the revert itself.

A nudge works on behaviour, by putting people into a rational enough mindset that they see an action they were about to commit is not appropriate for the circumstances without challenging their identity. However, reverts are not by default an inappropriate response to a NPOV-violation. If anything, they fairly frequently are the appropriate response. What is inappropriate is in their identification of NPOV-vio, which a nudge is for the reasons I mentioned above is unlikely to change.AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Psychologists like Jonathan Haidt write that nearly all bad behavior on volatile issues, like politics and religion, is driven by our automatic, impulsive emotional systems, and would likely say that nearly all bad behaviors (e.g. arguing over capitalization), are also driven by our automatic, impulsive systems. Cognitive behavioral therapy is intended to deal with bad impulses, regardless of what sparked them (religion, bad punctuation, etc.), and as mentioned often works by seeking to put in circuit-breakers, so people aren’t driven by negative impulses/emotions. By contrast, an act-first (i.e. revert), and-rationalize-later (put reason in edit summary) approach facilitates impulsive behavior. No process, rule or law will entirely prevent bad behavior, not CBT, not nudges. Yet CBT is effectively applied to deal with highly compulsive behavior – gambling, addiction, violent impulses, etc. Whether above proposed nudge can reduce some bad revert behaviors is unknowable without testing - Google and Facebook constantly do thousands of tests to nudge behavior, precisely because they do not know in advance what will or will not work. Btw, I agree valid NPOV issues should be reverted, but valid, rationally-based reverts would of course still be encouraged, made even a little easier, since part of reason is placed in edit summary via single click, instead of having to type it--Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy edits are all alike; every problematic edit is problematic in its own way. Having a canned "revert: not compliant with WP:NPOV" edit summary is almost negligibly more useful than no edit summary at all, and it relieves the editor making the revert of the obligation of providing an even remotely situation-specific bit of reasoning. (Hint: virtually every contentious edit – revert or not – is made by an editor who believes they are defending WP:NPOV.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Whatamidoing, I’ve seen editors revert and give ridiculous reasons, and then people have to waste time arguing over ridiculous reasons. If instead people used valid revert reasons - NPOV, Verifiability, Reliable Sources, etc. - these are fairly well-documented, harder to misuse than entirely made-up reasons, and I’m always happy to discuss valid reasons. I’ve also seen where users revert, but not give a WP rule, and then after some back-and-forth, finally give a valid WP Rule (e.g. Verifiability) – again wasted initial effort, compared to always having a revert reason/rule everyone can refer to, without needless back-and-forth. With automated revert-reason tags, users could still be asked to provide further, instance-specific elaboration in Edit Summary--Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

But providing canned edit summaries wouldn't stop people from making reversions that you disagree with. It would, however, increase the problem of edit summaries that have nothing to do with the actual problem.

I think that you might be interested in https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/trust-engineers/ (partial description) about what happened to Facebook abuse-claims team, on the day after half the world got smartphones for Christmas. They came back to work and discovered huge numbers of photos being reported as hate speech, threats, and nudity. The photos were things like people wearing matching sweaters, or puppies.

It turned out that their friends and family had uploaded a bunch of photos, and people were using the abuse-reporting feature because they were embarrassed by the photos. There wasn't (at that time) another option, so the puppies got tagged as hate speech. The people tagging these weren't deterred by puppies not being hate speech; the system gave them about four options, none of which were "This photo is embarrassing", so they clicked whatever buttons were available, basically at random, and reported the photos that way.

I believe that exactly the same thing would happen with your proposed system: If someone decides to revert an edit, and you force them to choose one of six options to be able to complete the reversion, then they will pick one of the options, even if those options have nothing at all to do with their real reasons.

If you want to deter reversions, you need to be reaching people before they click the undo button, or you need to give them an alternative that is (to their way of thinking) more effective. Your proposal won't do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned in above proposal, users would have to select a valid Undo reason, before undo happens, with the goal of nudging user into a more rational reasoning mode, as opposed to doing impulsive emotional undos, and then typing reasons/rationalizations later (now you can even undo, without typing any undo reason). To your other point, one cold randomly select 100-200 existing undos, where undo reasons have been specified in Edit Summary, to see if these can be categorized into 7 or 8 valid reasons that account for 80-90% of reverts (it may be possible to have more, e.g. 11 canned reasons, but fewer would be better). In any case, it’d be good to make decisions based on such systematic analyses of actual data, instead of what often happens in these discussions – my anecdotes/impressions vs. your anecdotes/impressions. Then for exceptions to canned reasons, one could add an Other reason, with requirement that this be further elaborated in Edit Summary, and that it be used for valid exceptions, not to invent reasons. Further refinements could be done (e.g. later analyze reasons people are putting under Other – if there are repetitive, valid reasons, add these to canned list, but if they’re making up stuff to abuse reverts, give these as examples of what is unacceptable, etc.) Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

1. By the time I have asked the software to present me with your list of pre-approved "valid Undo reasons", I have already decided that I want to undo it. As I said, "If you want to deter reversions, you need to be reaching people before they click the undo button." That's "the undo button" that you find in the page history and at the top of the diff, not the "Publish changes" button that you click when you're finished.
2. What's going to stop the would-be reverter from selecting any of the pre-loaded "valid Undo reasons" at random? Nothing? Then it won't work. Your process is (a) click the Undo button, (b) choose from among a list of pre-approved, guaranteed-to-be-valid reasons, (c) save your change. I'm telling you that nobody who really wants to revert a change is going to be deterred by needing to click on a pre-approved "valid Undo reason". It's barely even going to slow them down. On the other hand, the use of random and irrelevant "valid Undo reasons" is going to be very irritating to people who are trying to review these edits later. No information about the edit is better than wrong information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

1. As indicated in proposal, on diff page, user would not click Undo, but instead in order to Undo, they would have to click one of given valid reasons listed next Undo, so user would always have to give a reason before undoing. On History page, without getting into design specifics, similar could be done (e.g. as soon as user hovers over Undo, a list of valid Undo reasons pops up, and they must select 1 to do undo), so again would need to select valid Undo Reason before Undo
2. If user gives random response, then other person can come back with “You’re wrong”. Since people usually do not enjoy hearing they’re wrong, this is disincentive for random responses. Now users can entirely make up revert reasons, and people have to engage with them to discuss these bogus reasons. As to whether a revert is done with no explanation, or with a random canned reason, editors still need to check what was done, and then revert accordingly, so I do not see any difference in effort here. In fact, now when no revert reason is given, I suspect people often engage in additional needless effort to ask why was revert made, or spend time to comment that no revert reason was given, even though it should have been — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thhhommmasss (talk • contribs) 23:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

   I assume then - and not entirely facetiously - that one of the pre-approved valid Undo reasons is "You're wrong"? —Cryptic 23:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Also "Test edit".

I just don't see how providing half a dozen Undo buttons (each with its own custom edit summary) is supposed to discourage people from clicking an Undo button. In fact, it would probably result in slightly more reversions, due to misclicks and reminding people of all the many reasons why they could reject someone else's work.

Thhhommmasss, I think this is a bad idea. But in the interests of fairness, if you still think it is a good idea, then your next step is to write this in Javascript and run it as a user script on your own account, to see how it works for you. Alternatively, you could start using WP:Huggle, which already provides this. However, I feel compelled to tell you that previous academic research about Wikipedia indicates that Huggle (and other software like it), which has made it so easy to revert other editors without even needing to hand-write an acceptable reason for doing so, is significantly responsible for the decline in the number of volunteers editing here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

1. I’m suggesting after user clicks an Undo reason, it puts this reason in Edit Summary, and user can be asked to add more explanation, but at least it fills in part of reason, so there is some saving on typing. User must still click Publish Changes, same as now, for Undo to take effect. So user has chance to look at their Edit Summary, see which canned reason they entered, expand on this, or change canned reason, before they click Publish Changes. So it’s very unlikely they’ll press Publish Changes with wrong canned reason, and should also avoid issues you mention with WP:Huggle
2. You say Huggle led to increased editor attrition. This goes to core of proposal, confirming that slight changes in UI (i.e. 1-click Revert, vs. having to confirm via at least 1 additional click on Publish Changes), can produce substantial changes in behavior - thus it is not the case that those who behave badly, will behave bad regardless, and UI changes have no impact
3. On issue of revert reasons perhaps serving as reminder to revert, one simple way to take care of this is to put the Reasons in a drop-down menu, which user sees only when they click Undo, so they are less obvious. Then when they select Reason, it appears both in Undo and in Edit Summary, so there’d be even less possibility for wrong selection, plus this saves space, and is smaller change compared to current UI
4. Regarding reverting a Test edit, I assume user is reverting own edit. For this there could be a canned Revert reason, e.g. “My”, where they can revert themselves all they want. For Wrong I’d put something like Incorrect (sounds more neutral, means same), and then in documenting valid revert reasons say that for Incorrect they owe more explanation in Edit Summary and/or on Talk page. I’d be glad to debate Incorrect (as opposed to entirely bogus reasons I got on revert, which did not claim my citations were incorrect)
5. I agree with SMcCandlish, that a good first step would be to document valid revert reasons, similar to how valid page delete reasons were documented, since this is needed regardless of any other possible actions. Is there some way to get 200-300 randomly selected Undos? This would help determine what people give as Undo reasons, to see if these can be grouped into some sensible number of valid reasons. Or have studies been done of Undo reasons? --Thhhommmasss (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This proposal would be very limiting. I would rather see WP:Editing policy be updated with clarity on what are and usually are not valid revert rationales. Many editors (including experienced ones) believe they have a right to revert, no matter what, and to keep doing so (within the limits of WP:EDITWAR), even if they cannot or will not articulate a policy-based reason. They're wrong.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree documenting valid revert reasons, similar to existing effort to document valid page delete reasons, would be good regardless of specific approach. In addition, putting a question mark next to the Undo command that links to these reasons would be subtle, constant reminder of valid reasons. Also “Undid” that now automatically appears in Edit Summary, could link to these same reasons, so everyone, including new users, would have instant access. If revert was done via regular edit, “Reverted” could be automatically placed in Edit Summary with link to same explanatory page (there are many possible tweaks/variations). As to other parts of proposal, I still maintain subtle changes can influence impulsive behavior substantially. That’s why Amazon has 1-click-buying to promote impulsive behavior, since they know just adding one extra click can start people thinking “maybe I should’ve bought the other item”, or “do I really need this?”. While Amazon wants to facilitate impulsive purchases, Wikipedia would benefit by not facilitating impulsive behaviors (i.e. revert-first, rationalize-later), and instead try to nudge people into more rational patterns. Just yesterday i saw someone did a revert on another page from an IP address, giving no reason, because current workflows enable that, and someone else had to go and fix that, spend extra time noting they did not give a reason, and this is no doubt repeated ad infinitum. As to which specific subtle UI nudge is more or less successful, this can only be determined via A/B experiments --Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather than have editors self-assign themselves to project participant lists, I think it would be better have an automated tool that listed active editors. Ideally it would be configurable by individual projects (e.g.: the top 50 editors or editors with 10+ edits), but the tool itself would only run monthly, similar to the popular project pages. I have no knowledge of how to make it happen, so I'm here. –Fredddie™ 01:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fredddie: This already exists at e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Video games. --Izno (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I need to get outside of my WikiProject more. Thanks! –Fredddie™ 05:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Mastodon is a federated social network that emphasizes microblogging. A few large communities & institutions have Mastodon instances of their own, such as MIT, the Chaos Computer Club, and LQDN. I think it would be a good idea to have our own instance, possibly at social.wikimedia.org (or mastodon.wikimedia.org). Thoughts? Enterprisey (talk!) 20:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide some details regarding what the benefits/impact of doing that might be? --Yair rand (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

My first thought was that if one goes to Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, one can go to Section 2.5 to see that Wikipedia is not a social networking service. Vorbee (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

As the domain name social.wikimedia.org implies, this would not be part of Wikipedia, and instead be another project hosted under wikimedia.org. Enterprisey (talk!) 13:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

But why?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

An improved UI and outreach tool for editors and new ones alike to discuss articles would be a worthy endeavor. Talk pages require WikiMarkup knowledge and have very old school forum style. I would be concerned about splitting communication, but the idea of having improved collaboration/communication is a good one. We organize hackathons already to improve content of articles, why not harness that energy online with first class support/search for wiki articles? Something say facebook, twitter, do not sufficiently help with. Shushugah (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia's main page currently hides the "Welcome to Wikipedia" banner in the Timeless skin if the screen/window is narrower than 850px, using the nomobile CSS class in Timeless. Would it be a good idea to hide the English Wikipedia main page "Welcome to Wikipedia" banner at small screen widths (for all desktop skins)?

