Wikipedia:Village pump (all)

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

(to see recent changes on Village pump subpages)

Village pump sections

Policy

post, watch, search
Discuss existing and proposed policies

Technical

post, watch, search
Discuss technical issues about Wikipedia

Proposals

post, watch, search
Discuss new proposals that are not policy-related

Idea lab

post, watch, search
Incubate new ideas before formally proposing them

WMF

post, watch, search
Discuss issues involving the Wikimedia Foundation

Miscellaneous

post, watch, search
Post messages that do not fit into any other category

View all village pump sections at once

Other help and discussion locations

I want...	Then go to...
...help using or editing Wikipedia	Teahouse (for newer users) or Help desk (for experienced users)
...to find my way around Wikipedia	Department directory
...specific facts (e.g. Who was the first pope?)	Reference desk
...constructive criticism from others for a specific article	Peer review
...help resolving a specific article edit dispute	Requests for comment
...to comment on a specific article	Article's talk page
...to view and discuss other Wikimedia projects	Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
...to learn about citing Wikipedia in a bibliography	Citing Wikipedia
...to report sites that copy Wikipedia content	Mirrors and forks
...to ask questions or make comments	Questions

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

Policy

Rate-limiting new PRODs and AfDs?

Hi, I was recommended to post this at the village pump by a a comment here.

There has been a recent issue where dozens of PRODs and AfDs (about 80 of them last month) of pre-Internet-era track and field Olympians were all created in a short timespan. For comparison, the usual rate that these get created is one or two per week. The rate is of particular importance here because unlike most processes on Wikipedia, there is a one-week deadline for most PRODs and AfDs, so when many are created all at once it can be difficult to properly address them in time.

While it's true that some of these articles were created by User:Lugnuts without SIGCOV references, it's also true that significant coverage exists for most of them -- to quote User:WhatamIdoing at the above linked thread, At some level, we all know that there is local coverage on every modern Olympic athlete, because (a) local newspapers always run the 'local kid does well internationally' kinds of stories, because articles that combine national pride, local people, and good news sell well, and (b) every time someone has actually done the work of getting access to paper copies, they've found these sources.

A similar situation happened about four months ago, and the solution was just to procedurally revert all of the PRODs: User_talk:Seefooddiet/Archive_1#109 proposed deletions in a couple of hours?

Because finding pre-Internet newspaper sources for non-English speaking countries can be labor intensive, is there a policy solution to the above problem? --Habst (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is something we can solve with more rules.

Making 109 PRODs in one hour is just silly, and there's no amount of regulation that will stop people from doing silly things. I do understand this kind of rate is frustrating, but I think creating and enforcing rules about the rate of nominations will create unforseen problems. You can't stop people from being silly, but you can trout them after the fact. Cremastra (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

You can also WP:TBAN them after the fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

109 PRODs in one hour sounds like a WP:MEATBOT issue. There is no way you can evaluate that many articles in that amount of time, so the first step would be to deprod with the summary that no WP:BEFORE was done and the article needs a full evaluation. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Note it's possible, if unlikely, that the tagger spent significant time researching the 109 articles individually before tagging them all at once. A single rapid tagging session does not by itself indicate WP:MEATBOT. Anomie⚔ 13:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

For small groups of closely related articles that is possible, but it's not at all plausible that you'd research that many before nominating them - you'd tag them as you go. Especially if you are not doing a group nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This is mostly something that can be dealt with informally through current P&G (disruptive editing applies to all sorts of things). For larger deletion projects, it would be preferable to either bundle them or start a community discussion, depending on the nature of the articles. With that said, note that per WP:NSPORTS2022 Proposal 5 there's already consensus to delete any sports bios that do not currently have significant coverage in the article, overriding WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. These deletions aren't indefinite, they're just until someone gets around to finding significant coverage. I'd also ask about whether local coverage is "significant" as opposed to routine; if all athletes have local coverage regardless of notability, it's unlikely to be significant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I have a relevant discussion open at WT:NOT about the definition of 'routine'. We're just getting started, so things may change, but from early comments, it appears that 'routine' is frequently understood to have no particular relationship to 'significant coverage'. SIGCOV is how many (encyclopedically useful) words/facts were written. 'Routine' is that if every ____ automatically gets (e.g.,) one article printed about it the next morning, then that is the routine. ("____" is a relevant large category, like "film" or "sports game" or "election", not a small category like "films starring Joe Film" or "FIFA World Cup finals").

With these two models, it is possible for routine coverage to provide SIGCOV. And if you agree or disagree with that, then I invite you to join that discussion and tell us so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This sort of thing in general is a matter of good old common sense, no ammount of policy will help here. If you need one, WP:BULLINACHINASHOP would be it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Absolutely not, not unless a similar rate limit is applied to article creation. At the moment an editor can mass-create a ton of articles very rapidly; to avoid a WP:FAIT situation, it is obviously necessary for another editor to be able to challenge those articles equally-rapidly. Regarding the evaluation of articles, above - often when people do this, it's in response to discovering such a mass-creation. In that case all the articles can reasonably contain the same crucial flaw that means they shouldn't have been created; I continue to assert that WP:BEFORE is advisory and optional (otherwise it would invert WP:BURDEN, which obviously places the burden to search for sources on the people who add or wish to retain material - you can't add something and then insist other people do that search before deleting it.) But even for people who try to insist that it is mandatory, it only requires "reasonable" searches, and when dealing with mass-created articles it is reasonable to simply evaluate the method they were created by and therefore examine them all at once before mass-prodding or mass-AFDing them. Obviously such mass actions are meant to be taken cautiously but we can't forbid them here, since they're sometimes clearly necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Editors can't mass-create more than 25–50 articles per day without getting written permission (and nobody's actually done that for years). If the goal is to mirror creation limits, then that suggests a rate limit of 25–50 AFDs per day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Years, huh. —Cryptic 15:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Redirects aren't articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  That's a limitation of the data available. Manual inspection of the results reveals plenty of instances where the created pages are mostly non-redirects. Example. —Cryptic 16:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Disambiguation pages aren't articles, either. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Can Quarry filter by Special:Tags or edit summaries? Excluding any edit with "Tags: New redirect" or an edit summary containing words like redirect or disambiguation would help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  "Editors can't mass-create more than 25–50 articles per day without getting written permission (and nobody's actually done that for years). " ??? Where do you get that idea from? See e.g. User:Ponor, who created 235 articles between 02.27 yesterday and 06.10 today. Fram (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  From WP:MASSCREATE, which says "large-scale" creations require written permission in advance, and adds that "While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed."

  If Ponor has not received permission under this policy provision, then any concerned editor can take the violation off to ANI, with the possible results including mass deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I also note that Ponor appears to be using a script (PAWS) to facilitate the masscreation. Cremastra (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  So not "can't" but "aren't theoretically allowed to, but nothing's stopping them". There is no rate limit like there is with account creations and so on. Fram (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  100%, absolutely, this.

  People are like “Mass creation isn’t a problem because we blocked Lugnuts” and they forget that they either did nothing about Lugnuts or supported him, and that Lugnuts was only blocked in the end because of uncivil behaviour. FOARP (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  On the very rare occasions it is actually desirable (it's never "necessary") to mass-delete articles then we have processess for that - namely group AfDs and in extreme cases RFCs. PRODs should never be used en-mass because PRODs are explicitly only for uncontroversial deletions, and mass deletion is always controversial. And anyway it should never be easier to delete an article than create one - our goal is to build an encyclopaedia not to delete one. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  mass deletion is always controversial Is that a guideline or your opinion? I was reading this because in December I proded a bunch of articles a single editor had made in a short period of time and I think most of them were deleted. I do not recall anyone mentioning this to me at the time Czarking0 (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  How many is "a bunch"? On 18 December 2024, I see five articles that you prod'd but that did not get deleted. They were by two different editors, writing about two unrelated subjects. Two or three articles per editor/subject is not "mass deletion". Something like 25–50 articles, all on the same subject, and especially if it were all of the articles on that subject or if the prod statement had a lousy rationale (such as "No ____ is ever notable" – something an experienced editor like you would never claim) would be mass prodding.

  Reasonable people could disagree on exactly where to draw the line between those two extremes, but I don't think that, say, five articles on the same subject would count. And if the article is unsourced and qualifies for WP:BLPPROD, then any editor who runs across it should either promptly make it ineligible (i.e., add a source) or prod it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• I think there needs to be proportionality here, and specifically that the effort required to delete an article should be proportionate to the effort spent in its creation. Lugnuts stubs were created at extremely high rate, often several per minute, from databases. Therefore they should be proddable at an extremely high rate; but they aren't, because we have editors who insist on laborious and time-intensive processes that have the practical effect of making them ludicrously difficult to get rid of.

Per policy, we're expected to be very firm about the use of high quality sources for biographies of living people. Lugnuts' creations very largely consist of undersourced, unmaintained, unwatchlisted BLPs and in my view they represent the most ghastly risk to the project. I continue to feel that the best thing we could do with Lugnuts articles is purge them all. In due course, good faith editors who will actually curate and maintain them will be ready to bring the appropriate ones back.

