Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

It seems that this was already proposed at the VP by Juliancolton back in 2008, but I would like to bring up this idea again, but in a new way. The previous proposal would allow anyone (or maybe just admins) to edit the last edit summary that would have been made. In this idea, what if only you could edit your own edit summary if it was the last edit that was made? I think there is also more of a need for something like this than in 2008 because when using tools like Twinkle and RedWarn its not uncommon to misclick and then put in an edit summary that does not adequately describe why the revert was made. Is there a need for this? Is this possible?

Previous discussion link:[1]

Best, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@P,TO 19104: so this is a bit of a turtles all the way down situation. We really expect transparency and accountability for actions, and to maintain that we would need to keep a revision history for the edit summaries as well (so we could tell what they used to say) - and then when someone makes that edit, would we want to give them an option to describe why they are making it (a summary edit summary) - and then should that also be editable? This goes all the way back to phab:T12105 from 2007 - and is not something the English Wikipedia could just implement - it would require a software feature request to develop this in to the software first. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Thank you for responding. Is there a way that we could record old edit summaries that were overwritten? Could we store the old edit summaries in some page or in a user's subpage? Could we store them somewhere off-wiki to insure they don't take up too much space? I think compared to 2007 and 2008, there is more of a need for something like this because when using anti-vandalism tools really fastly it is possible to input a misleading edit summary. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. This would be something that would require a general Media-Wiki change. Noted. I guess I give up then on this request. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I often make typos and other errors in edit summaries, usually noticing a split second after saving the edit. When they are minor (i.e. they don't affect the meaning of what I am trying to say) I just let them go and, if anyone actually notices, don't care if they think I'm an idiot. Occasionally they are significant errors, in which case I make a dummy edit to the page, such as adding a blank line, and note the fact that my previous edit summary was in error. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, on the point of automated tools, you shouldn't be going so fast that you make mistakes regularly. If you are making lots of mistakes in edit summaries then you are probably making lots of more important mistakes, so slow down. You are not personally and solely responsible for defending Wikipedia against vandalism, spam, etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On fiwiki there is a tag for "error in edit summary" that you can add to your own edits if you made a mistake in the summary. When adding a tag you can add a reason for tagging the edit which is shown on the tag management page. We could probably try a system like that here too. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 19:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We had originally specifically denied our editors the ability to change tags after the fact (c.f. phab:T97013) - but could enable this if we have support for it. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fiwiki tag is (or should be in my opinion) quite rarely used, and it's not really for the purpose of tagging your own mistakes (I generally try to hide my mistakes, not highlight them, but maybe that's just me). The purpose is for example to tag misleading edit summaries that can otherwise cause confusion. For example, when you start a voting page, there are certain steps that you should follow and you should also use informative edit summaries, so that the page history can be followed easily. If someone didn't follow the instructions and left a bad edit summary, usually another editor will use the tag to mark the shameful deed. It takes some effort to read the reason for the tag, so if there are a lot of tagged edit summaries, it will just cause editors to waste their time trying to find out why there are tags on them. -kyykaarme (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be against the general change, but the "error in edit summary tag" is at least a possibility. I still think it's not too big an actual issue to need resolving, but i wouldn't object if something like the above was wanted. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nosebagbear. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb and Majavah: This may be pretty late, but could we go head with this proposal? I didn't see your replies. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P,TO 19104: this is the "idea lab" - so there are no time limits :D But also, we don't implement from here. Once your idea is fairly solid (You can articulate what it is you want to change, and why you want to change it) - you can list it at WP:VPR where the community can weigh in on it. If there is consensus, we can move forward - if not, status quo remains. So, based on what we've discussed so far: "Editing an edit summary" is pretty much a non-starter (even if the community wanted it). Allowing people to add (and therefor also remove or change) tags on edits is possible (by giving the a group access to (changetags)). Note, "software defined tags" (such as "mw-rollback") can't be removed (not even by admins) - but a new manual tag could be added (an edit may have multiple tags). — xaosflux ^Talk 19:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Moving forward with the "manual tags" idea. Thanks! P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility to address the original request while maintaining the reasons for why we decided to not allow edit summaries to be edited would be to allow an editor to edit her/his edit summary only for a limited amount of time (perhaps 30 minutes, at most some hours) or until another edit to the article has been made by someone. Edited summaries should have a small tag indicating that they have been edited after the fact. This would allow editors to correct typos or improve wording if they are soon spotted and no other editor has "sealed" the history by applying his own changes to the article.

This is a scheme implemented in many forum softwares for contributions (rather than only edit summaries) and it works quite well.

Given that an (evil) editor could have (deliberately) provided a misleading edit summary right from the start, it cannot create more harm if s/he would change a good summary into a misleading one later on for as long as no other editor has been actually misled or noone has read the article in the new state. We can assume that a follow-up editor would have been misled if that editor based anything on the exiting state of the article (including the edit history) by editing the article herself/himself. Also, in the case that there will be no edits by other editors in a given timeframe, the very fact of an article to be live in a certain state can be seen as "sealing" its edit history, therefore, the time window for corrections should be closed automatically after some while. Keeping it open for a small amount of time, however, is acceptable because the original editor could have made her/her edit a couple of minutes or hours later as well.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. right now, all edit summaries are permanent, as soon as you make them. there ought to be at least some time to revise them, if desired. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support appending by original editor with time-stamped changes - but not editing in any other way except by administrators. Also Support allowing administrators to hide edit summaries without revision-deleting the entire edit if the edit summary would qualify for hiding under existing revision-deletion rules had the edit itself been revision-deletable, e.g. a good edit with a BLP violation in the edit summary, or a web-link in the edit summary that links to a malware-infested web site. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a work-around exists: I occasionally "append" to my recent edit summaries by doing a "practically null edit" where I add a space to the end of a line then put in the correct edit summary. The most common reason is that I fat-finger the "enter" key too soon, which saves the edit before I've finished typing the edit summary and I left something very important off. Sometimes I have to do it if I put something in the edit summary that is just wrong, like a mis-typed URL or wikilink. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Editing edit summaries sounds like a good idea. Deleting small edits as well could be useful. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF wants this name change. That much is clear. The rank and file volunteers of the Wikipedia project have little say in the matter. That much is clear. So instead of trying to do the hard or impossible (convincing WMF not to go through with something they're already decided on), why not solve this problem with a change we actually have the power to effect: let's rename Wikipedia instead. I don't have any immediately great suggestions for names; I'll leave that to smarter people than myself. Renaming wikipedia would:

• prevent WMF from squatting on our legitimacy
• draw attention to the issue (we'd get plenty of news coverage for "Wikipedia changes its name, here's why", much more than you'd ever see for "Wikimedia's holding charity changes their name to align its brand strategy")
• draw attention to the Foundation itself (front-page news coverage talking about the foundation, even in a likely negatively light as above, would serve their goals of increased visibility)
• probably not drastically impact our searchability. Google is very good at routing around name changes of this sort, so if (silly name for example) Kumquatpedia suddenly had the editor base and activity of Wikipedia, and wikipedia was permanently redirecting there with a 302, it wouldn't take long for us to be as popular as ever on google
• Wikipedia kind of sucks as a name. It's not easily initialized (WP sort of works but is indistinct and inelegant; "double-yoo pee" or "dubya-pee", neither of which are appealing IMO) and both the wiki- prefix and the -pedia suffix are victims of Wikipedia's own success.
• To the extent that it reduces traffic, that seems more likely to hurt the WMF than the wikipedia project. Wikipedia is a major source of fundraising for the WMF.

2600:1700:EFA0:2980:40C0:BAC7:107B:5DDF (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss this. The English Wikipedia has no control over the name of the WMF. Consider taking this to a relevant discussion at Meta-Wiki. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose renaming Wikipedia. Users of the world wide web are likely to be familiar with Wikipedia, especially since it has a high Google search, and renaming it would only result in confusion. Vorbee (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, isn't it up to the Foundation what to name the encyclopedia? For good or ill. At the top of each page where it says "Wikiedpia", can regular editors change that? Or the domain name, and so forth.

The whole internet uses the Wikipedia, so if we do change the name, we could have an internet-wide open vote. On second thought though, would probably come down to race between "Encyclopedia McEncyclopediaface" and "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong", so maybe not. Herostratus (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, this web site's name is controlled by its owner, the Foundation, so you are right. But apart from that one obvious and probably insurmountable problem, which I'm sure the original poster here was really aware of, this is a wonderful idea, which doesn't warrant a po-faced response of "strong oppose". OP, please keep thinking laterally. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Po-faced response of strong oppose. Phil, I'm surprised at you, are you feeling ok? I'm undecided whether this is trolling or just one of the worst proposals of the year. We are not going to abandon one of the most widely-recognized brands in world history without far better reasons than those presented, even if we had the authority to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely po-faced. And I'm feeling quite all right, thanks. Had a wonderful trip to Whipsnade Zoo today with my grandson. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposer says Wikipedia kinds of sucks as a name. However, Wikipedia is a portmanteau of "Wiki" (the Hawaiian for "informal" or "quick") and "encyclopedia". Since "Wiki" means a website that any one can edit, calling this website "Wikipedia" makes it fairly self-explanatory what it is. As for the note about Wikipedia being difficult to initialise, I do not see what is wrong with calling it "WP".

It is true that "W" is the only letter in the Latin alphabet that has more than one syllable in its name, so it would take longer to say "WP" than other possible initials, but since people are more likely to type WP or write WP than say it, I do not see a problem. Vorbee (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose renaming "Wikipedia." the current name incorporates the ideas of "wiki" and "encyclopedia." we are the world's greatest wiki, and also the world's biggest and most comprehensive encyclopedia, ever. so I don't see any reason that we should not just stick with the name that we currently have. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk)

It has been my belief that Wikipedia looks a bit... dated. We still use skeuomorphic design in many areas of the encyclopedia from certain templates to default skins, and we still use a skin with a design that became dated in 2015.

Last time I proposed switching to flat design, I was told that my proposal was not ripe enough to be suited for an RfC. What I would like to do here is consider developing my proposal into something that may work in practice and that reflects the general consensus here.

It is good to note as well that we have switched from gradient padlocks to flat padlocks because of accessibility and contrast as well as aesthetics.

I already have an idea on what some icons could be replaced with, which can be viewed here. Because this is a major change, I think it would be good to get consensus first, which is why I am asking for input on how to develop this. I just want to develop this proposal further to see if we can make Wikipedia look more modern. Aasim 22:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Awesome Aasim: I'm still not seeing the full range of icons addressed in the draft proposal, and in order to be effective, the switch will need to be comprehensive (otherwise it'll just introduce another competing standard). I used the nutshell icon last time as an example — what do you propose to do for that at {{Nutshell}}, and for the many other icons still not included? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, as also stated in previous proposals, can you give any reason other than trendiness for this? I, for one, choose to edit Wikipedia in preference to other activities precisely because it does not bend to the latest fashion, but takes a long-term view of things. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel 'flat' icons are, well, flat! The current icons are metaphorical—they link to, well, iconic, concepts. A red octagon is (in the US anyway) instantly recognized to mean "Stop"—the hand palm makes the sign universal. Any extra cues in an icon as to meaning is a plus. These cues are primary in designing a large set of icons. "Modern" is way down on the list. Icons in Wikipedia are part of a work environment. I value icons that require no more cogitation than necessary. Recognition at a glance is a good thing. Bland uniformity is not. Perhaps your proposal might gain more acceptance if the images were more distinct. — Neonorange (Phil) 22:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not that bad of an idea... for example, the icons on the French Wikipedia are already flat! And, I really think that Wikipedia needs new icons, because some of them look really dated in this internet time. But, I wanna point out that in your icons, some of them (especially the warning icons) look like they were ripped straight from Windows 10. It's probably a good idea to change those. Arsonxists (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any change is going to cause confusion, except for the trash can (which conveys more skeuomorphic meaning than the status quo) to symbolize deletion. Most of others are either a lowercase "i" or an exclamation point "!" (which look almost the same in a sans-serif font) to very subtly indicate severity, in front of a circle, the color of which indicates who knows what. There's no point in having a dozen icons that all look alike. ―cobaltcigs 22:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aa I personally love the aesthetics of wikipedia's icons, it's reminiscent of a time when the internet was exciting, and intimate, like everybody knows your name, long before big corporations and advertisements, and tracking. People did things because they were fun! I think if we were to change the icons, the beauty of wikipedia would be gone. JazzClam (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Barack Obama is in 70 categories.

70.

I'm talking about content categories here, not maintenance. I'd think a good rule of thumb here is that most articles should be in no more than about 2 or 3 categories, maybe 5 or 6 for really busy articles. From a brief look, biographies tend to be some of the worst offenders, but there are certainly others.

The category system might work well on a small, tightly-focused wiki, but it just doesn't scale to a general encyclopedia with millions of articles. Do we really need Category:1931 establishments in New York (state)? Does this actually serve the reader? (Hint: no).