Alternately, only the portal links could be hidden at some screen width, with the "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free…" text becoming aligned to the centre of the banner. (Both options should be possible with TemplateStyles in about a week and a half.) Jc86035 (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

When we have template styles, we can fix this properly much easier. I suggest we wait 2 more weeks for that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@TheDJ: Would the .css page be started from scratch entirely, or something like Edokter's main page CSS (from the 2016 redesign) also be used? Jc86035 (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Whatever we want, though we should probably be conservative considering the main page redesign history. Just move part by part into a stylesheet and then slowly rework with the new possibilities we will have. Here is an example of CSS for the main page of Mediawiki.org. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

While talking with a friend who works at a school, he told me how they set up a local wiki (which is view only) since they have students who often vandalise Wikipedia pages otherwise: they are too immature to know better and can't be reasoned with (say below 6-7th grade).

I think it would be great if we, on our part, somehow gave the entire school access to it with an option of disabling editing when needed. Plus point is: If the school feels the need to say, teach them how to edit, they can enable it whenever they're ready. I'd imagine not all schools would do what my friend's school did, they probably block the entire site.

I have not much clue on the technical feasibility of this idea. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

A couple of practical points, how does the systems manager distinguish between a staff account and a pupil account?

When I started WP, anyone could edit and that founding principle established the WP as the worlds greatest source of knowledge. The people who rely on it, and enjoy using it are determined to place restrictions and limitations on who may get involved - it is a case of 'look but don't touch'.

Schools also used to be places where thinking was developed- not where conformity was imposed. Is it correct to teach children that what they see in WP is the only truth, and they haven't the right to be consulted?

If we are talking about selection by maturity, ability, political persuasion I am sure the majority of WP wouldn't trust their own government to run a bath (WP:POV).

Kids experiment, but it isn't too onerous to keep looking at our watch lists. Kids experiment but then start makng responsible edits when they find out it is more fun ClemRutter (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Was just watching this topic, but cannot ignore the silliness there. Any systems manager will be easily able to distinguish between staff and pupil accounts. It has happened in every school I have worked in. (And that's a lot.) And nobody teaches children that what they see in WP is the only truth. HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Entities (such as schools) that have control of their network can effectively block editing or logging in a number of ways (most of which involve implementing an ssl intercepting internet filter). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

There's lots of images uploaded to en and/or commons which are tagged as "own work", but clearly are not. See this conversation on my talk page for a recent example. In this case, I believe the uploader honestly didn't understand that what they were doing was a copyright violation. In many other cases (paid spammers), they simply don't care. In either case, we need some better filtering.

In most of the cases I see, the uploaded images have no EXIF data. There can be legitimate reasons for this, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's a clue that somebody deliberately stripped out the EXIF copyright statement. Virtually every camera in existence puts in at least some basic EXIF boilerplate automatically. I strip out the copyright EXIF data when I upload images to commons, but that's on purpose; I have my camera set up to automatically insert my copyright, but for stuff I'm putting on commons, I want to disown that. I do, however, leave the rest of the EXIF data, including the Author. For example, File:George_Faile_Gravesite.jpg.

So, I'm thinking we should require images which appear to be photographs to have EXIF data. Or, at least, detect that they don't and require the uploader to enter an explanation of why they don't, and flag those for human review as likely copyvios. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If it were required spammers would probably just start adding fake EXIF data (or stop stripping it out). It might be better to have the software warn the user, but not tell them why and not prevent them from uploading the image. Jc86035 (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Here it is: https://ibb.co/dhQoro Anyway, see you later! Peppa Pig the Second (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Has any thought been giving to running our own archiving service for references? Right now, some people use archive.org, that doesn't seem very reliable. I can't actually remember the last time I got it to work, and I've given up trying. As reference links go dark, we're losing a major part of the value of the encyclopedia. Even if it was reliable, by having our own service, we would be able to have a cleaner integration with the editing tools. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Does Save Page Now not work reliably? I find it doesn't work on some pages but those usually work with archive.is or https://webrecorder.io, although I am inexplicably only able to access the former through the Tor network (and through Webrecorder). Webrecorder requires an account and content is attached to that account (which has a limited amount of space), but can capture dynamic content like YouTube videos and flash games. Jc86035 (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't remember how I used to access the archiver. What is "Save Page Now"? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: If you go to https://web.archive.org/save/http://your.url.here, you can save most URLs and most of the embedded content used on those pages. You can also access this through the web.archive.org landing page, by typing in a URL. (Or were you referring to accessing saved URLs? I assumed you were referring to archiving pages.) Jc86035 (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think that archive.is runs a better service. It saves pages more accurately than archive.org and WebCite and has good uptime. It would be a major undertaking for Wikipedia to offer a similar service, so it looks like we are stuck with third party services for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Archive.is is very fast to load, and has features special-built to help Wikipedia. An in-house solution isn't as difficult as it seems, when factoring the complications of the current system. -- GreenC 14:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Managing permissions, rights and licenses for archived material looks like a major headache. (Copyright law varies from place to place.) Wikipedia avoids such issues by having a CC-BY-SA licence for everything. This said, archiving cited material would obviously make Wikipedia much more resilient, so the idea should at least be studied. Aerkem (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

If we do not run own service we could improve the page at Help:Archiving a source. It seems like you lot have views on which service are better and they could be included in that article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

Help:Archiving a source was created a few weeks ago. IMO it's a stub fork of the long-standing WP:Link rot which itself needs an overhaul I started on at Wikipedia:Link_rot/new but haven't had time to finish. -- GreenC 14:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This has been raised a few times, but [at least in those threads I've seen] hasn't led to any sort of formal proposal. It's certainly something that would need to involve WMF tech folks. I'd be surprised if they would be game, since we have such a good relationship with the Internet Archive. I definitely do not think we should be relying on the others, like archive.is. That's not because it isn't a good service, but because it's largely a mystery. AFAIK it's the work of a single person who has expressed that he doesn't know how long it will be sustainable. It has also been blacklisted here in the past (not currently) because of spamming and general sketchiness. Most importantly, we don't know anything about these organizations sufficient to place faith in them to prevent link rot when the Internet Archive, by contrast, has a clear organizational structure, large user base, and is generally well-known as an entity beyond just the service itself. There are a bunch of ways to archive pages and access archived pages, and if those aren't working for you that problem is most likely on your end. It's slow sometimes, for sure, but across all of my computers over the years I don't think I've had any trouble. We also have bots that can do this automatically such that there's limited need for other editors to do so. What's lost in the Internet Archive, however, are those things that prevent archiving via robots.txt. Archive.is ignores robots.txt, and so may make sense to use in those cases when it's the only option. If Internet Archive isn't willing to bypass robots.txt, it's unlikely WMF will be. Scattered thoughts, sorry. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

You bring up a good point about the organizations. I think Perma.cc is probably the one I would put the most faith in due to its backing from universities in multiple continents. @Chetsford, GreenC, and Cyberpower678: You three have discussed on the Perma talkpage so you might want to contribute here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Chetsford, GreenC, and Cyberpower678: fixing the ping format.

OK, I just tried the suggestion above, with https://web.archive.org/save/http://your.url.here. It did indeed work. I don't remember exactly what problems I had the last time I tried it. Be that as it may, the process is still pretty rough. I remember when I first tried this, I found my way to ((IIRC) Help:Archiving a source. That page doesn't tell you how to do it. It gives you a choice of five ways to do it. So, the newbie user is immediately faced with having to make decisions.

My suggestion about doing our own was not so much about where the data would live, but about controlling the process so we could build simple interfaces. I'm fine with using one of the other services.

But, we should pick just one, commit to it, document how it's used, and build interfaces to it which are dead simple (perhaps, totally automatic, and integrated into the visual editor). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Rhodo, IA as of a year or two ago is ignoring robots.txt. --Izno (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Whoa. If that's the case, we should really start to replace archive.is links sitewide. @Beetstra: (someone I remember being part of previous archive.is threads) is this something you're aware of? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: No, I wasn't. Maybe it is then time to replace the links. I am however also very interested in whether we can have our own archiving system (in a way, WikiSource is such a system, for out of copyright stuff that is). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Wayback also ignores robots, except in certain situations so it would be unfair to target one provider or another as Wabyack itself is not consistent ("not consistent" broadly speaking even within its own policies of what to ignore or not). Robots.txt was not designed to determine if a page should be archived or not it was sort of a hack mechanism. Why do we care if a provider ignores robots.txt out job is WP:V and if a provider has the page better for our readers. -- GreenC 16:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• I just wanted to note that as part of the Knowledge Integrity program at the WMF, we're aiming to work with the Internet Archive to set up a process of near-instant automated archiving of all citation links added to Wikimedia projects this year. You'll be able to follow our progress on this at phab:T199193, though the phab board is still in the process of being fleshed out more fully. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that link. I was previously unaware of that effort. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Through my bot WP:WAYBACKMEDIC I've worked with dozens of web archives warts and all. There is no single best archive service, they each have pros and cons. All other things equal, we default to archive.org but they don't have everything. The full list of services is WP:WEBARCHIVES, its around 20 or so with more to be added.. we have a rich and diverse group to draw from. I could list many problems with archive.org and I'm concerned about over-reliance of them, but they have the broadest coverage. I would support Wikipedia having its own archiving service, so it can solve the problems other archive services cant/wont solve, so we can tailor the system to the needs and requirements of Wikipedia, to prevent loss of links by providers outside our control, add new features and services. From a technical standpoint the current system of third parties is incomplete, error prone and difficult to manage. The technology in use at webrecorder.io (open source) is probably the future of archiving, there is no way around it with modern websites moving to JS, video, website aging, etc.. each day that goes by without this technology deployed against Wikipedia is a forever loss of cites, it's sad to see no one doing anything about it. User:Jc86035 wrote a good summary of the situation at T199193. Waiting for a third party provider to solve it for us may or may not be the best thing for Wikipedia, another example of why using third party providers is a problem (keeping up to date with technology). -- GreenC 15:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• • I don't think Internet Archive is reliable enough, for example I'm finding plenty of sites blocked by robot text added retrospectively. For example All About Punk is a music project reliable source that was mainly archived on Internet Archive but they were discontinued and another site took their domain and added robot text and now All About Punk's archived pages have been completely wiped out on Internet Archive as are other reliable sources such as The Phillipine Star, The New Zealand Herald and many more which can only be accessed via archive.is or web citation.org etc so we certainly should not remove the archive.is links as a lot of those won't work in internet archive and could be blocked in future by retrospective robot text which despite the claims is very much still in force on internet archive, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

My bot is able to detect robots.txt and shift the archive to somewhere else if available like archive.is (if not it keeps in place). However, this is a Sysiphusian task because robots.txt keep popping up and wikipedia is too large to constantly check link integrity (millions of links). Another example of how unreliable it is using third party providers, the work load for bot operators we need a team of 5-10 people working full-time and there will be continual edits in the system trying to keep things working as third party sites like archive.org are in constant motion it is not a static database. -- GreenC 14:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

In the talk page banner the this is not a forum phrase links to what Wikipedia is not. I was wondering would it be a good idea to add another sentence saying for factual questions about the subject see Wikipedia:Reference desk? I put it in here instead of proposals in case someone could improve the idea. Mobile mundo (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough comment. Vorbee (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This RfC is NOT live. Please do not add any !votes. This RfC is being presented for feedback to ensure it is neutrally worded and will produce a usable consensus. The proposed text of the RfC is below, starting at "Background" and ending after "General Discussion".