Of course, on the day that happens, I'll be hitting the slopes with my good buddy Satan.—S Marshall T/C 23:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• I think this is a fairly specific issue that is better addressed on a case by case basis

Czarking0 (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• You'd like to address 93,000 extremely similar articles one by one because...?—S Marshall T/C 10:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  While the articles may be similar the subjects are not necessarily so. It is very significantly more important to get things right than to do them quickly, so we need to take the time to assess what the correct action for each article is. I'm not advocating individually in every case, but any grouping must be done carefully and thoughtfully. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I would agree with you if the subjects were similar, but they are from wildly different countries and time periods. Just because the article format or length is the same doesn't mean the subject matter is. --Habst (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  These would be the editors who insist on laborious and time-intensive processes to whom I referred. The time should have been taken at creation, because these are biographies. It was not. Lugnuts made these very rapidly from a database, and they read almost identically. I do feel that it is for those who advocate keeping them to review and watchlist them all.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  How much time should have taken at creation is irrelevant now they have been created. What matters now is that two wrongs don't make a right and those who wish to review articles before deletion be given the time to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  You've had years. How much more time will you need?—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Assuming your figure of 93,000 articles is correct, and an average of 10 minutes to do a full and proper BEFORE and add make any relevant improvements to the article (I don't know how accurate this is) comes to 645 days, 20 hours. That's about 1¾ years of volunteer time assuming no duplication of effort, no time spent pushing back against proposals to just delete the lot without adequate review, no time spent on other articles, no time defending articles improved (but not sufficiently to someone) from PRODs/AfDs, no time discussing articles on talk pages (e.g. merge/split proposals), no time dealing with vandalism, no time improving articles to more than the bare minimum standard, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  There are exactly 93,187. Lugnuts' autopatrolled rights were removed in April 2021, so the community has been well aware of the magnitude of the problem with his creations for about four years. I would like to comply with policy by being very firm about the use of high-quality sources for these biographical articles. But I can't: no venue exists in which I'm allowed to be firm. If I tried to mass-PROD or mass-AFD them then I would be told off for being disruptive. The whole quagmire is unfixable in any rational or acceptable timescale, which is why I keep saying that the incredible number of unwatchlisted biographies represents the most ghastly risk to the project.—S Marshall T/C 16:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  The whole quagmire is unfixable in any rational or acceptable timescale that depends entirely on your definitions of "rational" and "acceptable". In the view of myself and many others, any way forward must allow time to properly review each article, search for high quality sources in the place they are most likely to be found (which may be offline and/or not in English) and (where applicable) add them to the article. Anything shorter than that is neither rational nor acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  And that's why I say that "no venue exists in which I'm allowed to be firm."—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Then create them after the sources are found. Would you still believe we should leave them be if someone used bots to create articles for all ~10 million people listed on IMDB? Also going to note (somewhat in response to S Marshall) that as I said above, this was addressed at WP:NSPORTS2022 where it was decided that sports biographies must have sigcov in the article. So any without already-existing sources in the article are fair game. This includes but is not limited to the articles in Category:Sports biographies lacking sources containing significant coverage. There's already consensus for this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Fram @S Marshall @Thebiguglyalien, according to the OP, "NEXIST and NBASIC override NSPORTS2022" and "SPORTSCRIT #5 does not apply" to athletes who meet a subcriterion, which is why he has been deprodding every Lugstub and insisting editors have to have checked all local offline archives to prove no SIGCOV exists at AfD. This has been a problem in particular for non-English subjects, where he often dumps search results that he hasn't even translated as evidence of "coverage" and obliges others to translate them all, after which he will claim that various sentences and sentence fragments add up to BASIC. See also this ongoing headache, and this, and this. JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  He's not deprodding every Lugstub – its mainly only ones that have a high chance of being notable (I've seen hundreds of Olympian PRODs recently, many of which are probably notable, get deleted without anyone attempting to take a look into it) – nor is he insisting editors have to have checked all local offline archives to prove no SIGCOV exists at AfD. All we want is that some archives be searched – its very frustrating when we're having some of the all-time greatest African athletes deleted because no one is checking any relevant places. What's wrong with listing coverage of a subject that one can't translate themselves so that someone who can speak the language can hopefully see if its sufficient for notability? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  If All we want is that some archives be searched then why wasn't searching all Czech newspaper archives available at Charles University, or all Al-Anwar and Al-Ahram and Akhbar Al-Usbo and Addustour newspaper archives, or any of the other archives in dozens of other AfDs enough? BEFORE does not even hint at recommending a local or even nation-specific archives search, so you are demanding WAY more than is expected at AfD ON TOP of ignoring a global consensus requirement. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'm more talking about the many African and Asian subjects being deleted, rather than the one Czech athlete for which the argument was in part that the sources were sufficient (even if you disagreed). I'm going to go through the last few Olympian AFDs that have been deleted/redirected and note if a relevant archive was searched: Mohamed Al-Aswad? No. Bohumír Pokorný? Yes, but no one was willing to look at the coverage. Kamana Koji? No. Sami Beyroun? No. Alfredo Valentini? No. Artur Elezarov? No. Faisal Marzouk? No(?). Piero Ferracuti? No. For many of these, there's not even evidence that any search anywhere is being done. Suggesting that someone should look for sources from that subject's nation is not "demanding WAY more than is expected". BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  It absolutely is demanding way more when there is literally nothing in BEFORE that suggests anything close to what you are asking for. JoelleJay (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  However, as I've stated in other threads, I do think prods/noms should provide evidence that a search was done in the native language. But it's not editors' faults that potentially notability-demonstrating sources are not verifiable; we don't keep articles on other GNG-dependent topics just because no local resources are accessible. I've asked WMF numerous times, including in several on-wiki discussions, to put their considerable largesse into media digitization efforts in underrepresented countries, but they would rather spend it on ridiculous unvetted grants and on attempts at enshittifying the platform. JoelleJay (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  "I do think prods/noms should provide evidence that a search was done in the native language" - I genuinely think this is a "nice to have", not a total requirement. Take for example Indian subjects - the likelihood is that if there is any information available at all, then it's going to be in English-language sources. Often the local version of the athelete's name isn't clear from the Romanisation of it that was pulled off Olympedia so it's not even clear what you are supposed to be searching in the local language.

  I would say that if there's no non-procedurally-generated local-language Wiki article to look at for sourcing (recalling that there are some wikis that have simply machine-translated large numbers of EN-wiki articles), and the Google search is coming up empty, then this is sufficient BEFORE for a database-generated article. FOARP (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is why I support a requirement to search for sources in the place they are most likely to exist. Sometimes that will be in the local/native language of the subject, but not always. If you haven't looked where sources are most likely to exist then it is not reasonable to conclude that sources are unlikely to exist, let alone do not exist. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Notability (sports) § Basic criteria (with one exception) describes how the individual bullet points at Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline are interpreted in the context of sports figures. Thus it serves as an overall framework for the sports-specific guidelines for presuming the existence of suitable sources which demonstrate that the general notability guideline is met. This framework is also suitable for sports without sports-specific guidelines. It's not a case of one overriding the other, but the two complementing each other.

  The one exception is the last bullet item in Wikipedia:Notability (sports) § Basic criteria, which is a documentation requirement that doesn't really belong in this section as it isn't a criterion for evaluating if the standards for having an article are met. Nominally, it does run counter to Wikipedia:Notability § Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, but it's an exception that was created by consensus agreement, and is really a "document this when you create an article" requirement, rather than a way to determine if an article should theoretically exist by English Wikipedia's standards. For better or worse, Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Rough consensus doesn't require evaluators of consensus to discount opinions that run counter to guidelines, so it's up to participants in deletion discussions to convince each other of the more compelling argument. isaacl (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  As I explicitly stated earlier, what should be done before creation is irrelevant now they have been created. Every discussion about NSPORTS2022 and similar has found either no consensus for or explicit consensus against mass deletion or deletion without review, so no there isn't consensus for that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  what should be done before creation is irrelevant now they have been created – Not true. We could absolutely revert to the status quo ante, but people make a stink about it whenever the solution is raised. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with this. Cremastra (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Reverting to the status quo ante is a method of dealing with the situation we find ourselves in now, we could apply that regardless of what was or wasn't done before creation. I will continue to oppose that solution as deleting articles about notable subjects just because someone also created articles about non-notable subjects is very much cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Reverting to "status quo ante", aka mass deleting everything a Very Naughty Editor™ created, means deleting Muzamil Sherzad, which had 16 refs at the time of creation.

  I found this article by glancing through the first page of Special:Contribs for the pages he created (it's mostly redirects).

  The benefits of deleting this article would be:

  • We'd really show that already blocked Very Naughty Editor™ that we're so mad about his bad actions that we'll even delete his good ones.
  • Indiscriminate actions – unlike writing a 368-word-long article with 16 refs – don't require editors' time, effort, or thought.

  The cons are:

  • Readers won't have the information.
  • Removing good information is against the mission.
  • Indiscriminate actions are against the community's values.
  • We're Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, not to grandstand about how awful the Very Naughty Editor was and how just blocking him is not good enough.
  • It's illogical to say that we want to promote the creation of well-sourced articles, and then propose deleting some well-sourced articles. (By that "logic", if you miss any questions on your math test, the teacher should mark everything wrong, including the once you answered correctly.)

  I would like to prevent the creation of badly sourced articles. But since nobody's given me a working time machine, that can't be done for Lugnuts' articles. The options available to us are:

  • Review them one by one (cons: lots of work)
  • Mass delete them (cons: see above)
  • Stop caring about whether some usually unimportant, usually accurate, and usually low-traffic pages exist, and do something that you think is actually important with your time.

  This is fundamentally the "fast, cheap, good" problem. At most, you can get any two of those qualities. So if you say "I want to solve the Lugnuts problem quickly and with minimal effort", you are effectively saying "I want low-quality results from this process". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Or we could just delete the ones that don't currently have significant coverage, like I said above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Which requires manual review, which is the opposite of mass deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  Which is what the original Prods did, apparently. They manually reviewed the articles, saw they had only had non-significant coverage (sports-reference.com), and prodded them (e.g. [1][2][3]). And still they are accused of mass deletion. You can't have it both ways. Fram (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  ” properly review each article” - OK, and when are you planning to get started on doing that? Because as far as I can see it is *only* when deletion is proposed for these articles that anything is done at all. FOARP (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• I think it's far worse than WAID makes out. Reviewing them one by one would be the least rotten option, if we could review them, find they're crap, prod them, and move on. But we can't. We're barred from prodding them at a rate that would get the job done in the next decade, because we'd overwhelm the self-appointed proposed deletion proposers.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  25 a day would cover every article Lugnuts created in almost exactly one decade. (I assume the ~90K article count does not include his 75K redirects.) The prod folks are unlikely to complain about 25 in a day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  The 77,502 redirects aren't included. For the 10 years without a day off that it will take to clear this backlog, who will watchlist and maintain these poorly sourced biographies?—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  Bear in mind that there are also all the articles that Carlossuarez46 created from databases. Those aren't biographies so they're less appallingly risky, but the volumes are extremely high. PROD can only cope with so much, and it's not reasonable to make PROD sclerotic for that long.

So even if I could, by working for ten years solidly without a day off, clean up Lugnuts' mess, he would still need his own personal CSD criterion. Something like "article that's sourced only to databases", so it covers Carlossuarez46 as well.—S Marshall T/C 10:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

That CSD criterion isn't viable, because it conflicts with WP:NEXIST and is therefore controversial. The notability of a subject isn't determined by whether someone has already added a suitable source. If "didn't add a good source yet" were a viable CSD criterion, then Category:Articles lacking sources could be emptied by bot. That might be no skin off my nose – WPMED's articles are all sourced now – but it would be controversial, and thus not a candidate for CSD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

"Who will watchlist and maintain these" – the same people who do now; the same people who would do so if they had better sources.