I don't have any brilliant answers or ideas here, but I think at least some degree of recognition that there's a problem would be a first step. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts. First is that 2-3 is insufficient for many subjects unless we get incredibly laser focused with subcategories. Is there a use to having people grouped by hometown? By job? By alma mater? By awards won? Because we're already up to probably, what, 15-20 just with those? I mean sure we coIuld have a category for "Democratic Party United States senators from Illinois who are also non-fiction writers and Harvard Law School alumni" to get the number down... The relevant question (for me) for that particular example is why the vast majority of those categories aren't moved to the category "Barack Obama". There's probably some guideline I'm not aware of.

Second thought: how many readers have you talked to who actually use categories? I regularly bring up categories when teaching new users IRL and ask if anyone has ever used them. Maybe a couple out of hundreds that I've asked, and usually just because they were organizing an edit-a-thon or needed some information about Wikipedia articles for their job. And once they know about categories most people still don't use them, because for those purposes something like a Wikidata query is more comprehensive or a WikiProject table or a curated list is more accurate. The people who care about categories are Wikipedians, and some Wikipedians care an awful lot (see WP:4000). Personally, I'd be happy if we started long-term planning for replacement by Wikidata. There's plenty that Wikidata isn't good for, but straightforward tagging is one it's much more equipped to handle than MediaWiki. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this (in particular that categories is the 2000s tool which is way outdated), except for any Wikidata-related RfC is bound to attract several dozen users voting it down with the motivation that Wikidata is evil does not matter what is being discussed. In practical terms, I just do not know how to organize this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NO! Don't kill the cats! All joking aside, I think that very specific categories the no one is likely going to search for should be be eliminated, but I oppose killing of categories all together, considering that some categories like Category:Candidates for speedy deletion are vital to the maintenance of Wikipedia. Goose^(Talk!) 20:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some categories rearranged in the tree as in Category:Democratic_Party_Presidents_of_the_United_States in the category of Category:Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_nominees. That would bring done the categories for Barack Obama down to 69(not intended for inside jokes).Manabimasu (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What problem is this intending to solve? The category system might work well on a small, tightly-focused wiki, but it just doesn't scale to a general encyclopedia with millions of articles.^{[citation needed]} The category system does scale to millions of articles. Lists, navboxes etc generally don't scale, but categories do. Cats like Category:1931 establishments in New York (state) may not be useful for the general lay reader -- they aren't intended for lay readers. It is natural for libraries and other information sources to try and organise content in as many ways as reasonable, as this aids research. It's difficult for print encyclopedias but easy for an online encyclopedia. So I just don't see any "problem" here. – SD0001 (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: If categories aren't intended for the reader, then they should be hidden. We even have WP:CATDEFINING, but it doesn't seem to be followed in practice. People wouldn't be in 70 categories if it were.

Really, the problem that you're asking about is that categories tend to get split into subcats in arbitrary ways when they get too large. Even worse than the 1931 example is "Office buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in Manhattan" (pulling these from Empire State Building). There should be 3 categories –

• office buildings,
• things in Manhattan, and
• things on the NRHP.

And if you care about the three-way intersection, then we should have a working way to get that. But we don't (and no, PetScan doesn't count...it doesn't really even work). What if I had just wanted office buildings on the NRHP? or things in Manhattan on the NRHP? or office buildings in Manhattan? (Oh, but don't worry, it's also in "Skyscraper office buildings in Manhattan"). Then the category scheme is useless. Of course, doing things with properties like WikiData does is probably the way forward, but it would be a pretty major undertaking, and I'm not sure the collective will exists for that. So in the mean time, we have a broke, useless system. What do we do with it? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deacon Vorbis: What if I had just wanted office buildings on the NRHP? that's the subtree of Category:Office buildings on the National Register of Historic Places

or things in Manhattan on the NRHP? Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places in Manhattan,

or office buildings in Manhattan? Category:Office buildings in Manhattan.

The category you started with is a descendant of each of these categories.

doing things with properties like WikiData -- that's an alternative way of doing things which is already being done. wikidata:Q9188 has instance of = office building, location = "Midtown Manhatten", heritage designation = "place listed on the National Register of Historic Places". You can write a SPARQL query to get an intersection of one or more properties. If you're only interested in stuff that have WP articles, of course you can filter for that too.

TL;DR: Both the systems work. Please do some groundwork before making pompous claims like "we have a broke, useless system" demeaning the spectacular work done by volunteers over more than 15 years in organising all this together. – SD0001 (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the whole category system extremely frustrating. As a computer scientist, I want to know what kind of relationship the cat graph represents. is-a? has-a? is-sorta-like? Beats me. I also want to be able to navigate the cat graph using standard tools, and to do that, I need to know what kind of graph it is. Intuitively, it's a tree, but it's actually not. It's not even a DAG. The profusion of intersecting cross-cutting cats ("Female alumni of Potrzebie University who edit wikipedia", "Women from Lower Slobbovia", "17th Century wikipedians") doesn't help. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It should be a DAG. If there are any cycles, I think it's reasonable to consider that an actual error. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Deacon Vorbis, You would think so, but that doesn't seem to be the case. For example, in WP:CAT, there's a footnote that says, Mathematically speaking, this means that the system approximates a directed acyclic graph. From the point of view of somebody trying to navigate the graph programmatically, "approximates" is a synonym for "is not". Elsewhere, it says, Category chains formed by parent–child relationships should never form closed loops. Well, duh. It would be fine if there was some way to determine which edges represented parent-child (i.e. is-a) relationships, but there's doesn't appear to be.

  I once wanted to find all the music-related articles in wikipedia. I did the obvious thing; I started with Category:Music and tried to enumerate all the articles which were transitively a member of that category. Many days later, I gave it up as a lost cause. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I remember a few years ago I found out that almost half all articles in the encyclopedia are somewhere in the category tree under Category:England. – Uanfala (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @RoySmith: isn't this is an example of GIGO? Every article in the subtree of Category:Music is "music-related", however remote the connection may be. Maybe you had something else in mind than "music-related"? For exapmple, to get a list of all songs, the subtree of Category:Musical compositions can be used instead, which doesn't seem to contain anything apart from compositions.

  That being said, I've been in the trap myself and learnt the hard way that the tree isn't acyclic -- though I don't seem to recall where or why the cyclicity was occurring. – SD0001 (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  SD0001, I don't have the details handy any more, but what was going on was the traversal never converged. Once I realized that there were cycles, I added code to discover when I was re-visiting a node and ignore it. But that wasn't good enough. There were enough bogus edges that you would head off into the weeds when you traversed them and start discovering cats that had nothing to do with music. Sure, some of those were just bad data, but when you start with the constraints on the cat graph being as weak as "directed", it's really hard to explore it in any useful way, and it's really hard to do any useful error checkng. Imagine if I made Category:Barak Obama a subcat of Category:Barbershop music because he sang in a Barbershop quartet. Now a traversal starting from Music would suddenly be discoving all sorts of weird stuff. That's the sort of thing that was going on. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Would be interesting to let tsort crank on it for a while and find cycles as a project to fix. I can't figure out how to count the pages in the Category: namespace to get a handle on the order of magnitude of that task. DMacks (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  2003278 existing category pages, plus however many redlinks with at least one page categorized in them - I can only find 273, which seems low, so maybe my logic was off. 6863520 categorizations of Category pages, i.e. edges. —Cryptic 18:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  DMacks, https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/47999. Spoiler: 2,047,712. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There are about 98K transclusions of {{Category redirect}}, which bots claim to fix. So that's 5% less CPU-catching-fire already. DMacks (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1,906,889 excluding all hard and soft redirects. But this doesn't include any red-linked cats with pages in them. – SD0001 (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Another more-manageable task is to clean out Special:UncategorizedCategories. It represents unreachable islands. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  One real problem with intersecting categories is inconsistent diffusion rules. For example, although a horror film released in 1977 belongs to Category:1977 horror films, it remains a direct member of Category:1977 films (see Template:All included) but not a direct member of Category:Horror films (see Template:Category diffuse). If one rule or the other were consistently applied to all categories, some demand for an oppositely generated view of each category (direct members plus or minus subcategory members, for whatever maintenance purpose) will always still exist. ―cobaltcigs 21:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This guy's article is far from "busy" by any reasonable standard. He's perhaps best known for playing for 12 different professional basketball teams in 14 years, and is properly categorized as such. The above-proposed upper limit of "5 or 6" categories is totally unpracticable. Articles with that few categories tend to be permanent stubs (not that there's anything wrong with that). ―cobaltcigs 19:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @DMacks and RoySmith: Getting a list of category cycles isn't the difficult part. I got a list of all parentcat—subcat connections from the database with just the page IDs (titles would of course make the output file unmanageably large) This doesn't seem to work on Quarry for some reason but worked fast enough (<15 mins) on the toolforge grid. Then I wrote an efficient C++ program to call out the cycles using depth-first search (runtime < 5 mins). It tells me there are 4106 cycles in all. Here are the first 5000 lines of output (cycles are shown with the page IDs only though). Now the tough part is what to do with this information? There are some cycles that contain just one page, eg. Category:Hidden categories contains itself! Some have just 2 pages: Category:Bill Gates contains Category:Gates family and Category:Gates family contains Category:Bill Gates, which seems to make sense! Then of course there are some massive cyclic chains that I don't know how to look into since the output contains just the IDs :( I guess I'll need to write some more code to make the output contain the category names so it's human-readable. – SD0001 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  SD0001, Cool, I'll take a closer look at that when I get a chance. Your Gates 2-cycle is endemic of one of the core problems: there's no rigid definition of what the edge relationships are. Neither of those are is-a relations, which would be fine, if the edges were labeled with what they represent. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's easy: Bill Gates is a member of the Gates family, but the Gates family is not a member of Bill Gates. No need for a loop here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I see converting the IDs to titles is easier done by the API rather through the database (500 IDs can be resolved in a single API call). The prettified output is here – SD0001 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find categories to be highly valuable. highly. it is one of things that makes Wikipedia so valuable as a resource for research. for example, check out Category:Political charters, Category:Diplomatic conferences, Category:Clinton administration personnel,Category: Domestic implements, category: Firefighting in the United States. all of these bring together various articles and entries in a unique manner, to provide various correlations that many users might find helpful and informative. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sm8900, I'm not doubting you, but you could give some concrete examples of how you've used categories? I'm just trying to understand how they get used in real life, by real users. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just set up the page User:SDZeroBot/Category cycles. Like, share, subscribe, etc! – SD0001 (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  SD0001, Awesome, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally come across experienced editors who make generally positive contributions, but just do not use edit summaries. They generally have plenty of warnings on their talk page (I recently revamped {{Summary2}} to make it useful for using for experienced editors, since {{Summary}} is not), but since our rules don't formally require summaries, they are able to just ignore the warnings and carry on, wasting other editors' time. Is it time to change the rules somehow? If not, are there other approaches we could take to address this problem? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain. I think ANI is about the only way to go, where nothing will likely happen, especially if it's an experienced, productive editor. While we're at it, I'd also lump in the habit of just blindly copy/pasting the entire text of an edit into the summary box along with that. That's not only almost as useless, but also tends to make page histories a lot less navigable. But people will often just oppose anything that adds or strengthens anything resembling a rule, even if it would be useful, citing WP:CREEP, so I'm not expecting much, myself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The prevailing community approach to such things (with which I disagree) appears to be:

• Question what defines "habitually"? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Write guidelines describing best practices.
• Ensure that editors are aware of the guidelines.
• Carry on.

Generally speaking and with exceptions, individual freedom trumps the greater good at en-wiki. Custom signatures are another example, where the community consistently refuses to impose even minimal bright-line restrictions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The community might not but the foundation has. See Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#New requirements for user signatures. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing there addressing the problem of distracting signatures that get in the way of discussion, a problem that could be greatly reduced by one or two bright-line restrictions. And even what's there applies only to new signatures, meaning the improvements will be realized only by gradual attrition that will take decades. I probably won't live that long, and I'm not that patient anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatamidoing is contacting everyone whose signature does not comply to resolve them. The current forecast is "probably months"—see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 170 § Add basic HTML syntax-checking on user signature field changes for a few more details. There are about 900 more editors affected, and about 700 of them are easily fixed. isaacl (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember when we last had a change to the rules about signatures, other than the WMF reform to them which has proved remarkably uncontentious for a WMF change. Though we did have this 2009 Request for signatureship. Perhaps now would be a good time to propose a change at Wikipedia_talk:Signatures. Can you be specific though as to what is allowed now but which you feel should no longer be allowed? ϢereSpielChequers 16:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: I've enforced our custom-signature bright-line restrictions with block warnings before, specifically the prohibitions on signatures that disrupt the flow of text, that call templates, or that include images. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 15 years ago, when I ran for admin, whether you used edit summaries or not was something that people worried about. I guess people are still worrying about it. What's next? Worrying about signatures? Oh, wait, yeah, I guess it is. The big issues of the day: edit summaries, signatures, and oxford commas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 00:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• How about asking nicely with a human message rather than a templated warning? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And when that's still ignored, then what? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Then it depends on circumstances. If the editor is a net positive to the task of building this encyclopedia then we just put up with them not obeying some officious "rule". We are not here to provide nice neat edit summaries or to make our signatures look good, but to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Edit summaries are useful tools when building an encyclopedia, and having them can hours and hours of work from the many editors that might have to review each edit to tell what it is. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, they can be, but in other circumstances they can be useless, as RoySmith explains below. That is why I used the phrases "it depends on circumstances" and "net positive". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't see a blank edit summary as a reasonable freedom. The user preference Preferences ↠ Editing ↠ Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary should be set as the default. Better still, remove the A blank edit summary is OK the second time around option. And do not mention Oxford commas. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  GhostInTheMachine, The problem with requiring the user to enter something is that it just encourages garbage. Often, there's nothing to say besides "fix", "more", "reply", or something equally useless. When there's something useful to say, I say it. It's like the web forms that require me to enter a phone number.