Recently, general sanctions were placed on cryptocurrency and blockchain broadly construed. (discussion). An administrator, User:MER-C then deleted Universa Blockchain Protocol, citing only the general sanctions in their rationale. This action proved controversial, and was reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol. Parallel threads also popped up at the Administrator's Noticeboard here and CSD here. The Deletion Review ended with no consensus, recommending "The community discussion needed to resolve the apparent policy conflict ... needs to happen in a wider venue, such as in a policy RfC". This is that RfC.

Can administrators delete pages under general sanctions without waiting for community discussion?

Please support only the option closest to your views.

IAR notwithstanding, administrators may only delete pages without waiting for discussion when the page meets one or more conditions listed at WP:CSD. General sanctions have no effect on deletions. Deletions in topic areas covered by GS may be appealed as usual.

When deleting a page, an administrator may specify that the page is being deleted under general sanctions in addition to a valid speedy deletion criterion. This flags the deletion as an enforcement action. Appeals of these deletions must be appealed as a GS enforcement appeal at the Administrator's Noticeboard

When deleting a page, an administrator may specify that the page is being deleted under general sanctions instead of a valid speedy deletion criterion. Administrators may, at their discretion, delete pages in topic areas covered by general sanctions, without waiting for discussion and even if no speedy deletion criteria apply. Such deletions are GS enforcement actions, and may be appealed only to the Administrator's Noticeboard

Commentary on how this RfC is presented, especially with respect to its neutrality and the usability of the consensus it will produce, is welcome here. An additional question is the best venue for the RfC, I'm not sure whether WP:VPP or WP:AN is the best location. Pinging some editors who have shown an interest in the discussion: @TonyBallioni:@MER-C:@SmokeyJoe:@Primefac:@Sandstein:@Stifle:@Monty845:. I intend to initiate this RfC in 24-72 hours unless major issues are presented. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Prefer the RfC to be on its own subpage, for watchlisting, dedicated talk page, and ease of linking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• My preferred position would be: "Unless the community explicitly authorizes special Deletion rules (Speedy or otherwise) as a community imposed Sanction for a given area of conflict, then General Sanctions do not apply to the administrative action of deleting." Disruption effecting deletion discussions would still be subject to sanction, and any deletion appeals could be handled via normal channels, and not be subject to the special appeal rules for Sanctions. Monty₈₄₅ 04:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• I see no need to have an RfC for this and would oppose every above option as pointless: we already have an appeal procedure that would have answered this if it had been correctly followed, review at AN. Instead we had a DRV with unclear jurisdiction that closed as no consensus. If a deletion claiming DS/GS happens again, then just appeal using those procedures. The community can rule there definitively whether or not it sees it as a reasonable use of sanctions. This was a large part of the reason I opposed the recent DRV: there is a 100% clear appeal provision for GS that could have settled this within a week. Even if one thinks this isn’t a valid use of DS/GS, AN is the place to clarify it via appeal, because that’s where we evaluate claims under general sanctions (and consensus easily could have been no this was not authorized).
  Now we have the option of a complete mess of an RfC (which this will be if it is held) or waiting for a new deletion sanction under this. The easiest way is just to have AN rule on it through an appeal if one ever comes up (and because of the complete mess of a DRV, the current case is too fragmented to be used as a test, IMO.) Wait for a new deletion you disagree with, and appeal it then. If one doesn’t happen, then there’s no need at all for an RfC. An AN appeal will take at most 72 hours compared to over a month of community time being spent on an RfC that could well end in no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • An RfC is needed. Some, like you, are supporting a deletion power grab by WP:AN, under the guise of Discretionary Sanctions, claiming deriveded authority of ArbCom. Others, like me, do not support a high throughput drama page being able to quickly enact new deletion processed, bypassing Deletion Policy, and in particular WP:CSD. You have recently expressed contempt for WT:CSD, and what you are arguing for is a significant watering down of CSD policy, quoting the long standing opening paragraph as

    "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here"

    WP:CSD, with its simple and formal objective criteria even for new criteria, and WP:DRV, have long been pillars for calm contemplative discussions for the long term good of the project. WP:AN is in contrast a high speed dramaboard. You seem to prefer bitcoin deletions to be under the control of AN, which might be easier and more effective in the long term, but it is a clear step in the direction of the kangaroo court usurping control of the project. This will be a discussion on long standing principles of deletion policy and review versus expansions of the scope of ArbCom and its delegations, a 1-2 month RfC, on its own page, advertised at WP:CENT is appropriate. In the meantime, WP:CSD#G11 suffices for bitcoin spam pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and posted the one deletion I made at AN for review. It will both give feedback on that individual action, and hopefully clarify if there is a firm consensus on the issue. If people still think there is a need for an RfC going forward, that is fine, but we do have a fair amount of individual admin actions here, and if we can get a consensus both for them and as a whole, that would also be helpful if an RfC is needed. Also, for the record, I don't have contempt for WT:CSD, I just think it's a horrible place to actually try to make changes to the CSD policy because it tends to lean hyperinclusionist in my view. If one wants to discuss actual changes there, VPP is much better. It is good at getting a read on the most cautious reading of the current CSD policy, which is something I generally advocate for myself in ordinary situations. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
      • TonyBallioni, I think I see what your saying, but I maybe "hyperconservative" instead of "hyperinclusionist". Hyperconservative at agreeing to any change. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You're begging the question. You've gone ahead and assumed that there is a policy or consensus that deletions under general sanctions are not appealable to DRV, which is wrong. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose anything that either
  1. Grants authority to create new speedy deletion criterion (in name or in effect) without a consensus formed at a discussion at, or flagged at, WT:CSD; or
  2. Ousts WP:DRV as the venue for appealing improper deletions. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• I don't know where I would come down on the wordings of the three options for RfC, not loving any of them. I do think a CSD criteria around Bitcoin/cryptocurrency is called for as I don't think GS gives that authority. Simplest thing would be to include in A7 but could also support some new formulation (A12). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't work as part of A7, and any new criterion would have to be in the G- series. Fully half of the deleted pages logged at WP:GS/Crypto were outside of the main namespace, with 6 in Draft:, 4 in User:, and 1 in Wikipedia:. —Cryptic 15:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • That's an excellent point and I've struck that sentence. My larger point that I think CSD is needed but not covered by GS and thus this RfC isn't the right path forward remains. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Based upon my admittedly cursory review of this proposed RFC, I think it looks fine to me, with the caveat that I support the proposed wording suggested by Monty845.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• The question "All page deletions may be reviewed at WP:Deletion review", while touched by each of the two questions, should be put as well. Should a DRV nomination should be summarily closed due to an alleged association with a discretionary sanction?

"General sanctions do not authorize speedy deletion" has been answered well enough at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Can_ArbCom_authorise_arbitrary_deletion_of_articles?. WP:BLPDELETE deriving from WP:BLPBAN has years of precedent.

"General sanctions may be invoked instead of a valid speedy criterion" is tending to moot with early agreement by a small number of people at WP:AN (here and here) that GS associated deletions should mention the GS in addition to the applicable CSD criterion, with the note that In areas where discretionary sanctions, authorized by the arbitration committee or the community exist, administrators have increased leeway in applying the speedy deletion criteria.

Challenges to discretionary sanction go to WP:AN. I think the authors of that expected challenges to focus on behavioural matters? Was the rebuked editor violating a sanction? Was the admin UNINVOLVED. Was the sanction imposed (typically a WP:BLOCK) over-harsh, or to be reconsidered due to wider circumstances or a subsequent apology? Page deletion disputes have always been reviewable at WP:DRV. At DRV, rarely does behavioural issues come into it, except for threshold conditions such as appeals by new WP:DUCK accounts being often summarily closed.

A question that the RfC should consider is whether a DRV nomination should be summarily closed due to an alleged association with a discretional sanction.

A content-based question that might be better reviewed at DRV is whether some valid notable topics are being excluded by misinterpreted and overzealour discretionary sactions.

Admittedly, this is all mostly wonkery. Where a discussion is held should not matter. Any editor may post at DRV and AN. Holding two reviews in parallel would be silly if discussing the same thing. Has there even been a genuine dispute over the deletion per se of page under GS. For the case of Universa Blockchain Protocol, the nomination at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol did not challenge that the page should not have been deleted, but questioned the process.

There could be simple solutions to the silly question. A challenge at forum could be cross-posted to the other. A review at one could be transfered to the other, instead of summarily closed. A discussion page could be transcluded to both places.

My suggestion is that a DRV discussion touching a discretionary sanction issue must be advertised at WP:AN. Probably also at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this discussion would be a reasonable addition to centralised discussion, given the number of different places that might reasonably have consideration of it. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The potential for this to abused is so great as compared to the benefits of the policy change that the policy change becomes unjustifiable. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Set_filter_869_to_warn there was some discussion whether the consensus of WP:DAILYMAIL should be added to WP:RS. While I don't think this is the right place, I wonder where is. Individual WikiProjects (e.g. WP:VG/RS) already keep a list of sources found (un)reliable for easier referencing, so I wanted to float the idea of a site-wide database of such unreliable sources. Ideally, the page would contain a list of websites and other publications that have in the past been repeatedly been found unreliable (such as the Daily Mail) with easy access to the previous discussions. This could also cut back on questions at WP:RSN and allow warnings (from edit filters or user warnings) to point people to a quick and easy overview that does not force them to read through previous discussions. I have no concrete proposal (mirroring the example I mentioned above would work) but I'd like some feedback whether this is generally something people think we should pursue. Regards SoWhy 20:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a thread on this over WT:RS a way started today. --Izno (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I've been thinking about this for a while myself. We have a some sources like The Daily Mail and Breitbart News that have been deemed mostly unreliable by consensus following an RfC, and we have several are deemed unreliable following discussions at WP:RSN. I think we need a page structured like WP:EL/P. Let's call it WP:RS/P (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial unreliable sources).- MrX 🖋 20:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• WP:DAILYMAIL was extraordinary. Normally a source's reliability depends on context. If it's a simple factual statement many sources are fine. But if it's a more controversial statement the reliability should be higher. If such a list existed it would need to show neutral reasoned consensus discussion (not warriors in the middle of an AfD debate) and address degrees of reliability depending on what is being cited. -- GreenC 20:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  Well, WP:VG/RS does this already (and has for years). The point is that for example GNews will consider many sites as news sources that are not reliable but don't look the part at first glance. Regards SoWhy 18:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• I support this idea despite my initial comment: We already have one: WP:BLACKLIST.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC); revised: 13:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: I think the URL blacklist doesn't really help for sources to avoid which aren't/shouldn't be blacklisted, like Forbes blogs, the Daily Mail, Breitbart, IMDb, Twitter, self-published YouTube channels, and so on. Jc86035 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  I'm basically making the point that if we know a site should most definitely be avoided as a source, it should be blacklisted, and if it shouldn't be always avoided, then it shouldn't be blacklisted; so what's the point of an alternative blacklist that's not a technological-filter one? Even crap sources are sometimes valid sources (e.g. for the fact that they said the controversial crap that they said). This just seems really PoV-prone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  You do have a good point there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  I looked over the current "just started up" draft version presently at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources and it seems fine to be, because it's grounded in a record of consensus discussions and isn't just someone pushing a claim. I didn't realize that this mockup already existed when I commented the first time (only the WP:RS/P shortcut to it worked; there's a big redlink above). However, I have to say that "Perennial sources" doesn't really make sense. "Perennial" (in this extended-from-botany usage) just means "persisting" or by extension "recurrent" (though that latter interpretation actually diverges sharply from the original sense; a plant that keep coming back is an annual). It doesn't logically parse; a perennial source would be one that avoids linkrot. I think it probably should be something like /Perennial source disputes, or something like that. It's the dispute or question that's perennial, not the source.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• WP:PUS exists, though I quite like WP:RS/P Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  WP:RS/P is basically what I had in mind. MrX just went ahead and did it. I think we are done here then. Regards SoWhy 13:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  PUS (aside from needing some WP:ANTIBIOTIC, heh) should probably merge to this page. It serves the same purpose but lacks the backup provided by the links to consensus discussions. Anything that can't be backed up with consensus (either RfCs and the like, or extant policy like WP:CIRCULAR, as applicable) should either be removed or subjected to a discussion for inclusion. And frankly, WP:Potentially unreliable sources is a better page name, though the most consistent one would be WP:Identifying and using potentially unreliable sources (matches many other such pages, e.g. WP:Identifying and using tertiary sources, etc.), and it perfectly describes the purpose and content of what's presently at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources – in includes plenty of notes on when some of these sources can be used with caution, and that some are only potentially unreliable (no consensus that they are unreliable, but questioned frequently enough to cast doubt). All it would need is maybe a little more intro material on who such determinations are made and what the general principles are. PS: We should also be clear that there can be a consensus against the idea that something has been shown to be unreliable (maybe yellow-green) which is not quite as good as consensus that it is reliable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not a !voting proposal, just a discussion thread for working out an approach to an actual proposal or two.