Also, keep in mind that it doesn't have to be you spending 10 minutes x 25 articles x 3650 days to either add a decent source or suggest a WP:PROD. A couple dozen editors could each do one a day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

If this is the path we choose to go down, we might as well update WP:MASSCREATE to clarify that your articles will be allowed to stay up if you violate it, no matter how many you make. I should have some fun with five-digit or six-digit mass creation. I know for a fact that it will be basically impossible to get rid of them once I create them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean, it shouldn't be too hard to write a bot to scrape databases for new species articles, the majority of which are already written by lazy editors who can't be bothered to write beyond "a is a species of b described by c in d" and who should honestly be blocked at this point. Cremastra (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

As I have previously demonstrated, you can write a whole lot more than a single sentence from a species database – including the addition of non-database SIGCOV sources.

If someone would like to do this, then they need to follow the WP:MASSCREATE procedure. Also: We're missing quite a lot of insect articles, but we have almost all the mammals already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Why should they be blocked if their creations are perfectly within the guidelines.... JoelleJay (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

MASSCREATE is a behavioral rule, which means you are more likely to get blocked for violating it than to have content deleted for violating it. You might have noticed that Lugnuts is blocked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The reason why Wikipedia works is because of proportionality. Edits can be reverted with less effort than it took to make them. That's how it's possible to have an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit; we can fix things with a reasonable amount of labour.

This violates that principle. It's a free gift to griefers and bad actors. As soon as you've got an autopatrolled account, you can create two or three articles a minute, and they'll take (on Thryduulf's estimate above) 10 minutes' labour just to go through the WP:BEFORE.

BEFORE is the right principle when it protects people who care, and try. If you spend an hour researching and drafting an article then a ten minute BEFORE is perfectly fair.

It's not the right principle for people who splurge out thirty articles in thirty minutes.

The answer to Lugnuts and Carlossuarez46 is definitely fast and cheap, not good. They created fast and cheap so good's unviable.

They need reviewing individually but there's got to be a proportionate workflow. It has to be glance, see if there's a non-database source, draftify if there isn't, move on. It cannot possibly be prod-deprod-triptodramaboards-argue-tag-detag-argue-AFD-DRV-argue. And the people who advocate the long-winded process need to be the ones responsible for watchlisting and maintenance.—S Marshall T/C 23:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

In terms of preventing future such problems, I think the answer is that we need to stop people when they're in the "first hundred" range, and not wait until they're on the multi-ten-thousands.

Carlossuarez46 was yelled at in March 2021 because articles he created in ~2008–2009 (example) did not comply with a guideline that was adopted in December 2012. Yes, it would be nice if those articles were in better shape, but it's also unfair to tell people that they've done a bad thing because they didn't predict how the rules would change in the future.

I just added two sources to that article, BTW. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but now that we've shut the stable door, the horse still needs to be caught and returned. We still need to agree a reasonable and proportionate workflow for dealing with the lugstubs we have, and "do a full before for each one" isn't it.—S Marshall T/C 08:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, did we only have a guideline or policy from 2012 on that articles had to be verifiable and truthful? E.g. not creating articles claiming to be about villages when they weren't about villages at all? Carlossuarez was "yelled at" because "we have one-sentence articles hanging around for years where that one sentence is an outright falsehood."[4] Please don't write alternative truths to support your position. That there were occasionally correct articles among the thousands of dubious or outright wrong ones is hardly an excuse. Fram (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Specifically, I was paying attention to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Suggested block for Carlossuarez46, where editors say things like "One of the worst periods for Carlos's article creation activities appears to have been in July 2009". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

... nothing there supports your previous claims. The very next post beneath your quote here says " As far back as 2009 Carlossuarez46 has been completely dismissive of anyone who suggested that his article creations were questionable, consistently refusing to acknowledge that his mass-productions include errors or fail to demonstrate verifiability and/or notability. " This was the kind of reaction they gave back in 2009. But sure, Carlossuarez is the one being yelled at unfairly, and somehow this spin means that these current ProDs are unacceptable. Fram (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I think that when multiple people in a 2021 discussion mention article creations in 2009, then they (i.e., those editors, but not necessarily all editors) are probably talking about edits made in 2009. You are not, however, required to agree with me about that or anything else.

My point is this: The community finally intervened in 2021. We wouldn't have had these problems if the community had taken this action in 2009. What can we do now to avoid future problems?

Or: Do you want, in 2030, to be talking about how User:NewBadJob started producing badly sourced articles about possibly non-notable subjects in 2025, but we ignored it at the time, so now there are not only thousands of Lugnuts stubs and thousands of Carlossuarez46 stubs to deal with, but there are also now thousands of NewBadJob stubs to deal with? I don't. I'd bet "dollars to doughnuts" that you don't either.

So what can we do now to stop that? For example, should someone who noticed an editor regularly creating 50+ non-redirect articles in a single day maybe inquire at ANI about enforcing WP:MASSCREATE on that editor's creations? Should there even be someone regularly checking for that behavior? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

...How is any of this relevant to the post you are responding to?

You said (emph mine) Carlossuarez46 was yelled at in March 2021 because articles he created in ~2008–2009 (example) did not comply with a guideline that was adopted in December 2012. Yes, it would be nice if those articles were in better shape, but it's also unfair to tell people that they've done a bad thing because they didn't predict how the rules would change in the future. @Fram refuted this with the fact that editors in both 2021 and 2009 were complaining about the CS articles failing V and N, PAGs which far predate 2012. JoelleJay (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Subazama, California, as he wrote it in 2009, appears to have complied with both WP:N and WP:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a link to a listing that can't be found on GNIS would have complied with anything. and let's be clear: that "article" still isn't about anything notable and can just be covered in a list of Salinan place-names: the only sources are brief mentions, no WP:GNG pass needed for something without legal recognition.

And C46 "wrote" at least 135 articles that day (the ones that have since been deleted won't show up in this search) and simply flipped off anyone who tried to stop him. But hey, at least he left us with great articles like Guayusta, California and Tecolom, California before he got desysoped for incivility and retired under a cloud after reacting badly to people from the Persian wiki article pointing out that he his misguided mass-production of articles based on a total misunderstanding of the Iranian census was trashing their information space. FOARP (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

”you might have noticed that Lugnuts is blocked” - but not for mass creation, and only over the indifference/opposition of the defenders of his articles.FOARP (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Just saw this mess, which I was completely unaware of. I'm not really into sports; therefore, I don't closely follow WP articles on Olympics athletes. As a lawyer who occasionally deals with document review issues, it seems to me the best solution would be to cut the Gordian knot by sampling a few dozen Lugnuts articles to identify threshold criteria to establish where such an article is almost certainly bot-created, have a bot scan all of Lugnuts's contributions to identify all such articles, and then get approval to run another bot to delete all of them. For example, if an article was (1) created by Lugnuts and is (2) still currently supported by one or two citations to sources known to be of poor quality (that is, no one coming across that stub has bothered to write a decent article), then delete it. That would likely reduce the article stubs to just the articles that were later edited to add more content about the subject but are still of poor quality. I agree with the editors who argued above the burden was on Lugnuts to establish significant coverage of the subject matter in the first place before creating those articles. I strongly disagree with the editors arguing in favor of keeping the bulk of the articles thus created, the vast majority of which are unlikely to be fixed. As an experienced WP editor, I can tell you that things only get fixed on subjects which people really care about. For example, it took me over five years to research and rewrite Product liability into a decent article about the subject. That's just one article. Lugnuts created tens of thousands. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Coolcaesar, see WP:LUGSTUBS. That very approach encountered a LOT of resistance from people who insisted that losing a few stubs that might be on notable athletes is much worse than clearing out dozens of permastubs... JoelleJay (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  It was demonstrated that dozens and dozens of them were notable despite having barely any access to archives of the time! BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  While the vast, vast majority were not salvageable and ended up deleted or redirected. 33/924 is 3.6%. JoelleJay (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Of Lugstubs? They're all sitting in draftspace because no one wants to work on them, no matter how notable they may be. There's actually a number of them that I've identified as very obviously notable but have never got around to improving. There's like two other people who have even attempted to improve any of them in draftspace. That very few have attempted to work on them does not at all mean they're not notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's been over 2 years since LUGSTUBS was started, and 4–15 years since any of the stubs were created, and only 33 of them have become bluelinks. There are two global consensuses that SIGCOV cannot be presumed to exist for any of them. Both the evidence and our PAGs strongly suggest these subjects do not warrant standalone articles. JoelleJay (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that SIGCOV cannot be presumed to exist just because they were Olympians. But that isn't relevant. What is relevant is that many, many, many of them have SIGCOV, but due to no editors being interested they are not restored to mainspace even though they absolutely should be. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  You, personally, presume that many, many, many of them have SIGCOV, against the consensus on that presumption... JoelleJay (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  No, I've found SIGCOV for many, many of them... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  @JoelleJay - Last I checked, which admittedly was some time ago, only a handful of those 33 were actually non-redirect articles brought back to main space after the draftification of these articles, and none of them had been done within the last 6 months. Basically, for all the protestation of the opponents that these were all GA-candidates-in-waiting, no-body cared once they were gone. FOARP (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  And even then, these notable subjects are better off not having articles until someone is willing to come around and actually put a modicum of effort into them, instead of trying to protect mass-produced 1–2 sentence garbage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  What benefits a reader more: learning two sentences about a subject they want to know about, or absolutely nothing? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  If this is the metric, then we shouldn't have any minimum in terms of notability or quality. We might as well create a one sentence stub for everything in the world that could feasibly be notable and then remove them one at a time. The fact is that these articles never should have been created as they are in the first place, and the only reason they exist right now is WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Of course there still needs to be notability criteria – maybe I should have clarified: what benefits a reader more: learning two sentences about a notable subject they want to know about, or absolutely nothing? You seem to be saying to delete notable subjects on the basis that having nothing at all is better than something, since there's 'the possibility' that at some point in the future, someone will decide to write a longer article on them; of course, the longer article could be written just the same with the short article already being here... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Which is missing the point. The fact that longer article could be written says nothing about whether it will ever be written. In the long run, we are all dead and that long article will never be written because most people who care about dead athletes (as distinguished from the currently alive ones on their local major league team) want to write about the winners, not the losers. Not everyone gets to go home with a medal. Not everyone is notable enough to justify a WP article.