  If you insist on refusing to allow me to place my order without giving you a phone number, OK, fine, my phone number is 999-999-9999. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  How did you know what phone number I entered today on a web form? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I know. I still think that the first You have entered a blank edit summary, please think about that warning should be the default. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe for logged in editors who have completed their first 100 edits. Otherwise the main thing you achieve is discouraging vandals from self identifying by leaving a blank edit summary. ϢereSpielChequers 16:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If a Wikipedian does not type in an edit summary, the contribution will be marked in the article's history by the sub-heading of the article. This could be seen as an edit summary (for example, I am not going to type in an edit here but I will still have this edit marked up as "What should we do about experienced editors who habitually don't use edit summaries?") so I do not see a problem. Vorbee (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would a greater problem be whether or not a Wikipedian marks an edit a minor edit or not? There might be debate about what counts as a minor edit, but sometimes edits are obviously minor (e.g. inserting a missing letter into a typo) and if such an edit is not noted as minor, this will not show up in the article's history. Vorbee (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When I'm training, or talking to someone who doesn't see the point of edit summaries, I usually explain that an edit summary is code for "I'm probably not a vandal". Of course there are some vandals and spammers who have cottoned on and use edit summaries, and some regulars who don't. But as long as keeping edit summaries as optional helps some spammers and vandals self identify as such, then I think that it is useful to keep it optional. However there are some people who don't opt in to an edit summary point until they run an RFA. or ask an experienced RFA nominator like myself for a nomination. So keeping edit summaries optional is an imperfect but useful tool for spotting bad edits. ϢereSpielChequers 16:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Since this discussion is veering in the direction of discussing mandatory edit summaries, I'll note that it's listed at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Automatically prompt for missing edit summary. It's certainly a valid discussion to have, but I'm more interested here in sticking to the more narrow question I initially posed about experienced non-vandal editors. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vorbee, edits incorrectly marked as minor are certainly a problem. I rewrote {{uw-minor}} a few months ago, and I use it whenever I come across an edit improperly marked as minor. It's usually from a beginner; I think it's (thankfully) not that common to intentionally mark a controversial edit as minor to try to avoid scrutiny. If you want, a parameter or separate template could be made to allow for a more strongly-worded alternative to uw-minor, which would be appropriate for instances in which someone is trying to evade scrutiny. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I presume this idea is for mainspaces, not talk pages or user pages? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by this discussion (permalink) and the repeated block-evasion by this IP. See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement for policy supporting undoing edits of block-evading editors.

It would be very helpful if a bot or script attempted to revert all edits by newly-blocked socks made after a given date and time, then delivered a report of which pages were and were NOT completely reverted so they could be scrutinized manually.

Even if this were an "admin-use-only" tool, the reports it generated would still be useful to non-admins editors doing cleanup work.

Any thoughts pro or con before I ask for it on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? Anyone want to volunteer to code it up?

On thing to be careful of: Such a script would undo edits banned editors are allowed to do, such as when the revert would re-introduce a WP:BLP issue. This is why the person running the script should do some spot-checking first to have high confidence that nearly all or all of the edits would be reverted if done by hand. For the same reason, certain name-spaces such as discussion pages should probably be skipped over and logged as "not done" by the script. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davidwr, I've been working on some SPI tools (https://spi-tools.toolforge.org/spi/). One of the functions is something like that. Select a SPI case, click the "G5" button, and it runs some heuristics to guess what might be G5 eligible related to that case. It's pretty rough right now. I work on it in fits and starts when the mood strikes me. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the argument against such a script would be that some of the block-evading person's changes might be good for the encyclopedia. But I would be in favor of a ban-revert script despite the argument. One of the problems would be finding and reverting the ban-evading-edits that have been followed by unrelated changes to the same article. Basically it would involve looking at all the ban-evading edits, not just the ones which are the most recent changes to an article. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True. Ideally, you would look at all edits after a specified date-and-time to see if they were created by the blocked editor under one or more specified accounts or IP addresses, then revert those you could and log successes and failures. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a mass rollback script (User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js) which identifies all latest-revision contribs by a user and offers to revert them. Its use has been controversial in the past, but at least one attempt to create a script more powerful than that was soundly rejected by the community as an abuse of admin tools (as I recall, that script could also automatically revdel contributions). I don't remember now which script that was but I see I also have User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRevdel.js in my .js, but I'm not sure what it does. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I mostly write in German WP, where the reflist ist pretty much the last thing in the article. I find that more convenient for the readers. Esp if the reflist is long, the external links, which quite often are great … tend to get overlooked, because they follow a million lines of small print not meant for consumption. I would suggest changing the order to having the reflist follow the external links… :-)) --Satu Katja (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current order is preferred because references are more part of the article than external links are. --Izno (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, To be honest, I think there's merit to the suggestion, but from a practical point of view, it would require a huge (and error-prone) robo-editing job to go back and re-shuffle 6 million existing articles, which seems like a non-starter. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something something separation of content and presentation something something –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, re-shuffling 6 Mio articles is quite something, and that would have to be considered… But esp. in long articles (… and articles that cover major topics usually tend to be long) the reflist can be hunderds of refs. "WW II" has 414 refs, I never saw that there are "external links" underneath until I specifically scrolled down to counts the refs. My guess is that the majority of the readers will have the same experience… and that is quite a pity, they were put there for a purpose and it'd be great if they were seen… --Satu Katja (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My experience of external links has been rather different. I have very rarely found any to be useful, and they are often lists of spam links or links to various social media sites owned by the article subject. And remember that references are also there to be seen. They are the most important part of any article because they are the only means by which content in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit can be seen to be reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I think ideas like this stem from the wrong-headed view of "References" as some kind of edit war monument which no reader actually wants to see. References are part of the article, unlike the other articles listed in "See also", which in turn are more part of the website than any external links could be. That seems like a natural descending order of relevance, and was considered normal before the bury-the-refs movement. Disclaimer: However, if I were trying to promote my own external website(s) I would absolutely want my links to be floating somewhere above the first paragraph, and want the references section to be written in the smallest font possible, hidden in a scrolling collapsible box, perhaps even moved to a separate page and PGP-encrypted because fuck fact-checking anyway. ―cobaltcigs 15:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am bit taken aback by the tonality of the replies, not by the fact that you disagree. I made a suggestion based on my experience in another WP, the German one, which is one of the largest WPs, and in which the order is the other way around: the reflist below the external links. There are obviously pros and cons for both concepts. I had heard at Wikimania in Stockholm 2019 that the English WP has become harsh and abrasive, and yes… feels true.--Satu Katja (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything harsh and abrasive here, but simply the fact that some editors agree with you and others disagree. If every proposal was greeted with unconditional support then we wouldn't have any discussions, but the first mover would simply always have agreement. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, Phil. Saying that this idea would help the spammers does feel a bit harsh to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there's nothing harsh about it at all - it's simply people's experience of editing the English Wikipedia, which may be different from other language Wikipedias. If such a response is not to be allowed then there is no point in having any discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinction to consider between the importance of having references show up prominently when readers hover the cursor over the footnote, and having them show up prominently all together in a big chunk at/near the bottom of the page. The former is clearly very useful and important, the latter much more debatably so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like others noted above that would be a big job moving everything around. Otherwise I kind of like the idea. I rarely browse the ref section by itself, I always go direct from the article. I do however browse the external link section since that can have some useful things. I would imagine most readers look at it that way as well. The important thing for the ref section is that it exists, not necessarily where it is on the page. Where as it can be nice to have the see also and external links more accessible. PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that most readers aren't reading articles in their entirety from top to bottom, I actually think there is greater prominence having the external links at the end. Once people know the convention, then can jump to the bottom of the page to find the links. isaacl (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Isaacl. The very end of the page isn't necessarily the least prominent position. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or use the table of contents, which is a list of wikilinks for a reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned references are part of the article. Also there are often "bibliographies" "sources" etc. sections that come below a reference section. Do all of them get moved to the bottom or just the refs. I for one would not want to see the refs below a batch of ELs and categories as say at the Cary Grant article. IMO this is a solution in search of a problem and, thus, no change is needed. MarnetteD|Talk 20:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly opposed. In articles I see the EL section is typically very weak & stuffed with dead links, spam, or non-RS stuff. Also per Isaacl. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This feels like a solution in search of a problem. I see no inherent benefit to one ordering over the other, and because of that, the proposal represents a large effort to be spent on zero net benefit. No need for it. --Jayron32 14:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the present order of the ancillary sections at the end, because there is a logic to the order. "See also" points to material in Wikipedia; "References" points to material outside Wikipedia; "External links" points to unconnected material on the Internet outside Wikipedia; & "Further reading" points to material outside the Internet. (Okay, the last two is the order I put them in, but I've worked on less than a dozen articles that had both of those sections so which of the two should be at the end is a debatable matter.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always amazed by how different the articles you work on seem to be from those I work on, which generally have both. Nearly always this is FR then EL, as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout implicitly suggests, but does not mandate. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to start development on a dark mode for the vector skin, which has white text on a black background. (The colors of links are also changed for legibility.) I noticed that various templates with a colored background make the text illegible. I was wondering if a module could be implemented to adjust the template's colors to match the user's default text color, or if the text in such templates should default to black. Alternatively, is there a way to work around this issue? To test the (pre-alpha state) dark mode yourself, go to Special:Mypage/vector.css and redirect the page to User:LaundryPizza03/nightvector.css. I'm sorry if this overlaps in scope with WP:VPT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza03, I think you're more likely to get a useful answer at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have used a similar gadget, which is green-on-black - I've experienced this issue quite frequently, especially with WP:IGLOO and user signatures. -- a lad insane (channel two) 21:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to suggest that the information on Wikipedia would often be improved by dates added, including year, so one can get some context for reported events etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.4.22.30 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What? I don't know what your saying. Also, sign your posts, please. Arsonxists (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Ideally, articles should already be providing all context, including dates and years, that is necessary to inform a reader's understanding of events. If you believe a particular article would benefit from the addition of dates, please feel free to be bold and add them yourself. – Teratix ₵ 01:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The dates of events, including the year, very often are added. If one looks at the many biographical articles in Wikipedia, one can see that very often, they give the dates in which the person are born and died - not just the year the person was born and the year the person died, but the dates of the year the person was born and died. Some biographical articles, it is true, do not put in the year a person was born (I think this may be especially true for potted biographies of living people) but that may just be because the Wikipedian who started the article does not know the date a person was born. I would rather a Wikipedian omit a date than put in an inaccurate date. If a Wikipedian reads a biographical article and knows the date a person was born, s/he can improve the article by putting in the date. Vorbee (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have just been looking at the article on the Battle of Britain and see it does give the date of the battle, but quite a way down the article. Is what the proposer saying we should have dates nearer the start of articles? Vorbee (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it does give the date of the battle, but quite a way down the article" Huh? The dates appear in the infobox and in the first paragraph of the lead. How much nearer the top do you want to go? Chuntuk (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The date of the Battle of Britain is given in the third sentencce and the fifth line of the article. It could have been mentioned in the first sentence and on the first line. Vorbee (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of the replies so far are not actually helpful. The OP just wanted to remind us that we should enrich descriptions of events with dates. While this happens sometimes, I see many articles which just give some run-up of events (sometimes providing relative time information like "a few years later", etc.) but without providing absolute dates. Thereby, they are making it very difficult for readers, who are not already familiar with a topic, to get a feeling about the historical context.