The problem: It's extremely difficult to write an article on an important an influential academic without it getting deleted, because most academics are not covered by newspapers and the like. Meanwhile, we are awash in articles on bit-part actors, porn "stars", musicians in one-hit-wonder bands, YouTubers, e-sports people, real sports people who've only played one pro game, etc.

Failed solutions: We've tried just having WP:ACADEMIC declare itself an alternative to the general notability guideline (GNG), and this idea meets resistance on the basis that the subject-specific guidelines (SSGs) for notability are "local consensuses" that cannot trump broader site-wide guidelines or policies like WP:N and it's GNG (for the same reason, e.g., WikiProject Pokemon can't declare Pokemon articles immune to WP:V policy, and so on). We still lack articles on most academics who should have one. Similarly, the idea of having actor, musician, etc. SSGs that are more strict than GNG generally hasn't worked; AfD tends to conclude that if someone/something passes GNG then their article is good to go, regardless what any topical SSG pages suggest, and regardless of the quality of the article or the likelihood (even possibility) of its expansion and improvement within WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE bounds.

What about changing GNG? I think the solution is to change GNG itself. Right now, it has a one-size-fits-all approach, but one size does not fit all. We need some recognition in there of factors like these:

• Academics' notability is really a matter of how influential they are within their field, which is primary determined by frequency of citation of their papers in reputable journals.
• Pop-culture figures get coverage that looks "substantial" in size, which which is almost entirely fluff, and it is generated by sources that are not truly independent: entertainment rags are almost entirely dependent on movie/TV/music industry advertising, and thus have a vested interest in writing about as many people involved in these companies' output as they can muster. Worse, many of these publications are ultimately owned by the same conglomerates as the studios/labels they are covering, and are thus basically a distributed form of house organ. And they're so narrowly focused on "star" trivia and personality stuff that they give an impression of importance which is artificially inflated.
• Similarly, a video game is liable to reviewed in some "depth" (i.e. in-universe trivia) by various videogamer publications, but this is basically meaningless; those sites and magazines don't exist to do anything but review video games, are also funded almost entirely by game company ads, and they try to review as many as possible, so the coverage is entirely indiscriminate.
• And so on.

I'm tempted to say that WP:N has served us pretty well for a long time, but it actually hasn't. It's worked well only for certain classes of topics. I'm not entirely certain what to propose, or I would just do it. I think a general discussion of the matter might be helpful.

Does GNG need additional points? Does N need a section of exceptions to GNG? Does GNG need to simply be moderated, as a default that can be overridden by more topical SSG pages? Should GNG's criteria be altered to be less dependent on news sources? Can "topical news" (e.g. gamer mags writing about games, entertainment/celeb rags writing about movie/TV/music performers) be excluded from the notability considerations?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

That "It's extremely difficult to write an article on an important an [sic] influential academic without it getting deleted" is absolute nonsense! There are sometimes problems getting early or mid-career academics past AFD, especially from outside the Anglosphere, unless they actually are important and influential, which of course they mostly are not. In fact we have many more academic bios than actually meet WP:PROF in reality, and though we certainly have many gaps, this is normally because nobody has bothered to write them. Fellows of the Royal Society are inherently notable (one of the examples in the policy), but over 25% of List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 2008 are redlinks (all men of course - women FRS's are 100% covered), a typical year. WP:PROF works fairly effectively, and in fact decides most academic AFDs without quibbbling about its status. I don't think you spend much time in this area: "Academics' notability is really a matter of how influential they are within their field, which is primary determined by frequency of citation of their papers in reputable journals" works ok for most areas of science, but absolutely not for the humanities. Even minor pop-culture figures do of course get a far higher readership than scientists, and this old debate shows they don't always get their way. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Their inherent notability is why the argument you're making above isn't very sound from my point of view. Of course we have articles on them, and creating more to fill the 70+% male FRS that are still redlinks won't often be challenged. But "notable" doesn't mean "world-famous and nearing retirement". People doing mid-career work that has made a major impact in their field (or even just been markedly controversial) are notable, and are usually redlinks. Any time I try to link names of researchers in academic source citations, it's only about one time out of 30 or so that I can find a blue link for them that isn't a false positive for someone with the same name (so I've given up trying). We just don't have the articles. But do have articles on pretty much everyone who's been in two episodes of a popular TV series, and every bassist in every band that ever had a top-ten single. [sigh].

I'm mildly surprised that we have an article at John T. Koch, who has in fact been noteworthy within his field (both pro and con, being viewed by peers either as visionary or a crank), and without significant coverage in newspapers and such. But if you look at the article, the sources are all primary: his own book, his official bio, more official bio and programme material from his employer, etc. Someone with journal-search-site access can probably dig up better material on him, but if this went to AfD right now he'd be deleted. This is pretty typical. Actual cranks like Geoffrey Ashe get coverage because they put out "popularized science" books which get some mainstream coverage, even though they're wrong and other scholars laugh at them; we treat them as notable when in their own field they're notorious at best. That can qualify as notable but it's not really encylopaedically important (it's important that an article like Historicity of King Arthur debunk his ideas that this historical basis of this character was some guy based in what was already Saxon-controlled territory, but this can be done without an article on Ashe). Koch's hypothesis that the Celtic languages arose in Iberia, a confluence of Indo-Euroean, native pre-Indoeuropean Palaeo-Hispanic languages (perhaps related to Basque) and a bit of Phoenician, then spread westward looks more viable all the time, but Koch's also notable as a reference-work editor, and an academic/research programme administrator, etc. He's a more important topic than Ashe, who just churns out weird, misleading, and implausible monographs about King Arthur. This is just one example. What about the researchers who're working out the genetic history of the domestic dog, and that it was the result of multiple domestication and and perhaps even subspeciation events? Or insert a thousand other examples.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

As often before, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I repeat, the reason we don't have academic articles is because nobody has bothered to create them (sometimes because good sources are hard to find them). It is normally nothing to do with the notability hurdle. On the other had we have loads of editors who love creating articles on minor actresses etc. Before contemplating any change in guidelines, you need to start collecting examples of "important and influential academics" actually getting into trouble, or better yet (for your argument) failing at AFD. I think you will find there are a lot less of these than you think (tip: concentrate on Asia or Sth America). Many people beyond me will take convincing that there is currently a problem with the notability standards. If there is a problem, it might be that too many of the kinds of editors who are interested in such matters prefer to spend their time arguing backstage rather than creating articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by your comment all men of course - women FRS's are 100% covered? Are you implying that the two genders should have different notability requirements or are you just showing that initiatives like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red are successful? With regards to Meghan Markle she was not notable at the time, but her readership has grown to such a level that Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/May 20 to 26, 2018 reports her holding the joint record for number of weeks being the most viewed article tied with Donald Trump. Funnily enough there seems to be a gender gap in the views of Markle and her now husband. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

He's not as cute.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Merely stating facts. As I said above, all FRS's are inherently notable, so (doh) notability requirements aren't relevant. The last woman FRS without an article disappeared I think in 2013, some years before Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red began (of course there aren't that many of them), and this was undoubtedly due to deliberate targeting. If you follow the WiR talk page, you may remember that there was a suggestion that there should be different notability requirements for women, which was rightly rejected by me and others. It would be interesting to know the gender ratios of new bios of scientists these days, though. As former Wikipedian in residence at the Royal Society I'm rather uncomfortable with the persistent 20-25% all-male redlinks in the lists for say 2000-2009. If you are interested in differential coverage, you might find this interesting. Thank you, I am aware of the change in Ms Markle's circumstances. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

One issue is that the academic community is not very self-reflective of their members. They don't discuss the people behind the discovers in the same manner that other fields cover people; it's about the science and research. AI know you can find biographical information but very little about why someone is significant unless they win something like the Nobel, or decades have past and their research becomes critically significant that it becomes part of textbooks and the like. On the other hands, pop culture figures are told about now so we can cover them now.

Yes, many pop culture areas use works primarily devoted to that area to cover details about that. That happens across the board. Sports are covered mostly by sports magazines, art by art critics, etc. What we do want is to make sure that the topic is at least touched on outside that field. Regular news will often have stories about celebrities and actors, or they will discuss the impact of video games. Not 100% of the time, but enough to show the field is not a walled garden from the outside. Contrast this with the situation around MMA years ago, where MMA pretty much has very little external coverage to justify why it needed so many detailed articles (mostly on every little event , not so much on the people). Same thing with detailed fictional coverage (eg back when we had articles on every Pokemon).