  My guess is that the only time people care enough about less prominent athletes to write WP articles about them is that either they are family relatives (which presents WP:COI issues) or out of schadenfreude.

  For example, I recently expanded the short article on John B. Frisbie because I noticed an interesting contrast. Today, Vallejo is among the poorest, polluted, economically depressed and crime-ridden cities in Northern California. I thought it was fascinating that the man who founded and developed that city lived a very full life as a lawyer, politician, military officer, and businessman. Unfortunately, most current residents of Vallejo do not live up to the example of the city's founder.

  If someone really cares about the article subject, they will do the research, then create the WP article again and actually write the article. In the meantime, there's no point keeping empty stubs around. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  There absolutely is a point to having stubs. A third of this entire website is stubs – and substantial portion of the notable stubs, if deleted, will not be recreated because we don't have enough interested editors. That doesn't mean there aren't interested people. We should do what benefits our readers. Getting rid of notable articles en masse in hopes of some editor deciding to recreate some of them in the future is both a substantial waste of editor time and a disservice to our readers who lose all the information about the notable subjects that they could previously find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  You're assuming the existence of some benefit. You're assuming that a one or two-line article with bare-bones biographical information that can be easily obtained elsewhere (and was in fact scraped from other web sites) is somehow beneficial to readers. But the WP community has already had that discussion many times, and the consensus is found in WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a directory. Specifically, Wikipedia should not have "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." Stubs that fail to provide meaningful information provide no benefit and merely irritate readers.

  The point is that it takes a lot of valuable time, money, and energy to write decent biographical articles which touch upon all the key highlights of a person's education and career, like what I did for Roger J. Traynor. (For example, I majored as an undergraduate in history in one of the highest-ranked departments in the world, which means I took a modern American history course taught by a winner of the Pulitzer Prize for History.) Most people with the skills to do that well are already working on their doctorates or trying to get tenure (meaning they don't do it for free). So WP has to rely on the generosity of people like myself who have real jobs and volunteer in their spare time. And most volunteers prefer to write about winners, not losers. I never served in the U.S. military, but I always thought the Navy SEALs put it best: "It pays to be a winner". --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit – such as telephone books, if you keep reading to the very next sentence – but it's not relevant because a stub about (e.g.,) an individual athlete is not a Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, which is what that part of NOT says it's about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  You're confusing whether an article is notable and whether an article has an editor ready to recreate it after it is already deleted. While its always nice when articles like this can be expanded to include more content, the Olympian bios always give contextual information showing encyclopedic merit -- it explains the athlete in question competed at the biggest sporting event in the world, which, although does not guarantee notability, is at least a reasonable claim to merit (i.e. not like, WP:A7 actionable). I agree that it takes a lot of valuable time, money, and energy to write decent biographical articles which touch upon all the key highlights of a person's education and career – and my point is, we should not be creating more work for our editors by deleting what we already have and hoping they can create it again, given that it either (a) results in a waste of editor time or (b) results in readers losing the information they could previously find. And most volunteers prefer to write about winners, not losers – remember that this is the Olympics we're talking about. For someone to qualify for the Olympics, especially in the modern era, they have to be a "winner" to begin with... BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Two sentences that could be and much of the time are already stated in the encyclopedia elsewhere... JoelleJay (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  The Olympians are, usually, only mentioned on the results page in a massive list of competitors with their scores. By getting rid of the articles, we lose the two stats sources that give personal details and sometimes biographies, we lose their birth/death dates, measurements, hometown / place of death, etc., and we also lose links to other language Wikipedias that often give further details. I'd rather have the article than "Athlete - Country - finished 8th", or things like that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Plenty of verifiable details exist that do not belong on Wikipedia. Olympedia should be the top result for anyone interested in that information, just like WormBase should be the top result for details on C. elegans gene orthologs (most of which receive orders of magnitude more IRS SIGCOV than most athletes...). JoelleJay (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  +1 to what JoelleJay said. Wikipedia cannot be everything to everyone. Cremastra _talk 19:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I have also been directed here after raising a couple of questions about the AfD process after a similar flood of 52 AfDs in an hour on a niche subject. My feeling is that as Wikipedia stands at present putting in a delete vote for an article should be a little more balanced. Someone should not be able to simply drop a template with minor tweaks into 52 articles in an hour and - by default or design - just leave the mess up to someone else - generally resulting in voter fatigue, and copy-and-paste votes winning the day. Even a checkbox-type form where someone ticks "I have checked the refs in the article", "I have checked GNews", "I have checked that this page cannot be merged to somewhere more suitable", etc. would stop it being so mechanical (with the Bundle Nomination function being a good call for situations where that sort of thing would be called for). I mean, IMHO it isn't actually that easy to create an article anymore, if they're not well-referenced they seem to be nipped in the bud very quickly by the excellent patrollers on that end. And if you really feel that a page does not belong on Wikipedia having to take 5 minutes to type out a more detailed rationale and verify that you've done BEFORE surely wouldn't be that much of a barrier?

It seems to me that a mechanism designed to curb spam, people making Wikipedia articles on girls they fancy and self-promotion now has the side effect of making it very, very easy for editors to quickly get rid of articles that through GF or BF they personally feel don't 'belong'. The above incident seems to have been done on Good Faith by a committed editor, with spotty Before seeming to be an innocent misunderstanding, but we've had users in the past who have blatantly been gaming the system. The former should be made aware of the work they are causing for other editors, and have to take some responsibility if they've not done it properly; the latter should be stemmed so they find something more constructive to do with their time.

I don't pretend to speak for anyone else, but participating in AfDs as they run has put me off actual constructive editing of Wikipedia as I could spent an afternoon sourcing up an article, and then if someone takes 60 seconds to slap a template on it without doing any basic checking first it can be deleted outright if I'm not on hand to provide additional sourcing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Break (Rate-limiting new PRODs and AfDs?)

Support - As we saw with the mass Lugnuts deletions, many of the articles had sources out there and were able to be fixed if you just looked. But despite there being WP:NORUSH, the articles just HAD to be drafted ASAP. It can take me hours to days to write various articles and if you are able to nominate dozens a day, you are probably not doing the proper research. Foreign articles also need extra care since you have to search in different languages and databases.

I also do think something needs to be done with Lugnuts being brought up time and time again. It's just harassment at this point and despite nobody being able to WP:OWN an article, it sure seems like many people think he does.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that the complaints about Lugnuts show a breakdown in the community. We're no longer in this together. Instead, some of us see WP:IMPERFECT contributions as a burden being foisted on to us. He gets to make an article, and now I'm stuck watching to see whether anyone vandalizes it? (The article I expanded yesterday has averaged less than one edit per year. Most of them were bots/scripts, and zero touched the article's content.)

Perhaps we're feeling the strain more than we used to? We used to spend a huge amount of time – perhaps as much as a third of active registered editors – manually reverting blatant vandalism. The bots have taken over most of that, so perhaps that has given us enough space to start complaining about things that are at the Paper cut level rather than the serious injury level? When you spend your day reverting poop vandalism, then a new article that contains no vandalism at all might seem particularly good. When you almost never see blatant vandalism, maybe the problem of a single-sentence stub seems more burdensome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Mass-creation has always been controversial, going all the way back to Rambot in fact and directly led to the creation of the bot policy. See e.g. [5] starting with Dachshund's inquiry. Many of the same arguments presented there are still being made today; nothing new under the sun. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose - Articles should be as deletable as they are creatable. Otherwise we are giving carte blanche to mass creators to flood the encyclopaedia with low quality stubs. FOARP (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unless and until we have similar rate-limiting for mass creation, and articles that were demonstrably mass-created at a high rate have been substantively reviewed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose until there are equal rules for mass article creation. Let'srun (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Let'srun, the policy on mass article creation says:

  • Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved by the community. Community input may be solicited at WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects. Creators must ensure that all creations are strictly within the terms of their approval. All mass-created articles (except those not required to meet WP:GNG) must cite at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG, that is, which constitutes significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source.

This requirement initially applied to articles but has since been expanded to include all "content pages", broadly meaning pages designed to be viewed by readers through the mainspace. These include articles, most visible categories, files hosted on Wikipedia, mainspace editnotices, and portals.

While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Closing statement § Question 2: Should we require (a) source(s) that plausibly contribute(s) to WP:GNG?

• Would you support a rule that says something similar? Maybe instead of "Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved by the community", it could say "Any large-scale automated or semi-automated nomination of articles for deletion must be approved by the community". Maybe instead of "While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed", it would say "This means anything more than 25 or 50 AFDs" (possibly adding "per day" to both of them). Perhaps instead of "All mass-created articles...must cite at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG, that is, which constitutes significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source", it would say "All mass-nominated articles must include a description of the nominator's WP:BEFORE search, including for subjects associated with a particular place or culture, a description of a search in the relevant language or national newspapers".

  I think that a parallel set of rules would be fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  No, because article-creation and AFDs/PRODing are not equivalent. Once articles have been mass-created, they are on the encyclopaedia without any further consensus being required, and only a laborious process can remove them. In contrast each PROD is subject to being removed by any editor for any reason and can still be declined by the admin, similarly AFDs still require a consensus to go ahead after having been brought.