Hence, yes, I second the OP: We should remind ourselves to provide more (and more detailed) date information, if possible. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, an article I was thinking about editing got deleted in the AfD process. The log is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Golem (Minecraft). The article in question might pass WP:GNG after some time in development, most likely in the Draftspace. Unfortunately, I cannot easily edit this, or any other previous article, without either contacting an administrator or using a third party like Deletionpedia.
I propose a new namespace called the "Deletion Namespace" or "Deleted:". The namespace will archive deleted articles and allow them to be available after deletion. The page will function as a "morgue" of pages that have been archived but are still available for reference. They will not be editable, but instead you will be able to view source code and Wikitext. Version History will also be available to view. If you want to edit the article or revive it in order to improve it, there will be a button to do so (the normal Move button would be restricted, maybe?). This will convert the article to a draft, where it can be worked on in the Draft space until any problems that lead to the article getting deleted are resolved. Then it can be submitted in the AfC process, and potentially accepted into the Namespace. This allows articles to have a second chance at life without compromising the existence of the Articles for Deletion process.
It will essentially function like Deletionpedia, but would integrate into the namespaces for ease of use. Is this a reasonable idea? Any and all feedback is appreciated. Squid45 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Genius idea. I like it. Would be a really good porposal. Fixing a deleted article for all the other reasons mentioned in the AfD deletion would open new opportunities for pages to go "out-of-order" for a few days, then be in-order for a long time. It would also wipe Deletionpedia off the internet, which could open up alot of new editors on Wikipedia. Arsonxists (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Deleted pages should be visible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This idea has a bevy of issues, but the main problem is that the whole point of deletion is to remove problematic content from public view that cannot be improved through normal editing. If an article were potentially salvageable, it would not have been deleted in the first place. If you think an article is potentially salvageable despite being deleted, what is so hard about asking an administrator to restore it to draftspace? – Teratix ₵ 00:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I find your excess of faith disturbing. On the contrary I suspect several salvageable articles are deleted every day (with the other 90% or so indeed being total shit). Browsing the deletion log to guess which titles might be worth requesting a copy of is not a reasonable strategy. The average admin would probably block you after the third unlucky guess. Separation of permissions might be the answer. ―cobaltcigs 23:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking more about articles that the salvaging editor has already seen or is otherwise familiar with (such as the scenario at AfD outlined in the original suggestion). I'm not suggesting randomly combing through deletion logs. (And in any case I'm highly skeptical the "average admin" will block editors just for making "unlucky guesses" about which content may be worth restoring). – Teratix ₵ 01:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all inclusionists and people who follow the original vision of free access to all human knoledge should fight as hard as possible to get articles undeleted and included in an inclusionist encyclopedia. I think instead of a deleted namespace a group of administrators should make a database of non copyright violation and non vandalism edits available to download so inclusionist encyclopedias can adopt them. There is a considerable demand for "non notable" content, look how popular sites like Fandom, Everipedia and Everybodywiki are. If you look at the archives of the deletion log and articles for deletion over the years over a million articles has been deleted from Wikipedia establishing a two tier knowledge system. I would argue Wikipedia is the biggest destroyer of knowledge since the library of Alexandria. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Per-user/IP "pending changes protection" for editors demonstrating persistent low competence as a final step before blocking or in ideal cases, as an alternative to it.

Currently, you can block an editor from up to 10 pages or from a namespace, for example, you can prevent an editor from editing articles while still allowing him to edit other pages (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Setting block options, "Block editing partial").

What you cannot do is make all edits by a given editor automatically become "pending changes" even on pages that do not have this protection.

I recommend this as an intermediate step for users and stable-IP editors who are on the "slow march" to being blocked due to competence-issues. It would also be useful as an alternative to or final action before imposing school-blocks, which are sometimes places on an IP address or range for the duration of the school year.

This would also be useful for established editors with a conflict of interest who have demonstrated they can edit responsibly. Currently, such editors have to make an edit request on the article's talk page. This mechanism would allow responsible-COI editors to ask permission to edit conflicted pages directly, knowing they would be reviewed before being seen by non-logged-in editors.

This proposal would require a code change so I wanted to do a straw poll and get preliminary feedback here before taking it to a wider forum. Because it will need some preliminary discussion at WT:Protection policy, a full RFC, and a code change, I don't anticipate this going live before 2022.

Thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good idea. It would give pending change reviewers alot more power among wikipedia. Editors that (for some reason) turned on Wikipedia and started vandalising it could be foiled with the blocks. Arsonxists (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that it would only take a few reasonably active editors (or even slightly more somewhat active editors) to overwhelm PCR. The system is very clunky, and an absolutely nightmare when you get more than one edit to a page (if some, but not all, are non-productive edits). I've long seen there to be more potential utility for PC, but it's fiddliness detracts from that. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as being a major issue if it were per-user-per-page. In most cases, a "still learning...slowly gaining competence" editor would be subject to "user-based" pending changes on only the few pages he's been editing disruptively, which would probably NOT include discussion pages. If they didn't "get a clue quickly" they would find themselves blocked from editing those pages. If they did "get a clue" the per-user pending-change restrictions would be removed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to think about laying out a new approach to editing in general, to be combined with the term "inclusionist." my working name for this "consolidationist," but right now that is just a suggested label. I am open to ideas on what to call this.

my idea for this approach is this; one core ideal of encyclopedic work should be greater topical overviews that are specifically designed to address and to weave together various historical topics, that already have their own entry, but which deserve some place within a larger overview for broader topics, eras, regions, historical movements, etc. right now, I am focusing on history as a topical field; we can apply this to other fields.

Two basic components for this idea, just as a start.

1) Firstly, one aspect of this is that every individual war or conflict, and other similar major historical events, should appear somewhere in a wider history of the era when that war occurred. so for example, clearly World War I already figures heavily in any overview of the era that it occurred. however, the Balkan Wars of 1911-1912 were of great importance as well, especially as a prelude to World War I and the other European conflicts. so that is just one example.

again, in general. as one core idea, we should seek to make overviews of historical eras into genuine topical overviews , and try encompass all of the smaller conflicts, events, that combined to shape that era. but again, the focus would be on building such overviews from "the ground up;" namely first would come the article on the specific conflict, event, trend, etc. itself., and then the originator would seek to add it to the broader entry for that era.

2) Secondly, on a different but related note, Wikipedia should seek to continually update its chronicle of current history, going forward. we already are a great exhaustive resource on past history. we should seek to do so on a broad scale for contemporary history as well. we already are great at generating individual articles for current events, as they occur; my point is that I would like to see some more attention to also generating and maintaining a broad historical overview for the current era, and updating it as events occur.

we already have 2020s in political history, for this purpose. I would like to suggest that we continue to make this a priority; that we focus on continuing to keep this series of decade overviews going. also, "consolidationism" would look into how to effectively adhere to WP:Notability, and to document current events, without falling into the trap of WP:Recentism. for example, several years ago, the US congress changed the Speaker of the House. No one thought to add that event to any of the overviews for that era, so I added it. obviously, we can't document everything; however, there should be some kind of standard of WP:Notability to work with here.

this is just an idea right now, so this page is the best place for it. I am not planning to move this ahead to a formal proposal right now. anything I do in the future will be shaped by whatever input I get. this doesn't need to be a formal proposal anyway; it can simply evolve, as people express ideas, interest, input, etc. etc.

ok, so what do folks here think of it? I assume the idea itself sounds rather innocuous, but feel free to call out any and all details on how we might put this into practice. whether you totally agree, or disagree, or find this interesting, or find it a little superfluous, your feedback is welcome. I appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

section break 1, consolidationism discussion

You should review WP:SYNTH. Writing on topics that have occurred in the past few decades at a high-level is not really possible because the experts in history have not written the texts we would need to summarize the high-level. (I've even seen 50 years thrown around as the number before historians have sorted out who won and who lost in topics other than the discrete end of a war.) That would leave us writing synthetic commentary. Which is not allowed. --Izno (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I partly agree with you, and I partly disagree. if that were fully the case, then it would not be possible to write an overview of any current eras, topics or events,would it? and yet.... isn't Wikipedia chock full of entries on items and events that are happening now? yes, you could say that the ultimate notability of these events is not fully known or understood yet, but that only highlights my own position on this. we cannot know the future notability of events taking place now, and yet, there are those entries.

yes, I fully understand that you are saying something different, i.e., that no one can yet know how specific events or topics would fit into larger overview articles. but with respect, I disagree with that as well. we already have widely used overviews for the current era right now, as well. they just are not necessarily explicitly labeled that way. so the best examples of such current era overviews would be articles such as Presidency of Donald Trump, premiership of Boris Johnson, 2020 United States presidential election, etc etc...

in other words, articles that describe current political figures, are often actively updated when those figures do something current that is noteworthy. there is no controversy over that practice imho, and there is widespread acceptance, of the fact that these articles are edited to reflect current events that are happening now. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, interesting thought. I've made a bit of an effort in the past to shape up Human history#21st century; how do you propose we write that section, or would you have it just deleted? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had been spent long time here and noticed that so many new editors has been blocked as a sockpuppet or glitch in there Ip address that matches some other accused or for having same opinions and ideas about particular subject matters. What if there should be more concrete process for verification for new editors. So that they can't face unnecessary blocking without explaining themselves for once. In most case scenarios People go through lots of assumptions and presumptions here which sometimes not be the truth.

Suggested ideas.

• 1. Photo verification
• 2. Providing a separate name and I'd for new editors for verification when they login 1st time.
• 3. Conducting surveys every month to ensure their interest and what they think about Wikipedia. [Example like YouTube, Twitter and Instagram].

Redcap78 (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just no... I don't think Wikipedia should be getting stuff like this. It would hurt PR, and we would also lose our <13 editors. Arsonxists (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. This will just cause more people to either leave or edit as IPs. Judge accounts by their actions and edits. If someone is a vandal or sockpuppet that will be determined in time. RudolfRed (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of wrapping this up in a {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}} because proposals 1 & 2 would go against wmf:Privacy policy. Regarding proposal 3: some of us - even admins - have accounts on YouTube etc. which we would prefer not to make public. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On one side I understand the idea behind the proposal, however the verification options you've mentioned undermine core Wikipedia policies that helped to create what we have now. I'm talking about WP:Good faith and wmf:Privacy policy. Most of the IP and unregistered editors are good faith and having complicated the editing process we can loose a lot of them. This would bring more harm in my opinion.Less Unless (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There recently was a redesign of the sidebar on the desktop version of Wikipedia at an RFC. I would like to discuss how we can improve the sidebar on mobile. This is what I think it should include at a minimum.

• A help link
• An introduction to Wikipedia page
• The contents page

I welcome any other ideas on how we can improve the sidebar in mobile and once we get some ideas, we can start an RFC on how the sidebar on mobile should look like. Interstellarity (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 September, 2020, an WP:MfD was opened[2] in which user boxes expressing support for the traditional definition of marriage were nominated for deletion on the grounds that they violate the guideline restrictions in WP:UBCR. Boxes advocating support for same sex marriage were pointedly not included in the nomination. The MfD has since devolved into a WP:NOTFORUM train wreck with open declarations that opposition to SSM is an inadmissible opinion and a specie of bigotry. It has been likened by some as the moral equivalent of support for slavery. When challenged, some editors have openly declared their belief that Wikipedia should take sides in divisive cultural/political debates...

• I honestly can't see how this could possibly be anything but inflamatory, divisive political/religious advocacy, and is pretty explicitly homophobic. That it hasn't been deleted yet says a lot about Wikipedia, none of it good. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 00:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete all - imagine if it was anti-interracial marriage. Some things, just no. Lev!vich 01:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete all Divisive, hateful bilge that has no business here. OrgoneBox (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• As it turns out, some people are concerned that Wikipedia offer a welcoming and inclusive environment. But not to bigots. Zoozaz1, slavery was normal throughout most of human history. It is anathema now because people fought, and often died, to make it so. Gay people are not the only ones whose marriage depends on a Supreme Court decision passed in their own lifetime. Sure, we live in a time when Federal judicial nominees are unwilling to stand up for Brown vs. Board of Education, but in the immortal words of Dr. King, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(Re first two sentences.) I can't tell whether this is being ironic. I assume you don't actually agree with trying to drive off editors who oppose same-sex marriage, right? --Yair rand (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

If they define themselves by bigotry, sufficiently strongly to add a userbox, then absolutely. They go to Conservapedia. What would you do if anyone added a userbox saying that they believe marriage means two people of the same colour? This is exactly the same. And yes, I do mean exactly the same. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Independent of the userbox or similar, please. Should we welcome editors with that opinion or not? --Yair rand (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they don't define themselves as such. If they define themselves by bigotry, sufficiently strongly to add a userbox, then absolutely. They can go to Conservapedia where they belong. What would you do if anyone added a userbox saying that they believe marriage means two people of the same colour? This is exactly the same. And yes, I do mean exactly the same. My recommendation for anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is not to get married to someoen of the same sex. There are no valid arguments to oppose it for anyone else. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delete all It's a matter of debate or difference of opinion only as long as we continue to give it legitimacy as such. And it's well past time. World is too big to be fixed easily but, fortunately in this case, Wikipedia is not. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you are advocating that Wikipedia abandon its longstanding policy of neutrality and take sides in a highly contentious cultural issue? -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Blind and absolute neutrality is for the article space. Yes, I am suggesting that we can as a community take a stand outside of the article space and should when it is not that complicated a choice. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The above represents small sampling of the commentary at the MfD.