Now, keep in mind, that academics are going to have the same problem. Again, unless academics win awards or are recognized years later, their biographic details are likely to be limited to works from the academic community. I could argue the same logic you use about entertainment or video game fields apply there. But that would be silly. We just need to recognize that the volume of coverage of academics is woefully short in sources outside of WP; that's not something we can fix or control. We can recognize that NPROF should allow more reasonable coverage of key academics at major institutions or who might be recognized as an expert within their field presently but don't have the reknown that we'd normally see from academics that are covered in mainstream sources. (Eg what Emir is describing). That's how we adapt to the external problem we recognize is unique for academics. --Masem (t) 21:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

If there's any problem I think it is in the fact that we're seeing the overall inadequacy of sourcing about the people to be a problem. After all, why should an article about an academic need to have any content at all about that academic's life if it can be reasonably well constructed to be entirely about their work? – Uanfala (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I was just asking about the gender gap in FRS, not describing whether or not they are covered in mainstream sources. Your idea of accepting field matter experts seems like a good one, but how exactly would that be determined without mainstream sources? Perhaps GNG would need to have the exceptions mentioned by SMcC? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Already, NPROF is unique as an SNG because it recognizes the GNG does not work well for academics. It doesn't require demonstration of secondary sources which the GNG or other SNG are guided to. And it recognizes that academics are important to a work like WP but are undercovered compared to nearly every other topic we have. NPROF is unique for this specific reason and it is not something that would apply to any other field. --Masem (t) 21:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Not quite unique; several other SSGs are taking this approach. However, the community resistance to such divergence from GNG as presently formulate is, in actual practice, quite high, and is why so many academic bios are missing. In the other direction, it's also why we have so many bios on character actors and the like who are not really notable (being able to find work in occasional TVs or movies isn't notability, it's simply competence in the profession). That's much of the point of this proposal-for-a-proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No, none of them do. Most SNGs are set up to allow for presumption of notability if certain criteria can be met; this is a rebuttable presumption in that if one cannot show additional secondary sources to flesh out an article once established, then we can reject that topic is notable; we're just going to give the benefit of the doubt that those sources can eventually be found (such as through print source searching) or wait for sources to come. You can't expect that with academics, which is why NPROF is written that it is less a presumption and more firmly established an academic is notable should they meet the various indicators there. Notability is generally not an inclusion guideline (due to the rebuttable presumption) but NPROF is the closest we have to an inclusion guideline because we're stripping the presumption out from it. --Masem (t) 14:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"What we do want is to make sure that the topic is at least touched on outside that field." That's definitely a key point, maybe even the key one, for dealing with pop-culture trivia (including trivial bios), but it's kind of the opposite of the problem for academics, where the central indicator of notability is in-field. It'll be challenging to rectify this conflict. (It'll even apply to non-bios; e.g. numerous notable but obscure math, physics, medicine, computer science, etc., topics are not apt to be found covered in newspapers or other material outside the discipline and related ones.) The average editor is not likely to accept such a split and reversal at face value: "If that botanist is notable because they're cited in 1000+ botany journals and not in the news or in non-botany books, then my Pokemon character article must be notable because all the Pokemon e-zines mention it." It's going to require some serious wordsmithing to explain the difference. I have some skills at this sort of thing but don't feel up to the task right now – starting with a tabula rasa, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Nearly every field has specialized works, which we allow. It's the simple fact that biographic aspects of academics themselves (not the topics they research/teach) do not have any such specialized content. We just have to make it clear (and I think NPROF is the right place for this) that because academics are just as important as athletes, celebrities, politicians, and other figures, but lack a body of both specialist and general RSes to nominally pull from, we have a very specific exception for how they are handled that does not apply to any other topic where there is generally external coverage of topics. --Masem (t) 14:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The following policy proposal is borne out of the reasoning that Wikipedia should comply with the APA manual when dealing with psychology topics and psychiatry. The reason for this is so that Wikipedia is able to retain a strong respect from the scientific community which nearly universally follows the APA style guide with respect to citations. It is apparent that the lack of APA citations makes Wikipeda practically unusable in the collegiate level classroom for this line of reasoning. Also, the use of APA style allows Wikipedia to be usable for independent research, verification of the article itself, etc. since the rest of the web largely uses the APA style when dealing with the context of psychology and psychiatry research. Further, it maintains the professional writing tone expected within the context of articles of this kind of nature.

WP:APA - It is the policy of Wikipedia to adhere to the generally accepted scientific writing standards when dealing with the topics of psychology and psychiatry. The APA format is as follows:

<Author's Name in Last, First format> (<Date>). <Full Original Title> Retrieved from: <insert web URL> (<Date Retrieved>).

The reasoning for this policy is to ensure that Wikipeda maintains a strong respect from the eyes of the scientific community, to allow for Wikipedia to be congruent and integrable with the majority of other resources on the web, and to allow for Wikipedia to become a useful resource in collegate-level classroom instruction, where the use of APA style is mandatory.

Please place any feedback you may have here. Thank you in advance for your time in reading this proposal. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• This makes no sense to me.
  • If you're suggesting that APA citation style be mandated for psych. articles, that's against WP:CITEVAR. Students should not be citing WP articles nor copy-pasting our citations into their own papers as if they read those sources, anyway. And anyone who can't re-order names and other citation details to fit whatever their professor demands isn't going to be competent enough at basic language and logic to pass their class anyway, much less become a professional in that field. Also, APA style citations are only mandated by professors in one country for one subject area (or two, depending on how you look at it). Given the cross-disciplinary nature of modern science work, and the fact that non-US journals often don't use APA style, students have to learn multiple citation styles anyway. They're already doing it regardless, since they have to use MLA style, MHRA style, AMA style, Turabian/Chicago style, and many others in classes on other subjects.
  • If you're suggesting that our writing style be similar to that recommended for psych. papers by APA, that would be against WP:NOT#JOURNAL, MOS:JARGON, and MOS:TONE.
  • If you're suggesting that our sourcing quality be limited to material APA would consider reliable, this is already covered by WP:MEDRS.

So, all in all this is a big no.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think the maker of this proposal should put in what "APA" stands for - American Psychological Association, I presume. Vorbee (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  The article is APA style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia citations when done using the default cite-journal or other cite templates will produce a slighly superior format to APA. The problem will be if not all information is inserted. We should be using the same standard of citation format, using the cite- templates. This is not the APA format, but these psychologists should not disrespect Wikipedia for putting quotes around titles or bolding the volume number. The argument that Wikipedia is unusable because of the reference format not being APA format is ridiculous. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This has been on my mind for a long time. The short version is that MOS:LIFE accounts for every kind of categorization of life forms, except standardized breeds. This is by temporary design, to let tempers cool after the contentious WP:BIRDCON RfC. Shortly after it, I discouraged 4 potential RfCs on the breed question due to the community's patience about such questions being thin at the time.

Four years have now gone by. It's probably long past time this was cleared up, since lack of resolution has led to several problems. However, given the potential for WP:DRAMA, I think it would be best if this RfC were given some collaborative examination and editing before being opened for real.

I've been neutral on the question for years, and have collected pro and con arguments relating to it, which I've included in the RfC as background material

Below is my draft. Feel free to just copyedit directly in it, or suggest changes, or whatever. It'll likely be most effective to edit this in-place one way or another than to produce stacked up versions of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Names of standardized breeds of animals – capitalized or lower-case

{{RfC|style|policy|sci|soc}}

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms (MOS:LIFE) covers all collective terms for organisms, except standardized breeds of livestock and pet animals, which were excluded "temporarily" several years ago pending resolution of another dispute, about species names, resolved in 2014.

Proposal: Update MOS:LIFE to include names of standardized breeds of animals, in (only) one of these ways:

• Capitalized, following the breed standards and other breeds-related sources exactly:
  e.g. Siberian Black Pied pig, Australian Milking Zebu, Bernese Mountain Dog, Chinese Owl pigeon, Norwegian Forest Cat
• Lower-cased (except when they contain a proper name or start sentences), following dictionaries, etc.:
  e.g. Siberian black pied pig, Australian milking zebu, Bernese mountain dog, Chinese owl pigeon, Norwegian forest cat
• No change, i.e. MoS would continue to ignore the unresolved question for the time being.