  Additionally, it has to be noted that MASSCREATE simply hasn't been enforced 95%+ of the time, and instead only ever serves (if it serves at all) to be a retrospective behaviour rule. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Let'srun said they opposed limiting mass AFDs until there are equal rules for mass article creation. I'm trying to understand whether they would support limits on mass AFDs that parallel the existing limits on mass article creation, using (as close as seemed to make sense) the same words as the limits on mass article creation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  As for the lack of enforcement... Earlier, an editor said they thought someone was violating mass create right now, but my direct suggestion that they take that complaint to ANI for enforcement of MASSCREATE rules appears to have not interested them. Perhaps we don't agree with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Enforcement? Perhaps it felt like a minor or technical violation, rather than a serious problem? Perhaps we like whingeing? I don't know, but I do know that there's nothing stopping you from monitoring for MASSCREATE violations and reporting all of them, whenever you want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  I would have to see a concrete proposal, but I think that the issues resulting from mass article creation are different than the issues resulting from mass AfDs and PRODs and as such a equalivant policy dealing with them isn't what is needed. With mass article creation, they are on the encyclopedia permanently save for a user bringing forth a PROD or AfD, which takes up valuable community time. Part of the issue is that the policy on mass article-creation did not address the articles which had been mass created previously, and they have effectively been grandfathered into place with a utter lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Any limit on PRODs/AfDs needs to be based on the number of concurrent nominations not a per day figure, and 50 concurrent nominations would make it impossible to give most of them a proper review if they are at all complicated. 50 articles about contemporary American pop culture, likely no problem as if sourcing exists it will be trivially findable. Even doing a proper BEFORE for 50 articles about Brazilian scholars active in the 19th century, Kazakh bandy players active in the 1980s or railway stations in India built in the 1910s would take more than a week. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  So if the goal is equal rules for mass article creation, then you'd suggest limiting both AFD noms and article creations to 50 per week for a given (narrow) subject area (e.g., "Brazilian scholars active in the 19th century", not "biographies"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Equal rules" isn't my phrasing, and I'm not sure its a particularly helpful one. As noted, I believe deletion limits should be set in terms of concurrent nominations (not every nomination lasts exactly one week), but this is not a concept that is meaningful for article creation. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  If limits were to be put into place, that would be the way to do it, considering that with the lack of activity at AfD many nominations are relisted for multiple weeks. Let'srun (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think AFD might have less of a "lack of activity" and more of a "spirit of timidity". Someone checked a while ago, and AFD has gone from (if memory serves) an average of three editors up to an average four editors in recent years. But we seem to be more likely to re-list nominations that "only" have two or three responses now than we used to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Equal rules" was a direct quotation from Let'srun's comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  And while I probably could have phrased that better, my point was more that a rate-limit would allow for low-quality stubs (which may not be entirely accurate in some cases) to remain even when there is no evidence that whoever created them checked the same sources that certain editors insist much be checked before we considering deleting them or redirecting to another article. Let'srun (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think I've seen anyone demanding a WP:BEFORE search prior to a redirect. IMO it wouldn't hurt Wikipedia or its readers if quite a lot of (e.g.,) two-sentence 20th-century Olympian stubs got redirected to a nice little table in a List of 1952 Olympic athletes from Ruritania.

  Strictly speaking, it doesn't even require a discussion, as boldly Wikipedia:Merging articles is permitted, and there's already consensus in principle, as merging up apparent Wikipedia:Permastubs is WP:MERGEREASON #3. But anyone who wanted to do that could also start a discussion, wait a week, notice the (likely) absence of any responses, and then merge as "no opposition". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Great! But then what happened when we actually tried to do this? *PLOT TWIST* The same people who obstruct every deletion and insist it be examined in exquisite detail obstruct that too. We had a consensus to redirect Lugnuts Turkish "village" articles, but the redirection has been steadily undone. FOARP (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Systematically, by one or two editors, or just a case of every now and again, someone splits off a specific article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Systematically, when this was pointed out they just pointed to GEOLAND as permitting what they were doing. FOARP (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Did anyone follow up with a re-merge proposal, or attempt to address it as a possible behavioral issue? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  The answer is just GEOLAND GEOLAND GEOLAND, which is a catch-all, no-explanations-needed excuse for mass-creation from databases. I gave up. FOARP (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  It sounds like you concluded that, for better or (mostly) worse, the consensus was not likely to agree with you, so there was no point in pursuing it. That seems logical to me (on your part), but it kind of undercuts the idea that the de-merging editors were actually doing anything wrong, since the real rules are what the community agrees to do, not what we think they should do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  When it comes to GEOLAND, I'm sorry, but I do like to see a Wikipedia page about a thousand year old Italian village linked from an article I'm reading, even if it's a stub with a map showing its surrounding region, the number of people living there, and a nice picture of the village. And that page is perfectly fine for Wikipedia (has been for over 20 years, given the hundreds of thousands of such stubs), which is not only an encyclopedia but also a gazeteer, as appropriately summarized in its Five pillars. Attract more people here, do try to keep them, and give them enough time. 63.127.180.130 (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Why have global consensus discussions at all if when individual editors just completely ignore them that becomes "what the community agrees to"...? JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  If the community isn't willing to show up at a second discussion and say "No, we actually decided ____, and that applies here, too", then the first discussion may not have fully represented the community's views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  We're in a second discussion right now. We've showed up, and we've told you that no, we actually decided this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, but this is in the "global consensus discussions" category. We need the community to show up at "individual" discussions, saying the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sympathetic to the idea that community consensus on broad general principles is sometimes mistakenly claimed for very specific pieces of exegesis from those principles, but I doubt this is one of the cases. I suspect the lack of participation has more to do with the discoverability of individual Turkish villages as stubs or redirects. Was there an RfC or discussion about redirecting village stubs to lists? My cynical answer is that this is a good case for a little brigading (I've seen it work): if one editor keeps resurrecting them as stubs invoking GEOLAND and several others are redirecting them and pointing to a discussion stating that these villages, even if notable, should be redirected to a list unless they exceed some threshold of information, the lone editor will be compelled to show consensus for their position or desist. Choess (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  The community can't be endlessly expected to show up and waste time with what appears to be a behavioral issue not a genuine editorial dispute. Repeating a discussion until you get the desired result isn't changing consensus, its gaming the system. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Not "endlessly". But we can expect the community to show up for a few rounds, until the individual(s) in question either get the message or discover how much fun WP:IDHT complaints at ANI aren't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  No, we expect the community to show up once and for consensus to be respected after that. Moving on to new forums or recreating pages without new sigcov is just disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  1. If we expect that the community only needs to "show up once", then we are implicitly expecting all editors to know about every decision, and that's unreasonable.
  2. If the community is given an opportunity to show up a second time, and it declines to repeat itself, then that suggests that consensus might have changed, or that the result might have been described poorly at the previous discussion. (For example: "Never do this in biographies", followed by "Oh, oops, we meant living people, not all biographies".)

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  WP:CONLEVELS disagrees with you. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think so. Applying a global rule ("Thou shalt not spam") to specific circumstances ("But we've decided this specific thing isn't actually spam") is not a matter of a small group of editors trying to declare that the usual rules don't apply to "their" articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, that's local consensus and also wikilawyering. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  So... we should probably stop here and acknowledge that I wrote a good deal of LOCALCON, so I naturally feel I'm qualified to say what it means. You apparently have your own notion of what it means. That section is frequently cited incorrectly, to the point that it has earned its own entry in WP:UPPERCASE#WP:CONLEVEL.

  One of the things LOCALCON means is that if someone shows up at an AFD and says:

  • WP:COPYVIO demands that this article be deleted now, because this article is just a blatant copy of www.wikipedia-mirror.com.

  and the other editors show up and say:

  • Um, sure, COPYVIO is a real policy, and copyvios are bad, but this specific article isn't actually a copyvio; instead, it's someone else plagiarizing a Wikipedia article.

  then that response is neither "local consensus" nor is it "wikilawyering". Are we agreed on that much? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  A poorly attended non-consensus does not override a well attended consensus even at the same level of discussion. If the community does not show up then the discussion does not reflect the consenus of the community. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  I assume you meant "If the community does not show up and the discussion result is not what you expected, then the discussion does not reflect the consenus of the community". Because otherwise, almost none of our discussions reflect the community's consensus, because very few discussions have more than two or three people in them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Is that mockery? I'm having a hard time parsing that first sentence as anything else Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I mean that what you're calling "a poorly attended non-consensus" is probably when you vote to delete at AFD, and three other editors vote to keep, and the closing admin says there's a consensus to keep the article, but not when all four of you vote to delete and the admin says there's a consensus to delete the article.

  In both cases, four editors have participated in the discussion. (Four participants in an AFD discussion is a medium-to-good level of participation.) But I doubt that you would describe getting your preferred outcome as "a poorly attended non-consensus". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Did I miss where this became a formal RfC? In any case, I also oppose any rate limits on Prods and AfDs as long as there are so many sub-stubs with no reliable sourcing with little or no chance of being improved in the next few decades. - Donald Albury 20:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The surest way to ensure that a stub is not improved is to delete it without giving people sufficient time to determine whether reliable sourcing exists or not. Coincidentally this is also the surest way to ensure that articles about notable topics which can be improved are not improved, thus harming the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hard disagree: it allows the article to be re-created by someone who is actually here to build an encyclopaedia rather than rack up article creation scores. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence at all for that sweeping assumption of bad faith? Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I direct counsel's attention to the entire editing history of Lugnuts and Carlossuarez46. Particularly the way that Lugnuts posted a link to every thousandth "article" (half of which are now red-links or redirects) to his user page and clearly had the list of top article-creators on watch-list (he would quickly respond to anything posted on the talk page there).

I also have to ask why this is news to you: You were active on the AN and ANI pages on the days when Lugnuts came up there, sometimes being involved in the discussions directly above and below his. Did you just not notice him coming up there?

Negligent mass-creation is clear WP:NOTHERE behaviour. A small number of editors got away with it for years in large part because any time anyone tried to do anything about it they were flipped off and faced a wall of indifference and hostility from other editors happy to turn a blind eye to, for example, the entire Persian wiki information space being trashed by tens of thousands of fake "village" articles that we are still trying to clean up. FOARP (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

There's too much bad faith here, policies to be made based on a straw man fallacy: if one thing was wrong, all similar things can be assumed wrong without thinking. But many other things are usually very right! 63.127.180.130 (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support for both AFD and PROD for different reasons: in the case of AFD, if you have a group of related pages which should be deleted for the same reason, you should make a group nomination as opposed to a separate discussion for each. The number of pages per AFD should be unlimited. In the case of PROD, the process depends on the number of PROD articles at any given time being low en6such that they will all be reviewed by multiple users before the PROD expires. Animal lover |666| 19:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  AFD is just impossible to use for large-scale deletion. Every discussion is simply derailed. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Position of the bottom navbox

Wikipedia screenshot

I was reading the article Rodong Sinmun, scrolled it down to the position shown in the screenshot, thought "OK, I'm done with this one", and was about to close the page but then remembered that there may be a navbox...<scroll-scroll> somewhere...<scroll-scroll-scroll> down... below. And sure it was, and it turned out to be a useful update for whatever I was looking for.

I am pretty much sure that occasional readers might not even suspect that there are navboxen, especially when they are collapsed and do not catch an eye, thus defeating the purpose of a navbox.