Some of the comments posted are clearly inconsistent with the project's longstanding neutrality on divisive social/political issues. Suggesting that fellow Wikipedians who are opposed to SSM hold views equivalent to supporting slavery is shockingly offensive and a gross violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. They represent an ugly tendency to condemn the views of others as outside the bounds of acceptable thought, never minding those views are held by the vast majority of people globally and the followers of most of the world's major religious faiths.

My personal belief is that the boxes in question DO violate both the letter and spirit of UBCR and should go. But we must not allow the project to be identified with one side or another in political controversies. Are there positions that by near universal agreement are beyond the pale and should be excluded? Yes. Slavery has been mentioned and that is under universal condemnation. Open expression of support for social political ideologies closely associated with mass repression, crimes against humanity and genocide, i.e. Fascism, Nazism, and Communism should be proscribed.

But IMO we should simply enforce UBCR stringently and without prejudice. Any political statements in userboxes, excepting the most bland, i.e. "This user is progressive/conservative in their outlook," should not be allowed. I welcome the input of my fellow editors on this topic. However, I remind everyone to be civil and assume good faith. Some of the comments in the MfD are so intemperate and outside the bounds of civil discourse that if I were not WP:INVOLVED I would have handed down formal warnings. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't stop being canvassing if you disagree really strongly. You're not even trying to frame an ongoing discussion in a neutral way; just going to VP to bang alarm drums, misrepresenting the discussion and cherry-picking quotes. You've already made your case at the MfD (and can continue to do so) and already posted to AN. Others have argued that this should be listed at CENT to get broader input. I don't know that that would be necessary, but seems like an acceptable way to go if people feel like the consequences are disproportionate to the representation. This, on the other hand, is egregious. If you think specific claims are personal attacks/behavioral problems, take it to ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to reread WP:CANVASSING as there is not even the slightest chance of my posting a discussion here falling under that definition. Many of the issues raised at the MfD are outside the competence of that forum. This needs a community wide discussion regarding the way we handle userbox advocacy for political causes. I have not pretended to be neutral on this subject. I have stated a position and am highly offended by much of the discussion at the MfD. There is nothing improper about that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done here is post a list of objections to things people have said and reiterate/elaborate upon your own position at the MfD. Like I said, if you think it's "outside the competence of that forum," you would advertise it, not present a list of specific arguments and grievances about it. If your goal weren't to canvass but to start a new discussion, you wouldn't have included all of your problems with specific things people have said in this case. You've barely even asked a meta question here, nevermind focus on it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Again, you obviously have not read CANVASSING. I have asked for input on the question of how to approach the question of political userboxes. In making that request, I have expressed my own view. If you think I am canvassing... WP:ANI is that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you're offended by the suggestion that opposition to SSM is bigotry, but not offended by the suggestion that gay people cannot marry one another. In my view, opposition to SSM is exactly like opposition to interracial marriage. Both, in my view, fall under the category of Open expression of support for social political ideologies closely associated with mass repression ... in this case, the mass repression of gay people and other non-gender-conforming people. So even if we were to make the changes you suggest -- ban political userboxes except those closely associated with mass repression, I would still support deletion of these userboxes on the same exact grounds: opposition to SSM is bigotry, closely associated with mass repression, a violation of human rights, etc. etc. Now, some may disagree with me, but my point is: the change you're advocating is no change at all. You are making a purely semantic argument. There is no way around the community deciding whether a userbox opposing SSM is in the category of allowable userboxes, or outside the category of allowable userboxes, and when people argue that it should be the latter, they're going to base that argument on the belief that opposing SSM is, in fact, an inadmissible opinion. The whole question is whether it's an "admissible" (or "ok") opinion or not; so you shouldn't be offended by people taking either side on that question, or if you are offended, realize that everyone else is offended, too, and thus your singular offense isn't a problem that needs solving. In other words, that you're offended by an MFD discussion doesn't mean there's a problem with the MFD discussion. Lev!vich 19:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors bigots because you disagree with them, is not Ok. And FTR, yet again, I affirm my belief that the nominated UBs should go. But the policy needs to be applied evenly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, don't do that. Saying something is bigotry is not the same thing as calling people bigots. The nomination statement (which is not included in the quotes above) is well grounded in existing policy. The same policy applies just as evenly to all userboxes. I would oppose a policy change that would require someone nominating a UBX at MfD to also have to nominate any UBX expressing the opposite viewpoint, which seems to be what you're suggesting should happen here. Lev!vich 19:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stating that somebody's beliefs are bigoted and then asserting that you are not applying the epithet to them personally, is absurd. I don't actually disagree with the narrow question of whether or not the boxes nominated should go. I have stated, ad nauseum, that they should. What I am asking for is community input on whether or not this approach should applied evenly. That is, as you implicitly have noted, outside the competence of the MfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not absurd at all. There's a huge difference between a "bad person" and a "bad behavior" or a "bad opinion". Just because a person holds a "bad" opinion or engages in a bad behavior doesn't make them a "bad person". And saying that a behavior or opinion is "bad" is not the same thing as saying that the people engaging in the behavior or holding the opinion are "bad". Substitute "bad" for "good" or "bigoted" or "homophobic" or any other adjective and it still holds true. And I agree with applying the policy evenly: we should not allow anti-heterosexual-marriage userboxes, either. Lev!vich 19:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In your culture. AIUI some cultures believe that a person's actions are inseparable from their moral character, and therefore engaging in bad behavior is the same thing as being a bad person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on which "bad behavior" it is. El Millo (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the term for such reasoning is fundamental attribution error. As a general statement, I would also argue that the ability to distinguish between a person's beliefs and the person who believes them, both in the self and in others, is one of the important components of rational discourse. Sunrise (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all political userboxes - Politics is a divisive subject that has no place on Wikipedia when it comes to editor's userpages. Enough of this... we don't need the drama. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And FTR I just deleted all of my userboxes, though I've never gotten any complaints. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you limiting the discussion to userboxes? (I'm asking because there are plenty of other ways to express one's political allegiance, by posting words, a picture etc. on one's user page). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. Nor could I if I wanted. This after all, The Village Pump. But I would gently suggest that we not stray too far afield lest the conversation become unwieldy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem, I left the metrics but removed the rest because I think you're right here. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This and exactly this. SSM is a wonderfully divisive issue in politics today. So are quite a few other issues (and topics). Allowing support of one side only FOR ANY REASON is just going to push people away that are wonderful editors. So just don't allow userboxes on political issues because they WILL end up angering a non-trivial number of editors when their preference isn't allowed. Ravensfire (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And, while we're at it, why not get rid of all of such social media paraphernalia from this site and concentrate on building an encyclopedia rather than "expressing ourselves". There are plenty of other web sites for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Political userboxes are inherently divisive and have exactly nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, and should be banned. At the same time, we should avoid the temptation to expand scope and solve a range of related problems in one discussion – "hey X also has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia" – as that inevitably results in "no consensus". Such groups of problems can and should be addressed one piece at a time, and whataboutism is usually counterproductive in these situations. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am okay with very surface-level political userboxes (such as "This user is a conservative") as they are far less divisive than those displaying a specific politcial/social viewpoint. However I can see how some userboxes such as the ones being displayed can be problematic. Now editors with controversial beliefs are obviously welcome here provided they abide by our policies, however openly displaying such beliefs easily cause animosity and needless controversy. funplussmart (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I share a general skepticism of the value of political userboxes to the project, but I think we need to discuss what exactly we mean by 'political'. The ideal that everyone is free to participate openly and equally, free from derogatory comments about their sexual orientation or gender identity is 1) political, 2) actively divisive in many places in the world, and 3) not an issue on which Wikipedia as an organization is neutral. Specifically, I think we need to be careful to avoid banning expressions of identity or general support for an inclusive project and society, like these:

This user is in a same-sex marriage, domestic partnership or civil union.

This user supports the LGBT community.

--Trystan (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those boxes appear problematic as they are neutrally worded. Userboxes that support or oppose a specific cause or issue is where things get messy. Supporting the LGBT community is a broad umbrella... supporting same-sex marriage is a specific cause related to the subject. Supporting Evangelicalism is again under a broad umbrella....opposing abortion is another specific cause. Just to give two examples. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trystan, The first would help to avoid trivia errors (e.g. getting gender pronouns right if the user mentions their spouse). The second is generally welcoming to marginalised editors, and neutral towards everyone else. Supporting the LGBT community does not mean, as some seem to believe, trying to persuade everyone to be gay. It means accepting people as they are and as they identify. That is not a threat to anyone, unless they have specifically decided that their identity depends in some part on rejecting the right of others to be different. That is a worldview we call bigotry - and as we see in the news, it also very often means denial, at some level. Regardless, support for people who have an immutable characteristic is good, acceptance is the bare minimum for Wikipedia, and opposing people based on immutable characteristics, demanding that they suppress them or whatever, is unacceptable here. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be in favor of banning political speech on user pages but what do we do about, say, Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter? I'm not crazy about telling people they can't have Black Lives Matter userboxes. Same with "Free Hong Kong", but then do we also allow "Hong Kong is part of China" userboxes? These always have been and always will be tough questions. Lev!vich 01:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This is too broad of a proposal on a slightly problematic premise. The issue in this MfD was infoboxes which may make people feel unwelcome. Generalising this to all forms of political ideology isn't helpful. Per Lev, what about those two examples? There's niche cases of "political ideology" too. This leads down a slippery slope of 'regulating' speech broadly, telling people what views they can and can't hold. How do you deal with non-userbox political statements? Can't limit it to userboxes, that'd be pointless. This is a bit of an exaggeration of the problem imo; if userboxes are a problem, MfD exists. If a user's page is a problem, ANI exists. Is there proof of issues that these two venues can't deal with individual or batch cases? If so, a narrowest proposal (ie, ideologies which promote non-exclusivity / foster a poor collaborative environment) should be made. Trying to deal with all political statements is one heck of a slippery slope. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We are already heading down that path on telling people what views they can and can't hold with that MfD. The ship is sailing... now how far does it go? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst I do think the Userbox guideline has been long ignored, the fact an administrator will go so far to assure Jose who are against LGBT Wikipedians can make that clear on their underpass is kind of shocking. If you were LGBT, got a message from an administrator, and saw one of those services on their page when you clicked over to see who they were, would you feel like you'd be treated fairly? What about a black person who saw an anti-BLM userbox?

Some things shouldn't be in your userpage because they're going to ruin your credibility with minority groups in half a second flat. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 02:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what of it? You are proceeding from the assumption that the LGBT and BLM issues are settled and that those subjects are not open to criticism. This is exactly why we need to bring an end to political advocacy on the part of users on their pages. Selective censorship of political views should not be acceptable in a civilized and liberal (in the classical sense of the term) society. And it most definitely should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Name calling and demonizing those with differing views should be beyond the pale. Some of the comments at the MfD left me both offended and extremely angry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

both offended and extremely angry Like what? People saying we shouldn't allow others to be openly homophobic in their user pages? Discrimination isn't protected by freedom of speech. El Millo (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Like comparing people who are not comfortable with SSM to supporters of slavery. That btw is probably close to 2/3 of the world's population. Who gets to define homophobia? Who gets to decide what speech is permissible and not? I feel like I have wandered into a chapter of 1984. Do you have any idea how this comes across as? Millions of my co-religionists were enslaved and murdered for harboring insufficiently progressive beliefs. Some of the things I am seeing written in the MfD and here, terrify me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who gets to decide what speech is permissible and not? We do. The community decides what's permissible within the confines of Wikipedia. Do you not consider it discrimination to be against same-sex marriage? Isn't it discriminatory to be against allowing a certain group of people to get married because of their sexuality? comparing people who are not comfortable with SSM to supporters of slavery this is an extreme example, these are different degrees of discrimination directed towards different groups of people. El Millo (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I do not. I believe it is discrimination to vilify and silence people because of honestly held beliefs, often of a religious nature. I think it is a specie of cultural imperialism, not much different from the "white man's burden" of European colonialists who saw it as their duty to enlighten the backward savages of the rest of the world. Whether they want to be enlightened or not. I think Rudyard Kipling and Cecil Rhodes would view many of those commenting on the MfD as kindred spirits of a sort. I think the idea of people from the United States and Western Europe passing judgement on the rest of the world and telling them that they aren't really civilized until they are just like us, is just more of the same. How much has really changed... 1890 or 2020? One fifth of the the world's people are still telling the rest how they should live and that their culture is evil.