Usage in reliable sources is in conflict. "Follow the sources" is not actually an answer.

~~~~~

Background and rationales, pro and con

Current guidelines (and lack thereof), practice on WP, and practice in sources

MOS:LIFE presently recommends lower-case for all groups of animals (except were they contain a proper name, like "German" or "Flemish"). Omitted from mention in the guideline are standardized breeds (breeds for which published breed standards from breed registries exist – essentially official names according to the standards-issuing organizations). There are reasonable rationales for both capitalizing and lower-casing breed names (see collapsed background material, below).

The present status quo is that most of them are capitalized on Wikipedia, at least in articles about the breeds. Reliable sources in general are not consistent in this approach – lower-case is frequently used in news articles and other general-audience material, including dictionaries – but sources specifically about breeds almost uniformly capitalize them. Doing them lower-case looks "wrong" to most people familiar with breeds, but capitalizing them looks "wrong" to some who are not.

Issue history

In 2014, a lengthy RfC finally resolved a decade-running conflict about capitalization of common (vernacular) names of non-domesticated species (in favor of lower-case), along with the other groups-of-animals terminology already covered by the MOS:LIFE guidelines.

Breeds were intentionally left as something to sort out "later", rather than double the then-current disputation. It is now markedly later. Lack of resolution of this matter has led to some problems, including article-by-article title disputation, and stalling of the extended MOS:ORGANISMS guideline in perpetual draft state, pending resolution of the breeds question.

In the interim, various WP:Requested moves discussions have moved lower-case examples to capitalized, on the principle of WP:CONSISTENCY within each category; about 75% of them were already capitalized at the time these RMs began. This has come at the expense of a broader consistency across categories (i.e., breed names are being treated differently from non-breed groups of animals). This is neither wrong nor right, just one of our fairly common conflicts between different sorts of consistency.

Rationales

There are strong arguments both for and against capitalization of standardized breed names:

Arguments for capitalization of standard breeds:

Capitalization has already been applied to standardized breeds' names, site-wide. Undoing it now would be like a WP:MEATBOT action, would be against MOS:STYLEVAR, and would not objectively improve the encyclopedia, just favor one form of consistency over another. Virtually all specialist sources for/by breeders and fanciers capitalize breed names [though not always consistently with each other, especially after a hyphen]. A large proportion of breeds are capitalized no matter what (in English) because they are or include adjectival proper names ("Pekingese", "Australian", etc.); the comparatively small number that are not could be confusing (at least to editors) as exceptions. A few breeds are proper names no matter what because they're trademarks (mostly in livestock and lab animals, but see also the Ragdoll cat). A standardized breed name as a whole can be considered a proper name, like "Europeans" and "the Weather Underground", because it uniquely names a clearly identifiable group. In other terms: This approach to capitalization marks a noun phrase as being a name for something specific, rather than a descriptive phrase, and in this context it is a very helpful distinction. We have done it in a few other areas, such as Category:Chess openings, following the sources. A significant number [though a minority] of general-audience publications capitalize breed names even where they do not contain a proper name; the style is not jarring to readers, so it is not a specialized-style fallacy. There's a comprehension issue: If I write "American shorthair cat" or "Lithuanian white pig", I could be talking about the breeds or about any cat in the US with short hair and any white pig from Lithuania. "American Shorthair cat" and "Lithuanian White pig" make it clear I mean the breeds. Breeds/cultivars are a human creation, not naturally evolved ones, and thus are like works of art or models of automobile, and thus should be treated as proper names. Standardized breeds are, in effect, publications (the standards themselves, issued by a breed registry or the like); at very least they're a special designation or title that is earned through proven pedigree and conformation. An argument can thus be made that they're proper names. Standardized breeds are, by their nature, also directly comparable to awards of recognition to successful breeding programs. [This argument does not apply to landraces, historical breeds before the advent of breed standards, and other informal "breeds".] Two points in favor of this argument for standardized breeds are: In some breed registries, an individual animal with a pedigree entirely within a breed may fail to qualify as member of the breed due to failing to fit the conformation specification in the standard. In some registries, individual animals with no pedigree may be accepted as members of certain breeds based on nothing but visual conformation and geographical origin (e.g. a Manx cat either has a pedigree as one, or came from the Isle of Man and upon examination conforms to the standard). Many breed names that do not include proper names are German, and in that language are always capitalized as as nouns or noun phrases; purists may thus object to lower-casing them in English, even for names assimilated into English. Cultivars and trade designations (plant breeds) are uniformly capitalized in virtually all sources. Animal breeds should arguably receive the same consideration just for consistency, despite no uniform system of orthography for them in scientific literature. I.e., do not assume that our editors are nomenclature experts; just give them a simple rule to follow. It is better to treat breeds and cultivars exactly the same way, despite any rationale differences for capitalizing one but not the other, because only experts are liable to know or even understand those differences, and the result would be confusingly inconsistent. Lower-casing animal breeds would inspire an attempt to lower-case cultivars, which would lead to an even worse dispute than that which surrounded lower-casing of species names. Lower-case just looks wrong, beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia is brought into disrepute when it writes in ways that defy the best practices established in a field, to dumb-down content for non-specialist readers. We regularly follow norms established in particular fields, where these do not present a "principle of least astonishment" problem for a general audience. For example, we use italics and a capitalized genus name in binomial nomenclature: Notophthalmus viridescens. Much of MOS:NUM is derived from SI, ISO, BIPM, and other standards, despite not matching how everyone writes. If the ICZN finally covered breeds, it would almost certainly do so in capitalized form to match standard usage in breed sources and to mirror treatment of cultivars in the ICNCP. If we lower-cased breeds on Wikipedia, we could be setting ourselves up for a massive re-capitalization later.

Arguments against capitalization of standard breeds:

WP:CONTENTAGE is an "argument to avoid" (and see also WP:FAITACCOMPLI). WP has plenty of times undone a site-wide decision because it was a bad idea (date auto-formatting and auto-linking, spoiler templates in plot summaries, species capitalization, etc.). English-language dictionaries do not capitalize breed names except where they contain a proper name. Other non-specialist sources (newspapers, non-fiction books) generally do not capitalize. [This majority is not as large as it is for non-specialist sources that do not capitalize species common names, however.] Specialized sources are more reliable for facts about a topic but not for how to best write general-audience English about the topic. Breeds that are trademarks or placenames can be capitalized without extending that proper name privilege to all other breed names. This is exactly the same as with any other topic, and treating breeds differently is a specialized-style fallacy. What's going on here is a confusion between Proper name (linguistics) (a.k.a. proper-noun phrases, which are capitalized), and the Proper name (philosophy) concept (which has no relationship to capitalization). Breeds are not proper names in the linguistic sense, any more than "mountain lion", "chief operating officers in the banking industry", and "indigenous peoples of the Americas" are – despite referring to clearly identifiable, unique groups. They're common-noun classifications and labels. (This would not lead to cultivars being lower-cased in scientific names, where a 'Cultivar Name'-formatted name is a symbol in a formally standardized construction, like the orthography of measurement units or chemical symbols in other technical material.) Using capitalization to "signify" a noun phrase as a label for something specific rather than a descriptive phrase, is a form of emphasis against MOS:EMPHCAPS. The idea that it's useful in the encyclopedia is commonly offered for capitalizing specialized terms, and almost always rejected – including in the similar consensus debate about species names. (What is being signified may be unclear to non-specialists, and the style is disused in general-audience publications.) Why would this be different for breeds? Exceptions, like Category:Chess openings, are made here for things that are usually also capitalized in non-specialized works, but breeds are not. There's no evidence readers are confused when breed names are lower-case (aside from capitalized proper names); the opposite is more likely. Otherwise, newspapers and the like would not use lower-case. We rewrite to avoid ambiguous constructions, just as we do with species vernacular names. It is the "job" of WP editors to properly research what they are writing about, including the origin and meaning of its name. There is no comprehension issue, unless one simply is a terrible writer. For any case in which "Lithuanian white pig" could be ambiguous, just write "the Lithuanian white pig breed" or the like. And "American shorthair" cannot be anything but a breed, since "shorthair" isn't a real word but only used in a breed names (and only cat ones); a random cat with short hair is short-haired or shorthaired). "Lithuanian White" would not make it clear to readers one meant the breed, since using capitals this way is not a convention in everyday English; the average reader will not understand the special breeder-jargon "signification capitals". All human labels, including for genetic and phenotypic abstractions, are artificial, so the "human not natural" argument for capitals is baseless. There is thus no difference for WP style purposes between a species and a breed. Since we do not capitalize the English-language common names of species (or subspecies), we should not do so for breeds (whether we do or not for cultivars, due to an international standard; see below). An analogy of standardized breeds to human awards is dubious, since many other such analogies can be made that do not argue for capitalization, e.g. that acceptance into a standardized breed is comparable to citizenship (it's not "I am a Citizen of Botswana" or "She is a Tongan National"), to occupation (wrong: "I am a Dental Hygienist", despite this requiring the award of a certification), to diagnosis ("He is on the Autism Spectrum" is wrong), etc. And no one is arguing against capitalization of the titles of breed standards documents in citations, which would be done per MOS:TITLES. Our articles are about the animals, not the paperwork. Also, the fact that breeds are usually treated as something automatically a matter of pedigree tells us that the exceptions are simply unusual deviations for rare contexts, not that they are meaningful to our general question. Taxonomic ranks below subspecies are not formal in zoology (they aren't taxa under the ICZN), but certainly informally include breeds; we know this because a) zoological literature about domesticated animals often refers to breeds as such and by name; b) all breeds are within (or a hybrid between) species or subspecies which have been taxonomically and genetically identified; and c) in botany (particularly horticulture), the lower taxa are formally catalogued, including forms, varieties, and cultivars, the last of which is synonymous with domestic plant breeds (some botanical literature does in fact refer to cultivars as breeds, and cultivar itself is a comparatively recent neologism). Thus, any rule WP adopts (like do not capitalize) that applies to taxa below genus applies to breeds, except the specific consensus to honor the ICNCP's standard to capitalize plant cultivars (and put them in single quotes) in a scientific name (example, for an apple cultivar: Malus pumila 'Red Delicious'); that exception does not cover animal breeds. A near-universal convention for capitalization of horticultural cultivars in formal horticultural nomenclature does not generalize to a convention to always capitalize them outside that context, thus also could not logically lead us to capitalize all similar things, including domestic animal breeds. Capitalization just looks wrong, beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia is brought into disrepute when it writes in ways that violate the "principle of least astonishment" by doing things stylistically that look like errors to non-specialist readers. This is the very reason that capitalizing common names of species led to a decade of dispute: many readers and editors interpreted it as a typo, as against English-language norms. We follow ICZN, ICN, ICNCP and other standards like SI, ISO, and BIPM specifically because they are widely accepted, international, formal standards. That just doesn't apply to breed naming. The ICZN has had a very long time (since 1889) to include breeds and still does not. There is no reason to think this will change. Capitalization of all breed names leads to incorrect capitalization of foreign-language words and phrases in the names of breeds, in languages that do not capitalize this way; see, e.g., a large number of entries at List of chicken breeds. MOS (at MOS:TITLES, etc.) is clear that we should not impose English capitalization rules on names in other languages. [For noun-capitalizing German, a stronger anti-caps argument is that MOS:CAPS says not to capitalize unless necessary, and since English sources are not consistent about capitalizing German-derived breed names assimilated into English, WP should not do it. I.e., English reliable sources trump defaulting to German style; see also WP:NCCAPS#Capitalization of expressions borrowed from other languages, with a similar but reverse example about Art Nouveau, assimilated as capitalized, versus the original French art nouveau.]

What this RfC would not affect

This RfC would not change in any way the treatment of: names of domestic animal populations that are not standardized breeds; vernacular names of species; names of plant cultivars ("breeds"); or foreign terms not used as breed names in English.

Details:

"Standardized breeds" does not include: Subjects that fall under any extended definitions of the term "breed"; they are already covered by MOS:LIFE as to be given in lower-case, as common-noun phrases not proper nouns. This includes: landraces; feral populations; breed groups; dog and horse "types"; ancient varieties mentioned in manuscript sources, such as the Roman war dogs; and other informal classifications. Scientific or vernacular names of species or subspecies, which are governed by the formal ICZN standard (and given in the form "domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris"). This RfC is about English-language (or assimilated) names for standardized breeds of domesticated animals, only. Capitalization of a species common name used as a natural disambiguator; i.e. "Siamese Cat" and "Capuchine Chicken" are not contemplated, except in the very rare case that the breed standard includes such a word because the name by itself is too ambiguous without it, as in American Quarter Horse, Bernese Mountain Dog, Norwegian Forest Cat; in over 99% of cases, "horse", "dog", "cat", etc. would remain lower case under all approaches, and only included in titles as natural disambiguation when necessary. The names of plant cultivars or trade designations (roughly the plant equivalents of breeds), which are capitalized following the formal ICNCP standard. There is not any comparable standard for domesticated animals, which is why this issue has arisen in the first place. MOS:FOREIGN and WP:USEENGLISH will continue to apply: A non-English term for a standardized breed will follow the capitalization rules of the native language. However, this caps vs. lower-case RfC would apply to a non-English loanword name that has become de facto name of the breed in English or an official one used by a particular registry's breed standard. I.e.: if capitalization is favored, then the Donek pigeon would be capitalized despite being lower-case in Turkish; if lower-case is the result, then dachshund would be lower-case here despite being capitalized in German.

Some previous discussions of breed capitalization, and external sources on the question, are listed at WP:BREEDCAPS.

RfC materials prepared by ~~~ (feel free to neutrally edit them without substantively changing the question, e.g. to insert additional rationales into the blocks for those) ~~~~~