Suggestion: Update the guideline to allow the placement of navboxes right above the "References", "Notes" etc. sections, for better visibility on the navigation tool.

• Clarification per discussion with Moxy: "... for the navboxes which navigate among subtopics of a larger topic. Suitable for move: {{Isaac Asimov novels}}; unsuitable (IMO): {{Academy Award Best Actress}}" - I feel that novels of the same author are more tightly related than the actresses who received the same award.

Reationale:

• A better visibility of the navbox. Heck, we are already wasting the precious real estate on top with vertical navboxen and infoboxen who are often in numbers and larger than articles themselves :-)
• Logically a navbox is very close in its function to the "See also" section, so it makes sense to keep them together.
• It is not detrimental to the "Refs", because people do not peruse the "Refs" like other sections: they click the footnote link, read the ref (may be look into its ext link) and then click the uplink to continue reading the article. Meaning the placement of "Refs" is non-critical and the only concern for it to be somewhere down, to be inobtrusive. But if there are navboxen "REfs" becomes obtrusive.

P.S. Suddenly it came to my mind to take a peek at Donald Trump... Big mistake :-) The article length is 29 screens, while the "Refs" took... <ta-daaa!>... 38 sreens!. So nobody will ever find "Articles related to Donald Trump".
Nu? --Altenmann >talk 01:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Navbox are not seen by 65 percent of our readers so kind of a pointless thing nowadays that have always been at the bottom of the page. They are omitted from mobile view because they are basically considered mass link spam that cause loading problems as seen at Meryl Streep#External links. As for sources this is literally the purpose of our mission to provide them WP:Purpose. Moxy🍁 01:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Ideally, in a well-developed page, any very relevant links would be in relevant locations in the article, so the navboxes would be mostly redundant. I doubt most of the Meryl Streep links are in the article, but I also doubt most are hugely relevant. CMD (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

In general it's mainly pop culture articles that have these types of problems..... that is mass template spam. However I guess sidebars are excluded from mobile view as well for the same reasoning? Moxy🍁 01:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

My beginning example begs otherwise: I found the navbox useful. I had no idea about all this North Korea press and I see no reasonable way to squeeze all of them into the article body. --Altenmann >talk 02:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Squeeze? It's a 550 word article, and Mass media in North Korea also has a lot of space to grow. CMD (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Huh? That's my point. While all items of the template may (even should) be put into the "Mass media" page, it is meaningless to "squeeze" them into the body of the "Sinmun" article. --Altenmann >talk 02:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, Moxy, your comments are not arguments against my proposal. (1) This is the problem of the developers of mobile view. (2) now come navboxes are link spam? (3) Meryl Streep#External links have nothing to do with navboxes. the purpose of our mission to provide them - I always thought that the aim of the purpose of our mission is to provide information, neither I am sugesting to delete the refs. --Altenmann >talk 02:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you're saying....you seem to be proposing adding the navboxes to the see also section....thus we would move all navboes to the see also section? In my view to see also section is for very closely associated articles that actually didn't make it into prose of the article....Navboxes are for loosely related topics..... thus should be seen after references about the actual topic that the article was built on.Moxy🍁 02:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

You understood me almost correctly, with one small, but important difference (sorry I didnt bring a proper attention to this, being not aware of Meryl Streep horror :-): I wrote "to allow the placement of navboxes", rather than "move the navboxes". Suggestion updated. --Altenmann >talk 02:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy, Wikipedia:Purpose, created in 2007, only mentions citing sources because you added that less than a year ago.

I don't agree that citing reliable sources is Wikipedia's purpose. Readers rarely read them (about 1/300th of page views). Wikipedia's purpose (according to that unofficial page) is to provide a neutral and verifiable summary. Citing reliable sources is merely a means to an end. Any means that serves the same end is consistent with our purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is here. Encyclopedias are designed to be the jumping point to facilitate knowledge [6]. As for providing our readers with sources....its been part of our Wikimedia Foundation verbiage for as long as I can remember..... It's the basis for our neutrality. Let me quote "Wikipedia's volunteer editors make reference to reliable publications that support what Wikipedia contains, so readers can verify the facts at source. For content to remain on Wikipedia, it must be written from a neutral point of view and attributed to sources that are reliable...." For transparency I'm am the primary author of the essay for over a decade [7]. There's something we can fix to make it more clear As a tertiary source, encyclopedias provide sources to further information [8]Moxy🍁 00:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Lots of tertiary sources – probably the majority – don't cite any sources. For example, I'm not aware of a single dictionary that provides sources. Ditto for children's textbooks, another common type of tertiary source.

Your cited source says they only often have good bibliographies (emphasis added). It does not say that this is a defining characteristic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This is basic knowledge in my view ....as in any first-year University students in Canada will be made aware of by resources like Howard, Kristen (2016-12-08). "Guides: HIST 203: Canada Since 1867: Encyclopedias". Guides at McGill Library. A good encyclopedia article is written (and signed) by an expert on the subject and represents the consensus of scholarly opinion. A good encyclopedia article should also have a short bibliography on the subject of each article, a list of sources for further reading. Not sure why you think that not providing further research or verifiable sources is not one of the main attributes of an encyclopedia. Moxy🍁 03:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I see now. But I would rather put them to AfD. In my view, navboxes are for navigation among subtopics. It is difficult for me to see how Meryl Streep is a subtopic of "Academy Awards". Probably we have to reconsider the whole idea of navboxes. --Altenmann >talk 02:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The bottom of the page can be quickly accessed by keyboard users using the End key (Command-Down on MacOS), so personally I like having navboxes at the end. Perhaps there should be a standard heading for them so those who are unable to use keyboard shortcuts (or prefer not to) can access them from the table of contents. isaacl (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

One of my points was that a random reader has no reason to look for navboxes, shortcut or wormhole. --Altenmann >talk 03:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

A table of contents entry would both show the presence of additional navigation links as well as their position. isaacl (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Changing the position after 20 plus years would probably confuse the 30% or so that actually see these. For multiple decades everyone knows the linkspam to loosely related articles can be found at the bottom of the page under the external links header. The most irrelevant stuff ends up at the bottom. Moxy🍁 03:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to change the position. isaacl (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I think they are placed fine, but I don't have strong opinions on it. About the question of their usefulness more generally, navboxes are very useful IMO. However demonstrated with the Meryl Street example above, there are some specific topics where you get like 40 on one page, which defeats the point utterly... there has to be some solution here but I don't know what. Typically politics and entertainment are the problem areas here. I however do find other kinds of navboxes very useful. This is different to sidebars, which are uniformly terrible outside of like two situations, and which I think should not exist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The answer to "how" is to repeal WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. However, the small number of people who spend a lot of time with navboxes seem exceedingly fond of that rule, so I'm not sure that's actually possible in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

A separate "kids version" of Wikipedia

I understand this is sort of a perennial proposal, but hear me out for this one:

Instead of censoring wikipedia, which goes against WP:NOTCENSORED, we should have a separate, kid-friendly version of wikipedia called "Wikipedia Kids"(bit like how mobile wikipedia is slightly different). This does not go against WP:NOTCENSORED, and protects children at the same time.

Many children use wikipedia for a variety of purposes(hell, I'm still a teenager) and i would rather not have people seeing some not so kid friendly stuff here.

Here is how i think it should work:

Normal version remains uncensored and has no changes

The Kids version is practically the normal version, but:

1. Sexually explicit articles cannot be accessed and are not available on the kids version(to what extent it should not be available can be debated, such as should we make them unavailable completely or just have a smaller, safe, educational version of the article that focuses on stuff the kids actually need to cover in say, biology).
2. Gory or violent pictures are unavailable. The pages are still available for reading, e.g. we still keep the nanjing massacre article up however the photos will be removed. This ensures we aren't doing stuff like Holocaust or Nanjing massacre denial while still protecting kids.

Overall this is similar in function to WP:CENSORMAIN

Would like to hear your opinion on this. Additionally, to what extent sexually explicit/violent articles is censored, and what counts as "sexually explicit" or "violent" can be debated. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that there are already a number of these in various languages. Sam Walton (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

maybe it could theoretically work on paper as an option that can be toggled (in which case i'd be against having it on by default), but it absolutely wouldn't work out as its own site (even if it was mostly a mirror) due to the sheer size of the wp-en

even then, i think it'd be way too hard to program, harder to enforce, and even harder to maintain, since how would those filters even work outside of trudging through the entirety of the wmf to filter things on what's effectively a case by case basis?

lastly, it also depends on conflicting definitions of "for kids", because you know one of those ankle-biters will have to study up on world war 2 at some point, or sex, or that one time the british colonized a place, or that one time the americans killed people and took over their land manifested their destiny, or literally anything even tangentially related to any religion that isn't satirical (nyarlathotep help them if they're in a jw or mormon environment), and keeping them out of it would only really cause easily avoidable headaches consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree on kids the "for kids" definition. That is why I would suggest for the kids version, sex-related articles with no connections to sex ed be unavailable, while sex-related articles related to sex ed only show diagrams and be reduced. As for violence, I would not suggest censoring anything other than some of the photos, or possibly even limiting it to a "Show photo-Disclaimer: may contain violence". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Why pick on sexually explicit articles? I don't mind my children or grandchildren (the latter of which are aged five, three, and a month) accessing details about sex, but would prefer that they didn't access some other material, such as graphic violence or material about suicide. I'm sure that there are many different views from parents and grandparents. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

it's just the easiest example to name, really consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 18:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

let's say that happens. how, then, do you know what will be taught in sex ed? how would you attempt to reduce what is shown in order to make it less explicit without touching the text? how wo- actually, having to choose to see the pictures is nice, no complaints there consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 18:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you do some thinking on how this can be implemented and how much workforce will be required and how much bitter squabbling will follow on whether a picture of a buttocks is permitted and whether sucking the dick properly is part of sex education. (You may think the latter was a joke, but I remember seeing on a Disney Channel an episode where two low-teen girls pressed a boy to explain them how to suck the dick properly.) --Altenmann >talk 18:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

i say this as a former child from a country best known for playstation 2 piracy (which is to say i knew about the hot coffee mod when i was 8): nearly anything we could do would at best do absolutely nothing to protect children lmao. if anything, it'd just fan the flames of their curiosity, because they wanna see the buttocks!! hell, even the idea of it working by censorship comes off more as pandering to overly sensitive parents than attempting to "protect" the leeches on their legs. even then, protect from what? from knowing what "fuck" means? from knowing what a peepee (that could potentially be the one in their own lower torso) looks like and does? from knowing about that angry mustache model who hated jews for existing?

for better or worse, children will find their way into whatever they want, regardless of whether or not they can handle it (though they usually can), and drawing an arbitrary line would only make them want to cross it more than their tiny, evil brains already instinctively urge them to consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 18:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a great idea for a third-party service, as they can select for inclusion whatever materials they feel meets their own sense of restriction. The Wikipedia license gives them the freedom to do so, and there could even be various versions with different perspectives as to what is appropriate.