But since the question of my own personal beliefs have come up, here they are. I am against SSM. I am against heterosexual marriage. I am against marriage in any manner being subject to the laws of the state. The private lives of adults are nobody elses business but their own and those they choose to share their life with. The state should have no say whatsoever. What two or more people do in private is their own affair provided we are talking about consenting adults. The word "marriage" should be stricken from every lawbook and statute. Those who for practical reasons wish to regularize their domestic relationships for benefits or survivor's rights etc. should be able to do so by filling out a form at the local court house and having all concerned sign it in front of a notary public. If someone wants to be "married" then just say you are married to whoever. Assuming the other party has no objections, who cares? If you want some sort of old fashioned ceremony, then just invite your friends over and exchange vows. No need for the state. If you want to be married in a place of worship, that is a private matter between you and your place of worship. If they agree, great. If they don't then you will need to work that out or go elsewhere. Freedom cuts both ways. My church does not marry same sex couples. If you don't like that, I suggest not joining. And now I am off to bed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some people oppose same-sex marriage. Some people consider such opposition to be homophobic and discriminatory. Some people consider that belief to be akin to 1984-style totalitarianism and racist cultural imperialism. And so on. This isn't a rabbit hole that has any bottom. When it comes to political debates on Wikipedia, the only winning move is not to play.--Trystan (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While I disagree with Ad on this issue, I really don't think adminship has anything to do with anything here, and in my view that's a bit of a low blow, and counterproductive. Everyone is allowed to have and to express an opinion, especially on controversial subjects, even if they're a sysop. I don't think Ad violated any policies or did anything wrong by raising these issues for broader discussion, and we don't want to have a chilling effect where we discourage admin from expressing their views as editors for fear that someone will say no admin should be expressing those views. In my view it doesn't matter if someone is an admin and it shouldn't be used in an argument unless you're talking about use of admin tools or serious violations of policy, neither of which is implicated here. Lev!vich 03:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: My point is not to vilify any specific admin. If I wanted to do that, I'd have brought up where I first saw the userbox in question. My point is that it's particularly chilling to minorities participating on Wikipedia if we normalise these sort of userboxes. When I saw this on an admin's page, I was kind of horrified, but I realised the problem wasn't the admin as such - even if it was a poor decision to broadcast them - these beliefs can easily represent nothing more than ignorance. But they're absolutely going to have a chilling effect on LGBT editors. And that's the problem. I don't want anyone banned from the project for having ignorant beliefs that could easily get better in time. It probably says more about their culture than themselves if opposition to same-sex marriage is as far as it goes. But I absolutely think that we need to mitigate the chilling efects of such ignorance. Because having the views probably doesn't harm the project. Broadcasting them does. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 06:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point, trying to be succinct, and then I'll give it a rest with these threads: assumption that the LGBT and BLM issues are settled - none of these social or political issues, let alone racism/homophobia, are settled in the real world. That's true. What is settled is that per our existing policies, user pages are not platforms to express support for discrimination. We are entirely capable of determining, on a case by case basis, whether a userbox falls afoul of WP:UBCR. Where it gets political is when people present say that we cannot evaluate that case because it is a "side". The "sides" are about politics, and are independent of our determination of whether or not something is discriminatory.

An alternative example: "All Trump supporters are [insert insult of choice here]". Very much not ok per our guidelines. What takes it away from the guidelines and into the messy realm of politics is if someone said "well if you're going to delete that, you also have to delete "I support Donald Trump" userboxes because if you delete just one side, then we're in 1984, wrongthink, taking sides, etc. But no, because while you can frame it as "the other side," it's not actually a relevant "other side" for the purposes of our guidelines. There the relevant "other side" would be something like "All Biden supporters are [insert insult of choice here]", which we could also easily assess on a case-by-case basis. In the same-sex marriage case it would be a statement expressing that the only valid form of marriage excludes marriage between one man and one woman. As it happens, that position doesn't exist. In other words, "sides" in politics do not and should not equate to "sides" when applying our guidelines. Just apply the guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am an involved party in the MfD discussion. My view is, let's not reduce this discussion into a debate of same-sex marriage itself, but rather focus on whether the userboxes shall be allowed per WP:UBCR (and other relevant policies and guidelines). My view is they do not violate the spirit of the userbox policy. I use the userbox: "This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman" as an example to illustrate my view:
  • Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks. The statement in question, This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman displays one's personal belief towards the institution of marriage (grounded on either traditional or religious values), and absolutely nothing more than that. Full stop. Allegations of discrimination are your subjective interpretation of the objective belief of users displaying this userbox. It is perfectly reasonable, and indeed likely, that a person who opposes same-sex marriage, or believe marriage is between a man and a woman, would respect LGBTQ individuals. It follows that there is no "incivility" or "personal attacks" is on display here.
  • "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." Not everyone would like what I am about to say, but unfortunately, opposition to same-sex marriage is the prevailing view as of 2020, and especially so when you take into account worldwide views on the subject. It is also a view that is NOT contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16) or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 23), both of which only prescribed the right to marry for men and women without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion. It follows, from the sheer wording of those well recognized instruments on human rights, that opposition to same-sex marriage simply isn't comparable to opposition to interracial marriage, for example. It also follows that I cannot see how holding a view that is within the reasonable bounds of discourse AND is the prevailing view worldwide would somehow become "inflammatory or divisive".
  • Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising." The statement This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman is not promoting or advocating for any ideology. It is a mere statement of personal belief as to family values, and is NOT intended to promote opposition to same-sex marriage. If there were a userbox stating along the lines of "this user opposes same sex marriage and thinks you should to" then this is advocacy. But what we have here is not.

--Dps04 (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I don't think I've ever seen anyone who sincerely believes in the "marriage is one man and one woman" line and isn't, in some way, homophobic, for what it's worth. Sceptre (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We should go back to first principles. What are user pages for? They are not for advocacy, they are there to tell other Wikipedians about yourself, in support of collaborative editing. Ultimately there is a difference between saying "I support X" and saying "Y should not be allowed to exist".
  • Saying you support a particular political party or are a member of a particular religion, is acceptable in my view. It contributes to understanding and prevents obvious mistakes (a Republican in the US is different from a republican in Australia, for example, and an English Liberal is different from an American liberal).
  • Saying you support gay rights is acceptable in that it indicates a possible area of editing interest ("I think you might be interested in X article I just created"), but saying "marriage should be between one man and one woman" is divisive and demeaning to gay Wikipedians.
  • Saying "Black lives matter" is OK, IMO, because of course they do. Saying you are a police officer would also be fine, but saying "blue lives matter" is fraught with difficulty because the implicit context for this is "...and Black lives don't". In the same way, an "ACAB" userbox would be unacceptable.

I guess, then, for me, the litmus test is: does a particular userbox tend to include or exclude. A userbox proclaiming membership of the Catholic Church would be welcoming to other Catholics and, I would argue, neutral to everyone else. A userbox proclaiming membership of the Klan would be intimidating to Black Wikipedians and welcoming only to those who agenda is defined by division and exclusion. I think that should be the test. Does a userbox or other user page content serve to foster collaboration, and where it implies membership of an "in" group, would the associated "out" group feel intimidated, devalued or threatened by it. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I echo this view. Inclusive userboxes are fine; exclusive ones are not. Guy's examples do a good job of illustrating why. The anti-same-sex marriage userboxes communicate to LGBT Wikipedians that they don't deserve the same rights as heterosexual Wikipedians. This creates a hostile, unwelcoming environment for that group of editors, which certainly runs counter to the spirit of collaboration and harms the project. Messages like that are both inflammatory and divisive, meaning they also violate WP:UBCR. Armadillopteryx 08:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: How would we apply the test you're describing to userboxes claiming membership in or support for: KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, Christian Science, Jehova's Witness, Mormon, Catholic, Christian, Wahabism, Salafism, Sufism, Muslim? Lev!vich 15:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, you make a fair point there. Membership is a neutral statement, though membership of the KKK or Westboro Baptist is unlikely to lead to a long and happy Wiki-life unless you never edit on any articles related to race or sexuality. Claiming support for an organisation (implicitly as a non-member) is an advocacy position and I guess it would depend on the exact text. "This user thinks the Klan will Make America Great Again" is different from "This user supports the Klan's right to peaceably assemble"; "This user admires Pope Francis" is different from "This user thinks the Catholic Church should be immune from investigation of sex abuse". In the end anything beyond a neutral statement of membership is going to be viewed in context, and should be weighed against the basic test: does this help us collaborate to build the encyclopaedia? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The issue is not ones political ideology. It is whether their contributions are conducive to building an encyclopaedia. Userboxes are no more special than statements on user pages in this sense. User pages aren't a hosting service. If content on them is unproductive for the purpose of Wikipedia, in this case by making editors feel unwelcome, then it should be removed. I wouldn't say this is "limiting expression" or a problematic attitude to have. Wikipedia has a foundation of openness, especially to openness of information; unnecessary discriminative remarks do not help in achieving that purpose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, indeed - and even if it were limiting expression, so what? We do that all the time. Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference between a Userboxes and a statement on user page is that a userbox is a generally inarticulate slogan copied from someone else are does not invite conversation. A userpage statement is read as a signed statement by the user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I should have been pinged to this discussion, no? Ad Orientem, you should probably inform any other editors, that have been mentioned but not yet here, of this discussion. Because, I strongly feel like I deserved to be pinged. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note: the MfD discussion has just been closed as delete. --Dps04 (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Update on status

• There is now another deletion discussion regarding Anti-Israel and anti-Arab states userboxes. This MfD seems to be fairly balanced but still raises the question on where these deletions are heading. The deletion of the anti-same-sex marrige boxes has set a bar as noted in the nominator's rationale. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scope, RfC topics, next steps, etc.

The initial MfD that started this is now closed as delete. The next step seems to be that some people have identified other userboxes to nominate for deletion. That's fine, but since there's been a lot of talk about a hypothetical RfC and talk of what to do about the same statements made outside of a userbox, it seems like a useful time to start a sub-section.

Case in point, Graeme Bartlett's approach was to circumvent deletion of the template by simply repeating the template's code on his userpage (or an approximation thereof -- I can't be sure). I.e. same as if the template were not deleted.

Personally, I did not see any great need to have an RfC about using Wikipedia user pages to express such views outside of userboxes, but this seems rather against the spirit of the deletion, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need an RfC about it as this goes against a neutral point of view by getting rid of userboxes supporting or opposing one side of a political issue. I want to repeat that this has nothing to do with what you believe in. It is not our job to state what is right and what is wrong per WP:RGW. Editors should not be pushing their point of view on Wikipedia to invite/welcome like minded people no matter what the cause may be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What RfC question would you propose? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am too tired to think up a proposal right now... (going to bed) I welcome anyone to come up with one in the meantime. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to think of one over the last couple days and haven't found an answer, either. We would need to agree on some definitions in order to set boundaries for a question. For example, if you were to say "should we prohibit all political speech on userpages" I don't think it would pass. If you say "should we prohibit using one's user page to make statements supporting discrimination against marginalized groups?" it probably would. But we just saw at that MfD that there was disagreement over which of those categories those userboxes fell into. Getting into "as long as some nontrivial number of people agree with it" seems like it wouldn't go well either.