Comments on the breeds RfC

{{Not a vote}}

This RfC is not running yet; do not comment here. See #Discussion of the draft breeds RfC below, instead.

Extended discussions of the breeds RfC

This RfC is not running yet; do not comment here. See #Discussion of the draft breeds RfC below, instead.

I'm trying to present this as neutrally as possible, while not obfuscating anything about current de facto WP usage (at least in article titles, and in text at actual breed articles), nor treatment in sources; and with sufficient background material that initial knee-jerk assumptions in either direction can be at least somewhat dissuaded. If there's too much background material, we can axe some of it.

The drama potential is that at least three editors quit Wikipedia over the outcome of the WP:BIRDCAPS RfC (more or less; one had actually quit a year earlier, came back for it, and quit again). I get the impression that editors in general don't care about capitalization of breeds, but a few MoS regulars oppose it, while those in favor of it often feel very strongly about it. I thus do not want to bias this proceeding against the latter (which happens almost automatically, given what the rest of MOS:LIFE says), but at the time time, "I'm gonna quit if I don't get what I want" has long been viewed as an unacceptable debate technique. This needs to be as calm and reasoned a discussion as possible. Toward that end, I've listed the pro-caps material first and made it clear that it's already the de facto standard, for balance.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I've long been of the opinion that we make far too little use of capitalisation in article titles. This practice goes back to the very first version of WP:AT remaining in the database: I (Larry Sanger) am strongly in favor of leaving as many things uncapitalized as is appropriate. [11] As far as I can see this has never been seriously questioned as a principle, and the words as appropriate have been overlooked. But I (Andrew Alder) am strongly in favour of capitalisation whenever this will help readers to identify the article they want, or to understand the meaning of a term in running text. Not all English speakers are native speakers. So it is confusing that the article on bald eagle is not about all bald eagles, or only about bald eagles. It's about the Bald Eagle, and most of them are not bald. And this capitalisation is perfectly correct grammatically, despite what you may remember your primary school teacher saying about proper nouns. It marks Bald Eagle as being a name for something specific, rather than a descriptive phrase, and in the context this is a very helpful distinction. Andrewa (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This comment makes clear why this RfC will be problematic, however carefully SMcCandlish phrases it – and he's done an excellent job. There is a clear connection between capitalizing breed names and capitalizing the English names of species, for example, and many of the arguments on either side are the same for both cases. The core reason for capitalizing in modern English orthography for those that support it, is precisely that it marks [a noun phrase] as being a name for something specific, rather than a descriptive phrase, and in .. context this is a very helpful distinction. I note that this argument has not been included in the list of arguments for capitalizing, yet it's precisely the one I consider most powerful; I guess one reason not to include it is that it was not accepted in the debate about capitalizing the English names of taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. But consensus can change. So let us consider the arguments on their merits. Andrewa (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If so, then this argument should be added to the list. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I added both pro and con arguments about this to the list. The idea that it's "never been seriously questioned as a principle" indicates unawareness of how frequently it has been debated; in one wording or another, it's a feature of nearly all debates about "specialist caps", and is very common both at the MoS and NC talk pages and in RM discussions. We really do go over it very frequently. The argument in favor of it almost never wins out; it only does when non-specialist sources largely also follow the upper-casing style for the topic in question. Definitely worth cataloguing among the arguments though; I had hints of in there before, and have merged them into more cohesive arguments.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree that We really do go over it very frequently. I've been part of many of those discussions, and have long been watching others and deliberately abstaining in order to gather evidence of consensus in which I was uninvolved. But Larry Sanger's opinion on the overall principle has not been challenged in any of these (except occasionally by myself), rather it has been argued that some particular area (such as breeds) should be an exception. And that's a very different thing. Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, but it's not very relevant. No one remembers who first proposed what or why, with regard to virtually anything on WP; our WP:P&G are not a precedent- and fiat-based system of laws, but a diffuse system of organically evolving rules (if we even want to call them that). [There are some rare exceptions, e.g. where Jimbo is quoted in footnotes at WP:BLP.] That is, MOS:CAPS doesn't say what it does because of Larry Sanger's opinion, but because it's what the editorship at large wants. Given that we have ~30,000 active editors per month, but "gimme capitalization or else" antics arise from maybe a dozen editors (usually the same ones over and over again) in that same span, there's no evidence at all that the community would delete the central principle of MOS:CAPS, much less on the basis that WP's co-founder who later quit just made it up and that it's wrong. He didn't, and it's not; he got it from mainstream style guides. The WP community independently re-implemented it at MOS, later split into MOS:CAPS, from the same sourcing and expectations background – after what is now WP:AT stopped saying anything about style (other than cross-references to the later MoS materials), because style doesn't rise to a policy level.

What this particular meta-case is likely to come down to is a combination of: a) Do enough non-specialized sources also capitalize breed names? We know they don't among dictionaries, but they might well among newspapers, books, journals, etc. And nearly all the specialized ones do it. b) Will lower-casing – under the MOS:STYLEVAR principle – cause more trouble than it's worth? This is a good question, especially given that no firm WP:CONSISTENCY argument can be made (it's a conflict between two warring approaches to consistency – otherwise I'm sure you know which side of this fence I would jump to), and we're already capitalizing these names anyway. (Whether that constitutes a de facto consensus or WP:FAITACCOMPLI is an open question, exactly as it was in WP:BIRDCON.)
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's only relevant if there is some hope of overturning it! But the more evidence I gather, the more it seems that the reader would benefit from doing exactly that. The authorities in specific subject areas who do adopt capitalisation do so for good reasons, and for that reason the issue will never go away. But it can be fixed, perhaps.

The arguments against changing our MOS to use capitalisation as I'm suggesting have been often and strongly repeated, but they boil down to just two.

Firstly, we have what is sometimes called folk linguistics. It's often expressed as "it looks wrong", and seems to be based on what generations of primary school teachers have taught their students, some of whom went on to teach the next generation. I'm afraid their notions of "proper nouns" and similar technical terms, and of "correct English grammar", are not all that helpful.

And secondly, we have appeals to our current and long-standing policies, guidelines and practices. It's in addressing these that I think that understanding how we got where we are could be helpful. Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You're free to start another RfC, on undoing MOS:CAPS, I suppose. The "it looks wrong" arguments come from both sides. I already integrated that, along with the actual non-WP:JDLI rationales usually offered in support of such a sentiment, to both the con and pro sections, as applicable to this particular question. Signification-capping is adopted for reasons that are good in specialist-to-specialist communication, but which are rationales that rapidly break down in encyclopedia-to-general-audience communication. This is where the debate goes every single time. The "breed-caps" case is so borderline because the capitalization is maybe just common enough outside of specialist sources that this failure point is not triggered. I'll address the rest of this below, since a "MOSCAPS is all a big mistake" viewpoint is off-topic for this RfC draft. (This is about whether something is an exception to a rule, not whether the rule system should exist.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your permission to start another RfC (;-> but I think it's better to see how this one goes. But I also think it's good to put this one in context. It is making a case for an exception to a long-standing convention. If that's upheld, than that is a reason for reviewing the convention itself. Conversely, if the convention is a good and important one, then that's a reason for rejecting the RfC.

Signification-capping is adopted for reasons that are good in specialist-to-specialist communication, but which are rationales that rapidly break down in encyclopedia-to-general-audience communication... I'm not sure I understand the point exactly. Signification-capping is a completely different issue IMO, but these reasons that are good in specialist-to-specialist communication sound relevant... what exactly are they? And why do they break down in encyclopedia-to-general-audience communication... that's very relevant if true, but it would mean that we should give less emphasis to more scholarly sources, and we tend to do the opposite. Andrewa (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: "resolution of another disputes" - did this mean to say "another dispute", or "other disputes", i.e. how many disputes were there? Chris857 (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

So many, so many. :-) Typo fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish: going back to the original purpose of the discussion at this stage, namely to consider how to present the RfC, my problem is to see what exactly remains if all arguments that support capitalizing other kinds of noun phrase are removed. What's left is, as you note above and below, the argument that although capitalizing breed names is a "specialist style", it's a more common specialist style than, say, capitalizing the English names of taxa, and so is acceptable in a MoS otherwise committed to de-capitalizing. It's difficult to count capitalization vs. non-capitalization in sources, because of the way that search engines ignore capitalization, and because it's impossible to restrict the search to sources of the right kind. I can certainly easily find sources that de-capitalize both the English names of species and breed names (e.g. National Geographic). I think you will be asked for more evidence of sources other than those specializing in breeds that capitalize and de-capitalize. Do you have any lists? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Peter coxhead: WP:BREEDCAPS supplies some, but it's very scattershot and much of it's ca. 2015. It doesn't trawl Google Scholar, and do other stuff yet, including a wider range of N-gram results (sculpted to weed out a lot of false positives for title-case headings and such). With news and books hits, you literally have to just manually count (e.g. see which of the hits in the first 5 or 10 or whatever pages of search results capitalize in mid-sentence). I could probably do that (using a variety of common breed names that aren't all-proper-name like "Alsatian" or "Siamese"), but I'm not sure that personally researching it from every angle is necessary; it wouldn't give RfC commenters much to do but "vote", and my own approach to trying to figure out the trends outside of specialized sources might be faulty, or at least challenged as faulty despite being sound. I did recently add dictionary results to BREEDCAPS, and they were uniformly lower-case. So, some more indications of upper-case usage might be good for balance. It's not my goal to present an anti-caps case while posing as neutral. I really don't care either way on this, other than that the open question about it be closed, with a minimum of drama.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Above, Andrewa makes a case that, site-wide, our capitalization guidelines are based uncritically on something Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger wrote in 2001 in the early discussions that eventually lead to WP:AT (and later to WP:MOS). Andrewa writes: 'we have what is sometimes called folk linguistics. It's often expressed as "it looks wrong"', and (among other material): 'we have appeals to our current and long-standing policies, guidelines and practices. It's in addressing these that I think that understanding how we got where we are could be helpful.'. I'm not sure this is how Andrewa would best summarize his view, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

What Andrewa wants to address is much, much larger than this particular RfC question, and I think that dwelling on this distracts from the purpose of this VPIL thread, which is constructing a neutral and balanced RfC to close off a lingering debate that is holding up real work and also permitting various tooth-grinding (between "MoS people" and "breeds people") to continue to build up. So, I'm addressing it in a subtopic.

"[U]nderstanding how we got where we are could be helpful" is true, for that larger debate, provided the "understanding" is actually there. A "Larry Sanger did it" theory is not understanding but a major misunderstanding. It's what you could call folk history, specifically a highly localized version of the big man hypothesis (our own article on it is poor, giving the origins of it without any discussion of the fact that modern anthropology treats it as completely faulty, much like the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is treated in linguistics today). It's basically a Sanger variant of WP:Argumentum ad jimbonem, when we all know that even Jimbo's viewpoint no longer has much of an effect on how WP operates or why (and Sanger's hasn't in over a decade).

There's an accidental correlation between Sanger's initial views on article titles and what MoS says about capitalization in general today (including article titles incidentally), but it's not causative. The causal chain is that The Chicago Manual of Style, New Hart's Rules / Oxford Style Manual, Garner's Modern English Usage, Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Scientific Style and Format, and The Elements of Style (i.e., the most influential style guides on our own) are all against use of unnecessary capital letters, and have become more so with each succeeding edition. This is why early commenters on title policy were against over-capitalization, and – severably – why MoS is today. It's also why re-re-re-hash of the matter (almost always on a topical basis, i.e. "do as specialists in my field do") continue to concludes in favor of lower-case with almost total uniformity.

My usual inclination is to declare something like capitalizations of breeds to be just another specialized-style fallacy and to oppose it, but I've come to see it as an edge case, much like capitalization of chess openings (something which I also used to vehemently oppose). There's just enough capitalization of these things in non-specialized sources to argue either way. And it cannot be put down to something like "most newspapers follow the AP Stylebook" (which is the direct cause of attempts to over-capitalize things like "with" and "from" in titles of movies and songs), since that work doesn't address chess at all and says to use lower-case for breed names (i.e., many news publishers are uncharacteristically defying AP to capitalize breeds). This case is genuinely unusual.

Anyway, Andrewa's central theme isn't really on-topic for this RfC drafting process, and is a major policy-change proposal: That the use of signification capitals in specialist works is something Wikipedia should adopt on a topic-by-topic basis as helpful for readers, and that our not doing it is some kind of terrible mistake on Sanger's part that should be overturned. The last part is historically counter-factual, but the argument might still be made without name-dropping Sanger. (I would oppose at such an RfC, because the results to would be to capitalize virtually everything that is the subject of any speciality, because you will find works in that speciality capitalizing such terms, ergo people from those fields would persist in arguing for capitalization until they got what they wanted, if we permitted that style on such a "follow the specialist sources, only, on style" idea.)
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot there! Thanks for taking so much time on it.

Just one clarification for a start... I'm not saying that Sanger made a terrible mistake, on two counts. Firstly, from what little evidence we have, he didn't see it as a big issue (despite him saying strongly, as the rest of the quote dilutes that significantly). Secondly, I'm not accusing anyone of any mistake at all.