It makes a horrible project for Wikipedia itself to do, however, because then we have to establish an Official Standard for what is improper, and that will both lead to endless bickering and complaints from those who want to provide the censored version that we are not censoring the things that they wish to have censored. You can see how we would face massive complaints if we decided, say, that material on drag entertainment was suitable for kids, or if we said that it wasn't. The group control that Wikipedia projects have and our spot at the most visible source of data would just make this too fraught. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

"For kids" versions of reference materials are usually written for a specific audience based on age/intellectual ability. To meet the expectations set up by the name, the articles should be specifically organized and written at a less complex level, which can mean different ways of breaking down topic areas as well as a different language level. simple:Simple English Wikipedia currently exists to fill that niche, and would be a better starting point for a kids version. As you noted, though, there are a lot of objections from the community to embedding content filtering as a core function that requires altering the underlying base articles. So at present, any filtering would need to be entirely add-on and optional, and using categorization being stored elsewhere, such as on Wikidata. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I was just about to note the existence of the Simple English Language Wikipedia. Isaacl beat me to it. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I could see something like this becoming its own project, similar to simple English wikipedia. I'd even contribute to it, I enjoy the mental challenge of simplifying a difficult concept into something a child could understand mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems to be moving away from child-protective censorship and towards child-centred language simplification, I'll not the existence of b:Wikijunior, a worthy project. Cremastra _talk 19:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't trust anybody saying "but think of the children" to make any sort of rational decision about what is appropriate for kids. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This is just censorship, with all the typical problems that come with the idea (the non-neutrality of determining what is and is not appropriate). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Points 1) and 2) skate over the perennial practical issues that confound such initiatives (putting aside philosophical ones), which are: who decides what is appropriate, and who tracks what is (in)appropriate. Saying these "can be debated" is putting the cart before the horse. CMD (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC: "Illegal" immigrant vs "Undocumented" immigrant in article mainspace

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States § Terminology: "Illegal" immigrant vs "Undocumented" immigrant in article mainspace. Some1 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Does !voting with simply the words "Support/oppose per user" violate WP:VOTE?

I'm coming to ask this question here because I've seen this interaction happen frequently enough that I now want to clarify with other more seasoned editors.

I would say that at least once or twice per week, across areas ranging from WP:CTOP talk pages to AfD to ITN, I will see an interaction which essentially goes like this:

Proposal to use X and not Y

Based on [insert here] reasons, I think that the article should say X and not Y, and am seeking consensus. Signed, UserNominator

• Oppose Based on the detailed rationale that the article should say Y, for policy reason WP:WIKIPEDIA, as opposed to saying X. DetailedWriter
• Oppose per Detailedwriter. Signed, PerUserGuy.
• Support For separate reasons than the nominator based on WP:ABOUT, I support this proposal. NotAVoter99
• Support per nom. AgreeingGal

AgreeinGgal, this is a consensus discussion, not a !vote. You need to explain your rationale and address the opposing arguments, or this comment will not be weighed when assessing the consensus. DetailedWriter

WP:VOTE states that "It serves as a little reminder of the communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important [...] A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration, and a discussion close may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote count. It is important therefore to also explain why you are voting the way you are. I'm curious how administrators assessing for consensus reconcile this with our widespread community practice of "Per User" rationales.

On the one hand, merely adding two words "per X" doesn't really seem to meet the spirit of WP:VOTE, which calls for users to provide explanation. I can also see how it might be difficult for the closer if there are 7 supporters and 3 opposers, but the 3 opposes wrote out detailed rationales while 6 of the 7 supporters only wrote "per nom".

On the other hand, if a prior user in the discussion applies policy correctly and explains themselves well, it seems a little silly to require a subsequent user to re-word and re-phrase the already well-stated rationale in order to have their opinion considered in the consensus assessment. Also, "per nom" is indeed a rationale: it is a more efficient way of saying "This user stated a strong argument for Y over X that I agree with it because of reasons 1, 2, and 3" (which is simply writing back out the full rationale of the prior user in your own words).

So, to put it succinctly: when I am contributing to a consensus discussion and agree with the rationale someone has already said, should I be restating what they said in my own words to meet WP:VOTE? Or does the community accept the two-word rationale "per User" an a valid rationale? Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 21:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

When closing I give "per x" responses the same weight as the response they're referencing. There's no need to repeat an argument or post. People cite essays in their !votes for the same reason. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the proposer is basing this on editirs at RFC who vote for Keep based on an argument that a previous editor put down, but doesn't meet rules or guidelines of wikipedia that someone had already challenged. For example footballers or cricketer stubs at AFD - with keep votes stating notable when clearly are not. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The counter point there would be that editors may not agree with the challenge, and so still support the original argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

And then you have the issue with editors pointing out that their argument does not meet rules/guidelines and get accused of bludgeoning! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This is probably the least bad option. The alternative is each new !vote rewriting the same comment with different wording. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with DetailedWriter's !vote 100% and have nothing to add. Why should I find different words to say the same thing? Even if I agree 100% and have something to add, I can !vote "Oppose per DetailedWriter. [something to add]." ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

IMO the rationale is mostly not for the closer, it's for other participants in the discussion. The closer's job is to reflect what the discussion agreed on and so should generally not discard !votes for their rationale alone unless it's super clearly false (e.g. "no source says X" when the other side has several quotes from good sources that say X) or against policy.

If a lot of participants seem to think a given rationale is strong than for the purposes of the discussion it's strong, even if it's short and even if the closer personally thinks it's dubious. Loki (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

When a closer sees people !voting “per user:so-and-so” they know that these people found so-and-so’s comments persuasive. The closer should go back and read so-and-so’s comments again.

However, that does not mean so-and-so’s comments “win”. Consensus isn’t a vote. The closer should also pay attention to any comments that attempt to refute or rebut what so-and-so said (especially if the refutation/rebuttal is based on policy). Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this, at least as written. It's a closers job to weight comments with regards to policy and no matter how many people make them, non policy based rationales can and should be disregarded when assessing the consensus (at least assuming there's not a complete absence of policy in the area). Scribolt (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

There are definitely cases where a closer should strongly deweight or ignore certain votes, but in those cases it's usually blindingly obvious that it's correct to do so. E.g. if there's a ton of new WP:SPAs on one side that seem to have been canvassed from off-wiki a closer should ignore them.

But consensus really does just mean "general agreement", and so absent that sort of concerted attempt to manipulate the consensus from outside, the job of the closer is to figure out if the discussion agreed on something, and if so what. I fear that the presence of a few lines designed to protect Wikipedia from outside attacks like "consensus is not a vote" and "consider the strength of the arguments" are starting to outweigh the basic facts of what consensus is in the minds of editors. A closer is not a WP:SUPERVOTEer and their job is not to decide which arguments are stronger based on some sort of view-from-nowhere, it's to decide which arguments in this specific discussion convinced the most people.

Which is to say, if a bunch of people familiar with Wikipedia policy thought one argument was stronger, the closer's opinion on that issue doesn't matter. Many content disputes originate from conflicting opinions on policy and the job of the closer is not to judge which arguments were policy-based based on their own personal opinion, it's to decide which interpretation of policy the discussion ended up agreeing on. Loki (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• WP:VOTE is an essay, so it can't really be "violated". — xaosflux ^Talk 15:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• I find it amusing that DetailedWriter pushes back on AgreeingGal's "Support per nom" but doesn't challenge PerUserGuy's "Oppose per Detailedwriter". Schazjmd (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Haha, yes, that was intentional. It made the interaction a little more realistic, LOL. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 04:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• eh? what's so bad about them? it only really means someone agree with someone else, and if this is addressed but votes of that nature keep coming in, it only really means they still agree with the editor they're voting per. this is something i don't think there's any need to change, since it's not even on the more incomprehensible side of wp lingo

of course, this doesn't necessarily mean any rationale automatically wins or loses because someone used the p word, nor does it automatically validate or invalidate any given vote. of course, there are the relatively common problematic votes, but that has nothing to do with them being per someone. in the end, i guess this means oppose, with the caveat that i'm not even entirely sure what the problem is supposed to be

unless it's about usernominator, who is a menace we should all run from as fast as we possibly can or, preferably, surrender to, knowing that our days are already over, then this is fair game consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

consarn, I've seen it happen multiple times where folks make either pointed comments, or post general warnings, when there are a lot of "per [user]" type !votes on the basis that they lack a proper rationale. This confused me, and it's helpful to have clarification that the community takes no issue with the "p word". Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 16:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

i blame usernominator, they might as well be wikipedia's thelegend27 consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