As Graeme has demonstrated, it would likewise be insufficient to limit these discussions to userboxes, and there's no point continuing to nominate them if anyone can just reproduce them locally. Clearly a userbox isn't actually needed to make the exact same statement -- they just make it easier. We do already have WP:POLEMIC which should, but clearly does not in practice, cover some of this.... it's a tough one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this deletion is controversial, and is making Wikipedia push a particular partisan point of view, I am sure this debate will continue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, while I do not dispute with the outcome of this MfD close, given the sheer number of !votes in favour of deletion, I profoundly disagree with the closer's rationale. They essentially summarized the "keep" argument as the argument that pro-same-sex-marriage userboxes would also need deleting for the same reasons. Seriously? I contributed Three large paragraphs of argument substantiating the reason to keep, NONE of which even mentioned pro same-sex marriage userboxes. Instead I explained my view in accordance with the userbox policy, why I believe it is not discriminatory nor divisive/ inflammatory and thus should not be deleted per WP:UBCR. It is of course open for the closer to refute my arguments (or better yet, state how my arguments has been refuted by other participants in the discussion), but NOT to pretend my argument never existed. Having said this though, no I am not purusing a WP:DRV, because I do not think it will be in the interests of the community to re-litigate the issue, and quite possibly convert the DRV into another WP:Trainwreck. However worrying the rationale of the closer is, I accept the verdict of the community is to completely shut down these userboxes. --Dps04 (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to say that I do find political userboxes useful, in the same way I find blank edit summaries useful: they're a flag. Often, I'll encounter an editor on a talk page for a charged political topic making a, shall we say, highly strained argument for a particular outcome. I'll initially WP:AGF that they perhaps just have an unusual interpretation of policy, but if I check their user page and it's filled with political boxes, that's useful, since it pushes their behavior into WP:SPADE territory, or at the least indicates that they're too blinded by their ideology to look at the issue objectively. I can then choose to disengage with them or otherwise proceed accordingly. Let's allow POV pushers to out themselves. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a note that the OP, Ad Orientem, has announced his retirement as a result of the MfD discussion. I dont think this is the right approach to take, but it clearly illustrates that, if the userboxes were "divisive and inflammatory", what's clearly much more "divisive and inflammatory" than that is shutting down opposition towards one side of a controversial socio-cultural debate. --Dps04 (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I, and I think a number of other people, would have stopped editing if Wikipedia decided that discrimination was alright and discriminatory views were something to be protected. So please stop the "Oh, clearly ONLY THE DECISION TAKEN would have had negative consequences!" stuff. This wasn't just Wikipedia actively allowing, but Wikipedia actively promoting on Wikipedia-space discriminatory userboxes - because there were whole galleries to grab. There might well be some still. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 18:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point of what a neutral point of view means in this case. Discrimination to you means something entirely different to those living in other parts of the world. It is not our job per WP:PROMOTION to set moral standards on what is right versus what is wrong. In any case... the discussion is moot anyone can re-create user-boxes [3]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Wikipedia community can indeed set moral standards within itself. We do not allow for discrimination in Wikipedia, and there was disagreement over these userboxes constituting discrimination. The wide majority of !votes considered it so, arriving at a consensus that it was indeed discrimination, and concluding in the deletion of the userboxes. El Millo (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden, I don't mean to suggest that closing the MfD discussion as "delete" is the only outcome which would have negative consequences. What I was saying is, once this discussion is open, the Pandora's box is open and heated debate will definitely ensue, given the controversial nature of the subject-matter. So, if the userboxes are "inflammatory and divisive", having a heated discussion like what we had, and then having such a discussion closed either way (be it "delete", "keep" or "no consensus") would clearly be much more "inflammatory and divisive" to the community, as both sides have strong arguments and more importantly, strongly held opinions. I am not blaming you for having opened that discussion though, since any user in good standing can open a discussion for deletion of userboxes they perceive to be violating WP:UBCR. What I do observe is this: just because having a discussion is permitted within the bounds of the policy, it does not follow that having such a discussion would be in the interests of the community. I echo the words of Jimbo in his talk page: I think that it's bad to allow userboxes on one side of a live political issue, while not allowing them on the other side. -- Dps04 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't we just get rid of all political userboxes? This is a giant timesink that contributes nothing to the project. How is it helpful to find out someone you enjoy collaborating with has political views you find abhorrent? Actually, let's just get rid of any userbox that isn't project-related. I don't need to know you went to UMich, either. :) —valereee (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Possibly, but thus far nobody has offered a workable definition of "political" apart from pointing to what one or a small number of people have already categorized (leaving aside that many of those nominated for deletion weren't even included in those categories/lists). It also doesn't address creating a userbox on one's own page (i.e. not a template), putting the same kind of expression outside of a template on one's user page, or surrounding that expression with a CSS box without using a template. In other words, I'm increasingly of the mind that debates over userboxes are pointless because they're specific to particular kinds of templates when the objection is to what's written inside those templates. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe something like "Any userboxes which convey support or opposition to what a reasonable person would consider a contentious political issue are banned. Userboxes which contain statements of identity, such as being LGBT or stating nationality or ethnicity are not banned." The issue I see here is debate over if religion counts. I would argue that it probably should count as a statement of identity, considering how religious discrimination and freedom of religion are strongly protected in most places, but am unsure. Or we could just do away with userboxes entirely, honestly. I used to have embarrassing amounts of political userboxes on my userpage, but I grew out of it. However, just doing away with userboxes does sound somewhat extreme. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support Platypus' proposal. (t · c) buidhe 21:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems like a good proposal, or at least a good start. Similar to the question on religious identity userboxes, would political party identity userboxes be allowed? (e.g. "This user is a Republican") —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we should tend toward deletion of "I believe in X" user boxes. "I am a Y" and "I edit in Z topics" userboxes seem fine from a general perspective. --Izno (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's an easy test. If there's a userbox, then ask yourself if having a userbox saying the polar opposite would make anyone feel upset/offended/unwelcome/etc. If the answer is yes (and on a hot-button political topic like same-sex marriage, anything beyond a simple statement of a user's status or editing habits, the answer will be yes), then both boxes are verboten. Are you worried that this will limit your ability to tell the world about all the progressive causes you support? Tough. Even so, there's probably room to disagree about how the test applies, but it's a pretty good start. Note that this does still leave room for some political userboxes. It's hard to see how two users, one who supports going back on the gold standard, and one who opposes, would really have any sort of problem with each other – plenty of spirited debate about the topic perhaps, but nothing personal about any of it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems to be pretty close to Platypus' above, which I promise I came up with independently. Maybe this is a good sign. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems like a terrible false equivalency argument. The most banal userboxes out there "I love Scotland", "This user believes in making Wikipedia a friendly place for new editors", and "This user is against literal Nazis" all fail that. This kind of ivory tower worship of a theoretical perfect, no-consequences free speech utopia really has no place in a pragmatic environment. Some things just aren't equal to their opposite. Hell, several WikiProjects would be banned from having userboxes under this rule - WP:WikiProject Women in Red certainly dare not say they want to improve the presence of women on Wikipedia if they're going to be judged by the opposite, wanting to suppress women on Wikipedia.

  How about solutions that aren't stupid? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 01:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow...spitballing an idea (this is the idea lab after all), and I have it called stupid for my trouble. Stay classy, San Diego! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry. It's just one of those things that.... well, it sounds good, until practicalities get thought about. It's the Userbox equivalent of that old meme: 'When one person says, "Let's throw 10 puppies in a blender", and the other says "No, that's awful. What are you thinking? Don't do that", the solution isn't to compromise and blend five puppies.' Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 02:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Adam Cuerden, how about striking through your "How about solutions that aren't stupid?" statement? It might be construed as a personal attack... Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 02:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just say two things:

1. userboxes are containers for expressions, not expressions themselves; if the problem isn't the formatting of how it's displayed, there's no point continuing this discussion in the context of "userboxes" as opposed to specific statements on userpages.
2. this isn't actually about politics. it's about our fourth pillar. it was always about the fourth pillar. the only reason it has become about politics is because arguing along the lines of the fourth pillar makes the "keep" position more or less untenable. so if you want to keep it and the original framing doesn't work, reframe as being not about the fourth pillar but about picking sides in off-wiki politics. at the end of the day, while it's impossible to remain apolitical, we put our rules and our community above those external debates when it comes to, say, userpages. does a statement negatively affect our attempt to foster a welcoming environment for all groups? if so, external politics is secondary. if "both sides" of an issue aren't actually equal when it comes to the fourth pillar, they have no business being compared here. the only hitch is being welcoming to groups defined by their discrimination or other negative actions towards others (in which case, you're welcome to edit here, but you still have to refrain from expressing those views because this isn't a first amendment exercise, it's a collaborative encyclopedia-writing exercise).