What I am suggesting is that this particular long-standing convention is, on the evidence we now have, ripe for review. Over the years it has become a big issue, and the justification for keeping this particular convention is not obvious. But the arguments for keeping it deserve an answer, and part of that answer is in the history of this convention. Andrewa (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a proposal for placing timelines into Wikipedia to allow users the ability to better understand history over time.

CONSERNING:

Wikitimelines.net

INTRODUCTION

This is a website that allows any user to place any number of Wikipedia articles on an attractive timeline for contemporaneous analysis.

DATES IN WIKIPEDIA

By our last count as of February 2018, there are somewhere in the range of 38 million dates in the English Wikipedia. What makes a task like this even possible is that our friends at Wikipedia enforce (to a great extent) standard date nomenclature as laid out in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Dates,_months_and_years

There are actually 9304 different ways to write a standard date or date range in Wikipedia, conforming to the manual of style. There are also hundreds of non-standard dates. An example of this would be when a persons birth year is speculated but his date of passing is known. That might look like this:

“c. 1567 - December 3, 1615”

Regardless of the complexity of this task, we believe we have gotten a +95% success rate on finding dates in the text of Wikipedia articles. This excludes lists and info boxes because we want the dates that are put on timelines to tell a story and the dates in the paragraphs in Wikipedia afford us just this.

Here is a discussion of our findings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dates_in_Wikipedia

We believe there are nearly 10,000 different ways of writing a date or a date range in Wikipedia. Our table used to disambiguate standard dates and date range formats can be found here:

http://wikitimelines.net/bin/dateformats.csv

Although we are happy with the results of our extraction algorithms, we continue to improve our methods.

IMPLEMENTATION IN WIKIPEDIA

If we don’t run into any cross domain or other security issues, we could see presenting a test timeline, in a Wikipedia article, created directly from any article, in a couple of hours. We obviously understand Wikipedia from a technical standpoint.

In order to implement a timeline on a Wikipedia article, one would have to include a <div> tag, as in:

<div id="TheTimelinePlace"></div>

Presumably this would be in a collapsible toggle widget area in the article.

Upon the expansion of the collapsible widget the following call to a server would look something like this:

Onclick=”getexternal('server=wikipediaserver1.com/tl.exe&todo=gettimeline&timelineid=AG3AQ0C6B');”

And of course it wont be this simple, but, quite frankly, it should not be that much more complicated.

USER INTERFACE

On our website any user can, with just a mouse (little or no typing necessary):

1) Create/delete a timeline

2) Add/delete any article on any timeline

3) Add/delete any date from any article on any timeline

A short video showing an example of this simple procedure can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saOUpOYh5TU&feature=youtu.be

THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION

The current website does not include all the features we have developed for it. We are introducing many new ideas, concepts and nomenclature. We don’t want to negatively confuse initial users with too much “feature bloat”. As we get eventual feedback we will introduce timeline and annotated article sharing and many other “bells and whistles”. We are just currently interested in getting reactions to this potential new feature, from Wikipedians, like you.

Of course this is a very complex topic and we could probably produce a 100 page proposal. Hopefully 3 pages will need to suffice on this forum, at this time.

Therefore we are available to answer any questions, here or via email, at any time.

Sincerely

Jeff Roehl

Lead developer

Wikitimelines.net

[e-mail address redacted]

Jroehl (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A Wikidata query can produce the same information. Reference Timeline of early aviators who died in an accident. Perhaps the data you have collected would make valuable additions to Wikidata, if you are willing to license an upload of that data CC0. I am sure they would welcome it. (See d:WD:PC to discuss there with that community.) --Izno (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, well that is interesting, Izno. This is very much like what http://histropedia.com/ is doing. Our system lets the user pick through the actual articles and select their dates and timeline labels for clarity. But the Wikidata timeline system is very impressive. Thanks for showing us this. Jroehl (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It also violates our software security policy and our HTML no-reflow after pageload policies. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

As for security, our website is for demonstration purposes, TheDJ. We are not purposing running on our server. We would be more than happy to run this on a Wikipedia authenticated system. Please point us to "HTML no-reflow after pageload policies". We do not know what this means and cannot find a source explaining this. Jroehl (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It means that all elements on the page should be fixed in position and size and not make the page jump around due to changing sizes etc because of the async loaded javascript changes. For software to be added to the platform, they need to be integrated from a MediaWiki extension. See also MediaWiki:Developer hub. Once there is an extension, then the communities have to want it and site administrators need to review and deploy it. (ill warn you in advance, the road is long, hard, winding, confusing and many more adjectives). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

See also our account policies. Your "we" suggests your account is being used by multiple people.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, the "we" in my message includes Andrei from Budapest, Romainia and Anjali from Thiruvananthapuram, India. This is being posted under my personal login that is probably close to 10 years old. We are trying to make a contribution to Wikipedia. What ever happened to the Wikipedia policy of being welcoming and showing good will? We are attempting to show good will. Jroehl (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no "will" involved. I made a neutral statement of fact about our policy, nothing more. Your posts seemed to indicate multiple people using the account (and your reply doesn't actually dispel that notion).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, I am unaware that anybody else has access to my many years old personal Wikipedia account. Unless you know something that I am not aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jroehl (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Fine. If you've been here that long, then you understand our policies and thus understand why "we" language is apt to raise such a concern. WP accounts do not represent group voices, only individual ones. Perhaps ask Anjali to participate in this discussion independently.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, I will no longer use the pronoun "we" in communication on Wikipedia forums. Even though it is the correct rhetorical and respectful thing to do. Jroehl (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you say.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-developer here and I might be digressing from the original idea a bit but an interactive timeline (mediawiki extension or template) for use within articles could be very useful. Currently many articles rely solely on text to describe sequence of events linearly but visual nesting is something that describes concurrent events better in my opinion. Here is an example of such timeline from an external site. Ohsin 21:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, yes, our version of timelines would look fantastic in any complex historical article in a "collapsible toggle widget". Then you could overlay timeline data from any other Wikipedia article. It is like a time based "theater of the mind" that adds to the understanding of history that is really unparalleled. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like anybody other than you are interested in addressing this most useful innovation. Our kids need to better understand history like this. It is a "no brainer" education tool. I had to turn our server off, because I cant afford to run it if nobody bothers to visit the website. If you would like me to turn the server back on, drop me a message here or drop me an email at jroehl2 (at) yahoo.com (please do not redact my email, just because you have power to do something and make somebodies life more difficult does not mean you should). Jroehl (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It does sound interesting, as long as it's not collapsed by default (accessibility problem). PS: It's standard operating procedure to redact e-mail addresses. If you want people to e-mail you, turn the feature on in Preferences, and we can do it from your userpage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Just found out about few implementations. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EasyTimeline Ohsin 21:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

So per an ongoing AfD a small discussion has commenced over, when both a Sockmaster (SM) and a Sock have !voted on an AfD, the SM's !vote should be scrapped at the same time as the Socks. WP:SOCKSTRIKE advises doing so, but obviously it isn't a formal guideline.

If I have missed an actual specific guideline on it, please link me and I'll conclude the section.

There seemed various things to consider before even trying to put together a proper RfC on it. A few thoughts come to mind:

1. Normally, when editors cast a !vote and are later blocked, the !vote stands.
2. In the case of !votes, Socking are distinct attempts to subvert the consensus process (as opposed to other block causes), should those endeavouring to do so have their involvement removed as being inherently inimical to the process
3. Presumably there would only be any purpose in retaining the SM !vote if it actually contributed to debate (as opposed to just being disruptive etc). Should a beneficial edit be removed (as there are other circumstances where they would be)
4. Logically any guideline on the issue could apply to any situation where a !vote discussion was occurring

I was wondering what some early views are, as well as important things to consider that I've missed out. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the standard approach would be to just strike the sock if the sockmaster was not at that time subject to a block or ban. That said, I would support something along the lines of what you're proposing. Socking in an AfD (or any !vote) is so clearly bad faith that the time of the block coming afterwards really shouldn't matter much. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that this proposal tries to address a behavioral problem (socking) with a nondiscretionary content/editorial solution (striking the AfD comment the SM was entitled to make without socking). If the sockmaster was an SPA anyway (98% of the time, they are), the closing admin will take that into account. If the SM's comment was not rooted in policy (it almost never is, in the promo type socking we usually see), the closing admin will take that into account. But if the sockmaster both (a) was an established user who (b) made a policy-based, useful !vote, then why should we strike the comment? I don't think we need to amend policy – we already have useful tools to deal with the vast majority of the time this comes up, and for the tiny sliver of useful, policy-based arguments from established users who were blocked for socking after !voting in the AfD, we should keep the comment that they would be entitled to make anyway had they not socked. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there's another point that needs to be teased out here. If a sockmaster and their sock both !vote at an AfD, it doesn't matter if the SM was "entitled" to !vote or not if their intention was to unduly influence an AfD to push whatever agenda they're trying to push or make whatever point they're trying to make. By flouting the rules in this way they're sticking two fingers up at the community in general and consensus in particular. Do we really want to include the SM's opinion into consensus based on that? I know I don't. Leaving it up to the closing admin isn't a bad idea but it essentially *rewards* the SM by including their opinion into the very consensus that their behaviour was rejecting in the first place. It is a better idea to strike the !votes. If the point raised at AfD was a good one, some other editor will probably have already made that point by the time the AfD closes. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Just clarifying: we're talking about a user who has one account, comments in an AfD, then creates more accounts to also comment in the same AfD? The response would be to block the first account probably temporarily (admin discretion) and the socks indefinitely, then strike only the new accounts' !votes. All users are entitled to participate in deletion discussions (excepting those who are blocked or topic banned from doing so) but it is against the multiple accounts policy to participate in any discussion with more than one account. Then, what Kevin said: the closing admin will consider the arguments of the original account, which if the user is socking are almost always crap. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Also: do not strike any comment of a user who is not confirmed to be a sockpuppet (WP:TPO), but if you suspect sockpuppetry or canvassing you can flag comments with {{spa}} or {{canvassed}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I wonder about not striking both !votes in the case of a good-hand, bad-hand sockmaster, since those are usually opposing !votes, and so we can't be sure what the sockmaster's opinion actually is. --Izno (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• The standard approach is to trust the admins to understand how to assess consensus; since admins aren't counting votes anyways, they will ignore comments made in bad faith anyways and we don't need to set any rules, guidelines, or instructions on how to strike the "votes" of bad actors. If they are bad actors, admins will ignore their comments in the discussions regardless of what you do to them. If you ignore something and it has the same effect as doing something, save your time and energy and go do something else. Don't worry about whose votes you have to strike and whose you don't. The admins would have closed any such discussion the same way even if you had done nothing, and for that reason, whatever you do is a waste of time you could have spent being useful elsewhere. --Jayron32 00:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think that anyone who has spent a lot of time at XfD knows that this is the ideal, but doesn't always happen in practice (and is extremely difficult to rectify when it does happen given the amount of latitude granted and interpretation involved). That said, I'm not looking to turn this into a "how good of a job are XfD closers doing". The answer, in general, is pretty good. Regardless, I don't know why it's preferable to put all of the responsibility in the judgment of one person rather than to standardize in such important matters.

Here's what I want to focus on, though: We should be discouraging socking as strongly as possible. If people see that they can sock all they want and their main account's comments will remain unaffected, the downside is limited -- especially for relatively new users or serial sockers who might get a main to stick once in a while. I'm not saying their comments should be struck everywhere, but in threads where they used multiple accounts to get their way, then yes, both accounts were violating policy in making those edits, not just the second one. Wikipedia works because there are more editors who want it to succeed than those who want to push an agenda or otherwise violate policy to get their way, and flagrant socking is among the worst things you can do in that setup. So yes, I think it should be clear that if you sock to win an argument, your comments/votes will be struck -- not just the second, because, after all, you're only one person so both comments were in violation regardless of which account was created first. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

So you say. Can you bring up an existing AFD which was never resolved correctly because the admin didn't take into account bad-faith editors? That is, not just that the admin missed something, but that all subsequent appeals and processes knew about the bad-faith editing and still did nothing. I am seeking for the existing problem this proposed practice is going to correct for. I've never seen it, but perhaps you have, which is why it should be trivial for you to bring up some evidence that it is needed. If you can present convincing evidence this proposal is needed, I'm willing to see it as useful. But absent that evidence, we're just inventing windmills to tilt at here. --Jayron32 14:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)