TL;DR - this is about statements on userpages and the fourth pillar, not userboxes and off-wiki political "sides" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Our userboxes typically are the only outlets for self-expression allowed in Wikipedia. Article-spaces should not reflect our views at all, and talk pages mostly reflect policy-related debates and content disputes. When I express my beliefs or interests in an userbox, it is not a declaration that I am trying to push my POV in any article I happen to edit. Similarly, I expect most Wikipedians practice self-restraint when it comes to voicing their preferences. But I do not believe that Wikipedia is becoming a more "welcoming environment" by deciding which political, religious, etc. views are acceptable to others and which should remain hidden under threat of punishment. It is no longer a matter of "external politics" when Wikipedia adopts a clear stance on the matter, and threatens anyone who voices dissent. Wikipedia itself starts playing politics and taking sides. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Outlaw all political and social policy advocacy userboxes, and all but the most anodyne religious userboxes; deprecate non-templated position statements on user pages. It's nice to express ourselves on our userpages, and I've butted heads defending redlinked categories as harmless collegiality. But taking a political or social policy position on one's userpage, yes, even a "Je suis Charlie" banner, is divisive to the community. So are religious statements, except for the format "This editor is an X or is interested in Xness". It is my understanding—but I wasn't there, so I may have this partly wrong—that Jimbo deleted all userboxes (or all except the Babel boxes?) for that reason and the community recreated the majority in user space on the understanding we needed to keep them from being nailing of colors to the mast, or they might be deleted again. Usage has crept, and here we are. I rarely agree with Jimbo on anything, but I believe we've proved him right. One editor's proud declaration of their religion or honest statement of their beliefs can be intimidating or even hurtful to another. Once we start deleting them on grounds of inadmissability, we start making judgements about what beliefs or opinions are admissable, and that's not the issue. Or it should not be, because we are not social media, or even a debating society. Our strength is the breadth of our backgrounds, knowledge, and skill sets; I don't want to know what opinions another editor holds, I shouldn't be able to tell from their editing, and I don't want any editor to feel unwelcome here either because of what they see on another editor's user page or because of what they thought they could put on their user page and are told they can't. Once I know someone is hostile to some aspect of who I am, the damage is done. We already deprecate divisive and polemical statements on userpages; we should enforce that by getting rid of all userboxes that violate that principle, fairly, explicitly, and across the board, and by making clear with enforcement action that non-templated statements are inappropriate, too. I have argued along these lines before and been told it will never happen, but I cannot see why it doesn't already follow under policy. If the thought is that we want to be able to identify pedophiles or Nazis, surely non-templated statements give them away adequately? I don't even see why we need an RfC; I consider this is already policy. If there must be an RfC, clearly I'm not the one to write it. But we have the entirety of the rest of the internet to talk about what we believe in and what we despise. Yes, I have a blog. But this is a unique place on the internet and this community exists to work on a neutrally written encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, trying to ban "political" or "divisive" userboxes is much too open to interpretation, and disputes about interpretation would themselves likely bring people into unproductive arguments. We need something more general and unambiguous. I suggest that the problematic userboxes are those which are used to advocate for or against, or express support for or opposition to:
  • Any piece of legislation, system of government, political candidate or party, or government agency/organization;
  • Any military or paramilitary group, or participant in any armed conflict;
  • Any state or government;
  • Any political-ideological movement or social movement;
  • Any religion, religious stance, or demographic group.
• Does that cover most of it? Definitely needs some fine-tuning, at least. --Yair rand (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • • That's excssively prohibitive. You couldn't even say "I'm a Christian" or "I'm an SNP supporter", or even "I'm a proud Scot". We should be limiting as little as possible, not banning even the most uncontroversial things in a misguided effort at fairness. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 19:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think editors should be allowed to say on their user pages, for example, "This user accepts Jesus Christ as their savior" or "This user does not believe in the magic person in the sky", any more than "This person defines marriage as between one man and one woman" or "This person endorses the inviolability of Eretz Yisroel" or "This user is a Communist" or "This user is a monarchist". (I was avoiding giving examples because we have allowed policy to creep such that editors can reasonably expect to be allowed all of those, and only one of them has now been outlawed by consensus.) That means we should not permit "This user is a Christian" or "This user is a Social Democrat" either. Fair's fair, and as I say I believe that was the original position hammered out at the end of the user box wars, with only Babel boxes, positions on editing such as "This user thinks all editors should be registered" and "This user is a deletionist", and anodyne and somewhat edit-related things like "This user is from Zambia" and "This user is a Moslem or is interested in Islam" allowed. Fair's fair, and all my first examples are divisive and are hurtful to some editors. (We have the whole rest of the internet to identify what side we're on. And, I'll add, to tell everybody who we are; there should be no pressure to do so here, it reduces safety.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I think it's not that hard. If something clearly advocates for discrimination, exclusion or violence, then it's not allowed. If something is a bit more ambiguous, we start a discussion, as we did with the "marriage is between one man and one woman" userboxes and as it is currently being done with the anti-Zionist userboxes and the like. Most editors clearly thought the former was discriminatory, while most editors thus far are considering the latter not discriminatory and it seems less controversial overall, judging by the amount of participation. El Millo (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yair rand, there's the germ, of a good idea there. If a 501(c)3 could not do it, a userbox probably shouldn't either. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all political userboxes. These are outside the purpose of Wikipedia, and encourage people to use it as advocacy for a cause. If all you are interested in is advocating for a certain viewpoint, you shouldn't be on Wikipedia. This can be done by updating the relevant policy, and notifying new users that they should not create political userboxes, with a warning. I think statements of religious belief are okay because that's often part of a person's identity, although I would be open to removing them as well. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 04:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that the best way to solve this issue once and for all is to Delete all political userboxes. It is difficult to draw an unambiguous, yet widely accepted, non-arbitrary line between what constitutes discrimination and what is not, or what is within the acceptable bounds of political discourse and what is not, as people have wide-ranging opinions on that based on their own values, cultures and experience. However, I am anticipating a fair share of opposition if this gets proposed. This will not be the first time the encyclopedia will have proposed to make such a ban, and the last time it was so proposed didn't end so well. -- Dps04 (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just going to one more time point out that the issue is particular kinds of statements, not how they're formatted on a userpage. As such, any RfC that targets only userboxes doesn't actually do anything when someone displays the exact same thing using a different template or no template. I feel like I've said that a few times now, so I'll keep quiet for now, unless someone makes the mistake of forming an RfC that's only about userboxes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It rather feels like this is all going to develop into an over-broad proposal, and get rejected. If you want this to pass, you need to come up with some very tight requirments. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 16:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, a simple statement on a userpage is obviously just that user, but a userbox has an air of at least semi-officiality that could be seen as Wikipedia supporting their position. --Khajidha (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all userboxes - Anything that they convey that might be relevant to your work on Wikipedia can be stated in prose and anything that isn't relevant to your work on Wikipedia doesn't belong here.--Khajidha (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is explicitly not a vote. This is where to come up with the proposal being moved forwards. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 20:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this is my proposal. It is absolutely impartial and simple to determine if it applies. --Khajidha (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we shouldn't have any big shit about politics until the US election (including big shit about whether or not any given shit is politics). People (specifically Americans) tend to become quite mentally confused and agitated around this time every four years, and I'd go so far as to say that this election contains at least as much bozosity as the previous four combined. It's like lycanthropy, except for being angry about politics. One editor (with more than fifty thousand edits) seems to have already left over this discussion. Obviously, it's unreasonable to expect a whole drama to be postponed for upwards of a month, but in all seriousness, I think everyone ought to at least take into account the sheer amount of Mad Online Syndrome that's currently perfused into all corners of the Internet before evaluating the posts here too harshly. jp×g 12:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia isn't the United States. The political userbox experiment has clearly failed on Wikipedia as users over time expanded them too far into taboo categories. It is akin to the flight of Icarus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all political userboxes. I bet a majority of them fall into WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:UBCR in some way shape or form. The one at a time deletions also threaten Wikipedia's stance on a WP:NPOV (WP:5P2) "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NPOV policy in a nutshell states: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. NPOV applies to articles, not to the community as a whole or to userspace. These one at a time deletions are helpful to see what the members of the Wikipedia community consider to be too much or too far. Since not everyone agrees on what constitutes discrimination or advocates for violence and what doesn't, those who are interested participate in a discussion, and then a consensus emerges. There was a consensus in favor of deleting the "one man and one woman" userboxes, and a consensus seems to be forming in favor of keeping the anti-Zionist and similar userboxes. El Millo (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move this to meta's RfC Honestly, if we want to make Wikipedia inclusive, why not apply it evenly? Why only in English Wikipedia? We should've gone with Meta instead to discuss this. Userboxes aren't only being used in english wikipedia, a lot of other wikipedias probably have one or similar. A policy about inclusion and exclusion should be applied Wikimedia-wide rather than Wikipedia only. It'll be weird to see users getting confused about "Hey, why I can't express that in [insert language] Wikipedia? I could have that in [insert language] Wikipedia!" Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 00:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff and note |opentheme=. A change was made, but did someone change double quotes " to single quotes ''? Feels like there should be an easy way to determine this by now without having to scroll down to look at the output in the infobox. Maybe a super-script or something up in the diff area? " ^[DQ] '' ^[SQ] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a specific case of diffs not being sufficiently distinctive in many cases. My pet peeve is somebody adding/removing a space, changing a period to a comma, etc. These can be difficult to see in the middle of a big diff. Likewise O vs 0, l vs 1, and other pairs of characters which are visually indistinguishable in many fonts. That last problem multiplies many fold when you include unicode. So, yeah, I'd like to see a redesign of the diff screen which gives you the option to drill-down into more detail, and/or more obviously highlights the changes. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:WikEdDiff; it should catch most of those. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, Wow, thanks. I'm going to install that. Looks like exactly what I need. Did I mention that my eyes aren't as young as they used to be, so I need all the help I can get :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually see that change as being fairly obvious, and for once WikEdDiff does a bad job of highlighting the difference; the stock-diff looks absolutely fine to me. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I use vector, and they look identical to me. And WikiEdDiff, which I've had installed for years, doesn't help me out here. And, I'm guessing, it wouldn't help out newer editors if newer editors don't know that it exists. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the recent change to use the same monospace typeface used in the edit box as the typeface for diffs has made the difference between single quotes and double quotes clear. From the previous discussion on the technical village pump, I believe you might have overridden this change. You can follow some of the instructions in that discussion and choose any font you have available on your computer instead of the "sans-serif" font, which is configured in your browser. You can also use any of the free fonts from Google, accessing them from WMF servers instead of Google: see User:Isaacl/style/diff-mono-font.css for some fonts I have tried. isaacl (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your meta:User:Cyphoidbomb/global.css file has set the font used in the diff view to "sans-serif". You can pick a different font that is more suitable for you. isaacl (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb, isaacl is correct. Two single quotes are very easy to distinguish from double quotes in a monospaced font: '' vs ", but hard in a sans-serif font: '' vs ". 62.216.206.114 (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They look pretty different to me, with the single quotes having a large space between them. Maybe it's related to a gadget, as mentioned by others above? Isabelle ^🔔 15:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that most of us experienced users know that one of the best ways to improve an article is to locate a featured article for a similar topic to use as a template/inspiration. But new editors are likely to find it very difficult to locate the featured article directory, if they even know about the concept of FAs/GAs at all. If it would be possible to program, I think it would be extremely useful to have a tool that could show up somewhere on talk pages that'd use a search algorithm to identify the FA most similar to the article (or, if no featured article is similar, the most similar GA). It could then prompt editors with something like Looking for ideas to improve this page? Check out Foobar, a high-quality page on a similar topic. Do you all agree that this would be useful? And if so, how hard would it be to create? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like this. How about adding two check-boxes to the Wikipedia search engine, one of which added "incategory:Featured_articles" and the other which added "incategory:Good_articles" to the end of the search request?

For that matter, change the way Category: pages work so there is a "search only this category" search bar, with an optional "search sub-categories up to x layers deep" where X limited to something reasonable maximum, say 2 or 3. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it would be useful frankly. Often the most "similar", if all text is searched for word matches, will be a different type of article - an actor rather than a film say. Is this really a big problem? There aren't so many FAs in particular that they aren't easy to find for a particular sort of topic. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A "find similar articles" tool would be useful: something that would, say, find articles with the same or similar infobox template, categories, and WikiProject banners, with filters for quality or size. Basically an automated/prefilled WP:PET or quarry: Lev!vich 05:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree! Sorry to jump on this idea wagon, but it is also better to have a similar thing such as this when we want to create an article. For example, we could have an article creation tool where we could put the relevant tags and then wikipedia would recommend high quality article in which we could copy and paste the format of the high quality articles to our article. If we want to create an article about a city, then it would show us a list of FA and GA articles about city. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 23:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So my idea is to have a new type of Wikiproject named a micro-wikiproject. These would be very small Wikiprojects which are dedicated to covering topics large enough to be significant, but not large enough to be their own Wikiproject, Task Force or Subtask Force. These micro-groups would edit as little as 5 pages, but as many as 30 or so and would comprise of not too many people (maybe around 3?). It would most likely outline topics linked by Nav-Boxes (as opposed to portals) The purpose of these micro-wikiprojects would be to provide, up to date, current, thourough information on small groups of articles so that editors can focus on making the individual articles the best they can be.
An example of where a Micro-Wikiproject would work well is with the video game franchise Minecraft. It has around 20-30 articles on the subject ranging from games to iconography. It is too small to have a Wikiproject, but undeniably relevant enough to require up to date information.
What do you think? Would this work well? Squid45 (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What wouldn't work well is limiting the number of participants. Anyone is, and should be, entitled to join any Wikiproject that they are interested in. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. 3 was an estimate of how many were necessesary, considering the number of articles, but the more people join, the better. Maybe even if the project grows big enough, it can be deemed a full Wikiproject status. Squid45 (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A WikiProject is a group of people. A WikiProject is not a case of Build it and they will come. If you don't already have the people, you don't have a WikiProject.

When such a small number of people are working together, they should just work together, using article talk pages and their own userspace. Setting up the infrastructure for a WikiProject (e.g., pages, categories, tagging, coordinating...) can run on the order of a hundred hours' work, even when the scope is small. If you've got three good editors, they should not waste that much time on paperwork. They should just edit the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The usual approach is to create a task force underneath an appropriate WikiProject. isaacl (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In particular the video games wikiproject already has task forces for Blizzard, Nintendo, Rockstar Games. So it seems like the precedent here would just be to set up an additional task force for Mojang Studios. That way you get to use the infrastructure of the existing Wikiproject while still attracting the editors wanting to work on the Minecraft franchise specifically. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, video game project already trimmed and deprecated a lot of inactive task forces like this. Company task forces don't last and editors eventually just move on. In fact, both Blizzard and Rockstar task forces you linked are inactive and were upmerged by consensus. In fact, the most recent precedent has been the opposite of creating the task forces -- to centralize discussion to the main project talk page. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comes down to what WhatamIdoing said: find the interested persons first, and they can choose to hold their discussions wherever they find convenient. The easiest is to just adopt the talk page of an existing, relevant WikiProject. This has the added bonus of advertising the group's activity to a potentially larger audience. If that becomes unwieldy, then you can create a subpage (that is, a taskforce subpage) and hold discussion there. isaacl (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to see some clarification of how a Micro WikiProject would differ from a task force.Vorbee (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just get this idea from a dream, what if users could download contributions they have? It would be like the option to download all contributions they make so that they won't feel useless editing wikipedia if wikipedia suddenly gets censored/wikimedia dissolved in the distant future. FYI The name doomsday button also come from the same dream. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 13:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeromi Mikhael: only "your contributions" wouldn't help you read the encyclopedia very easily, but you can actually download the ENTIRE encyclopedia - see Wikipedia:Database download for information. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like, as our private collection of what have we created? Something like that... I want to keep stuff I've created here offline. Its 11 pm right here and I'm gonna sleep. Would later come back for more explanations.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 16:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a professor at Boston University School of Medicine. I teach a class in which a semester project for each student is to create or edit a Wikipedia page.

For the health sciences, Wiki has the requirement that references must be from review articles. This makes a lot of sense, because it helps to insure the rigor of citations used in Wikipedia articles.

However…… this requirement presents a challenging barrier for my students (and many scientists). Very often, my students want to post on subjects for which there are not any reviews. Sometimes a subject is relatively new and has some high-quality primary research, but the ideas have not yet been synthesized into a review on the subject. Other times, the subject is about a topic for which there are articles, but the area has not garnered enough attention to be the subject of a review article. Yet another example is the discussion of clinical trials. Discussing clinical trials often benefits from citation of the primary research which includes critical details about the trial that are unavailable in reviews. Finally, in discussing a biomedical topic, often the primary research shows data that is not covered in reviews.

I have been pondering mechanisms that would allow Wiki editors to objectively know whether an article is sufficiently accepted in the field to allow use in a Wiki page. I have an idea that is based on number of citations:

What about if Wikipedia allows citation of primary biomedical research articles that have been cited in the biomedical literature a defined number of times. I’m not sure what that number should be, and it might very based on the field. However, my intuition is that simplicity is key, so I am thinking about a specific number of citations that would work for many (but not all) subjects. For instance, Wikipedia could allow citation of an article if Google Scholar or Web of Science shows that it has been cited in the biomedical or patent literature 100 times (the exact number would have to be discussed and refined). Thus, an editor could simply check Google Scholar or Web of Science to look at the number of times the article was cited. If it reaches the threshold (e.g., 100 citations) then it is allowed, but if it does not reach the threshold it is dis-allowed.

This approach would be very enabling for the sciences, because it would allow citations for important scientific articles, allowing more depth for Wiki articles. The use of Google Scholar or Web of Science would provide an objective source for determining if an article has been widely accepted in the field (a proxy for “scientifically rigorous” and/or “scientifically important”). The key question would be defining the threshold for the number of citations. Clinical articles tend to get more citations, whereas obscure fields (such as the study of anaerobic marine organisms) tend to get fewer citations. But perfect is the enemy of good enough.

A threshold of 30 would be more forgiving, whereas in my experience, 100 becomes less forgiving. It is also important to note that citations accrue with time, so older articles have more citations than newer articles. Thus, 100 citations might be an acceptable requirement for an article more than 3 years old, while 30 citations might be acceptable for an article published in the last 3 years. Finally, because authors cite their own work, it is important to make the number high enough so that authors can’t “cite themselves into legitimacy”.

My students are generally PhD students who like this approach because most other classes in their education encourage them to cite primary research articles, and limit citations to review articles. BrainMan2017 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]