A support/oppose vote per user is basically a statement that said user has expressed the voter's rationale well enough. As such, it is a properly-reasoned vote. Animal lover |666| 19:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Per votes aren't a problem for WP:VOTE, per Animal lover and Blueboar and others No but really, if someone else has already articulated your position well, there is no reason to waste words reiterating. Consensus isn't a vote, neither is it a word count measuring contest. "Per User:X" is a great way to express that you found someone's reasoning compelling, which is an important part of the consensus process, since one of the ways you can tell an argument is well-reasoned is that others understand it and are persuaded by it. Even when your position is more nuanced, saying "per so-and-so, except/and also/despite..." simplifies the comprehension task for closers and other participants. -- LWG ^talk 23:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@LWG: but it does not tell you that others understand it. They don't even need to have read the comment or all of it, they can just write "Keep per User L." You would need a longer comment to know whether they understood it or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"need" is a strong word, because sometimes the simplest arguments are the best, and tacking more words into "i found no sources :(" is kind of unnecessary consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Need applies to the ability to establish understanding. A simple "I agree with argument Y" can not demonstrate that I understand argument Y. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

it also can't really demonstrate the lack of understanding, so i don't get the problem. are we not supposed to follow wp:agf and assume that anyone who isn't that wonk from rfd (corsan, i think it was) has at least some idea of what they're agreeing with? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 10:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Nobody claimed that it demonstrated a lack of understanding. We can assume good faith but thats about it, we can't be assuming something that has nothing to do with good or bad faith. Someone can be completely wrong, completely misunderstand the arguments made, and cast the opposite vote to what they intended and still be operating in good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

even then, that's not a problem caused by per votes, that's just editors being puny fleshbags with imperfect organic brains consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Who said it was a problem caused by per votes? The logic applies to all of wikipedia, we assume good faith but we do not assume computational perfection because we're dealing with puny fleshbags. Good faith editors can still be lazy, ignorant, mistaken, bigoted, under the influence, etc (heck some days I check all those boxes by myself). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

yes, hence this entire question being irrelevant to what per votes do. they can be used in problematic ways, sure, but are not themselves problems. if a student bullies another one during math class, you don't ban math from your school consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You're tilting at a windmill, I never argued that per votes are "themselves problems." Perhaps you should not have commented so many times if you feel it irrelevant? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• per user is fine, you're expressing that you agree with their argument as stated and the weight the closer puts on your comment should be equivalent to the original (for better or worse). Scribolt (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• The purpose of Consensus is to find agreement, so various expressions of agreement (viz. 'I agree with Sara', or 'per Sara') should be expected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• It all depends on context, in general I don't think its prohibited or anything like that but I also don't in general think its a very smart or helpful way to contribute. That being said closers really shouldn't be counting them for anything, the strength of an argument doesn't change no matter how many people offer simple agreement or disagreement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  The strength of an argument is all about how many people agree or disagree with it. The goal is to figure out if there's a consensus, which is not a jargon word here: it really does just mean "general agreement" same as it always does. Obviously knowing how many people agree is crucial to knowing if there is general agreement. Loki (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  "The strength of an argument is all about how many people agree or disagree with it" what you are describing is a popular vote, not a consensus. In a consensus the argument that bears out may not be the one which most people agreed with, thats kind of the whole point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Consensus is indeed a jargon word on English Wikipedia, as in the real world, consensus decision-making means everyone is willing to go along with a decision. However I don't agree with the view that "In a consensus the argument that bears out may not be the one which most people agreed with." While on English Wikipedia, it can be true that arguments with majority support can be superseded, it's isn't due to English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions, but because of arguments being counter to existing guidance that has stronger community support. isaacl (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• If you can't agree with someone who said exactly what you would have said, what's the point of a discussion at all? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• At RfD per X comments are very common for all four of the most common outcomes (keep, delete, retarget, disambiguate) and frequently nothing else needs to be said. Sometimes the editor who wrote the comment being endorsed has done a detailed analysis that needs no further explanation (e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 13#Hungarian Horntail), other times its a simple expression of opinion that can be fully endorsed without need for further explanation (e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 12#Fire in the hole!). There is no reason to treat these with lesser weight than if the editors had used more words. If you are not certain that someone has understood then you can ask them about it specifically. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• It varies, from a load of new accounts saying "Keep per" at AfD to establishing that a proposed new policy has widespread endorsement. NebY (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• At Talk:Waipaoa River#Requested move 27 March 2025 a user wrote a well detailed response on why the move was not as simple as being a spelling variation. Rather than copy his post I simply wrote 'Oppose per Nurg'. Would it make a difference if I wrote 'Oppose as this is not a simple matter of spelling per the evidence of Nurg' or if I simply repeated the evidence the user had already provided? Traumnovelle (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  Would it make a practical difference? Probably not. But occasionally, it might make an emotional difference to some editors. If you're going to !vote the Wrong™ way, they want to feel like you really put a lot of effort into it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Default thumbnail size changing from 220 to 250px

Hello! A bit over a year ago, this noticeboard hosted an RfC, and consensus held to increase the default thumbnail size on Wikipedia from 220 to 250 pixels. That became a Phabricator task. It took a while to implement, for various complicated technical reasons I don't really understand, but with the deployment of CodeMirror 6, this has been completed and is being rolled out! See the Phabricator task and the recent Tech News for more details. No action is required from us - just an update on a long-discussed change! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

This actually requires changes to all the images that use |upright= as the scaling they use are all based on the old thumbnail size, and will need to be corrected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Probably they won't - most are too small anyway, & I believe "upright" doesn't affect the majority of our readers on mobiles. Assuming all upright images need re-scaling would be a mistake. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Images should be no more 300px in the lead or 400px in the body of the article, MOS:IMAGESZ. That was 1.3 and 1.8, and is now 1.2 and 1.6 scaling. No discussion was had about changing those figures. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Um, are you sure those numbers are correct? The lead image is usually meant to be the biggest in an article... WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It's from the link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we should update those guidelines as well, to allow for larger sizes. SnowFire (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

FYI: Commons Discussion on Supposed CCTV Copyrights

Just wanted to bright to users' attention that I've opened up a discussion on Commons about whether CCTV images and video should be copyfree. Anyone is welcome to participate. -- Veggies (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

i have one. 173.206.111.217 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep § Low-effort mass nominations

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep § Low-effort mass nominations. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Linking to dangerous content

I have no idea where the best place to ask this was. I'm relatively new here. If I've overstepped, feel free to delete this and if you have the patience you could address my question on my talk page. Anyway, my question is whether it is allowed to link to clearly dangerous content both in an article and in that article's talk page. I specifically looked at the Wikipedia pipe bomb talk page. In that page Talk:Pipe bomb in the first topic (labeled the informative "Comment") a user links to three webpage that explain exactly how to make a pipe bomb. Here is the start of their comment - "Information on pipe bombs is already available all over the net see,[1], [2],[3] and may more too numerous to mention" - The first link is depreciated, the other two are not and have detailed instructions on obtaining materials and assembling them. Is this allowed under Wikipedia guidelines? A cursory glance by me did not find anything explicitly saying no, like in WP:EL. Again though I'm pretty new so I thought I'd also ask here to be sure. Any insights appreciated :) Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:ELNO point 3 includes content that is illegal to access in the United States. This is obviously framed in terms of digital content that is illegal to access (e.g. child pornography) but it would also include things like bomb-making instructions if that is illegal in the United States. I'm not at all well versed in US laws in this regard, but my gut feeling is that the US is more permissive than the UK in this regard. The major controlling policy though is probably Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

There are no restrictions on that sort of material in the US, you can even make your own bombs at home if you have the right permit or license (ones which I would bet money are less restrictive than the firearms regulations in whatever country you live in). No comment on whether thats a good thing or not, for our purposes it is what it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

this led me down a rabbit hole lol. Schumer said in 2015 it was legal to make a pipe bomb in the home without a license. He was wrong though. Unsurprisingly. Not a very honest guy. But it did take me a while analyzing the law to verify that. But you are correct it is legal if you have a license, I'm more skeptical on how easy that would be to get though Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Easy easy, if you aren't a person generally prohibited from owning explosives (felons and the like) and have a few hundred bucks its just paperwork, a routine background check, and a bit of waiting. You don't have to demonstrate a need or anything like that, it gets issued unless there is a good reason not to. More or less the same as getting a suppressor permit/license. Where it gets onerous is in state and local regulations on explosives, not in who can own them but where and how they can be stored etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know how I missed that line, I looked at that paragraph and I guess I just skimmed it and didn't see the end. It looks like it is illegal if posted with the intent to get others to commit crimes - https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-it-illegal-to-post-bomb-making-instructions-online/

This is obviously a very high bar, and it's easy to provide instructions in such a way as to claim you do not have that intent. Therefore, it appears that linking to those sites does not violate Wikipedia's guidelines. I agree this is not a good thing, per say, but I do think having an expansive view of free speech is good, so I'm okay with it. Thanks again for the feedback! Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

As said above this kind of material is legal in the US. However, piracy isn't, so I've always been curious why we freely link to notable piracy websites. Not "dangerous" - unless you are a corporation I guess. But the content of said sites is still plenty illegal. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: The policy at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works states: However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. If you are aware of violations of that policy, you can report them at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Donald Albury 16:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

interesting. This seems to be a case where most people who edit piracy pages just don't like that rule and ignore it? Maybe they're implicitly using WP:IAR. Because basically every page I see on here mentioning a piracy site links to it. Anyway, I'm very pro that. But it's fascinating seeing how sustainable that has been, and I wonder if it will continue to be so. It would intuitively seem that as some point either the rule would need to be changed or the routine behavior. But perhaps not! Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

We link to something like The Pirate Bay as a link to the site in general on the page about that site (without directly linking to any page it might have with copyright infringement), but any other direct link to that site from any other page on WP would be flagged as an absolute ELNO and such links should be removed immediately. Masem (t) 19:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Linking to a site that hosts illegal content just not on its front page is not much better, I don't think that would hold up in court, the "just links" excuse has not worked for Annas's Archive. Hell, several of them do have links to links on their front pages. If there was a site that only had CP but had none on it's front page, I don't think we would be linking it!

I am not opposed to linking such sites but it's strange when we do occasionally censor home URLs of websites when they are deemed too offensive or dangerous to link, even if legal or if their front page is harmless, but not piracy sites? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I suspect you're failing to distinguish "illegal content" from "illegally obtained content". I doubt much of the content on The Pirate Bay is actually illegal in the United States. It's just that they don't have the IP rights to it. --Trovatore (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

If content is illegally distributed it becomes illegal content for those instances. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No, in fact, it does not. --Trovatore (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This goes way over my head but you appear to be right, and it seems I was also wrong when I previously thought Wikipedia policy doesn't allow only linking to the site in general. Like usually with Wikipedia, there's always a reading where you can justify things. But anyway this topic has gotten out of hand, it might be time to close it, how is that done? And when/how can it be archived? Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The bit about not linking illegal content is only part of one of the 19 points of WP:ELNO, which itself is just one of the sections of the relevant guideline. There are plenty of other reasons why external links are not encyclopedic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Do we really need a long wikilegal debate to say "no, obviously we do not want to link to instructions for making a pipe bomb"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you will not be happy about the link to the Internet Archive in the External links section of The Anarchist's Cookbook. Donald Albury 18:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

lmao that's hilarious. That's such a vibe tho Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I just deleted that link; it was to the full text of an in-copright work without any sign of a license, so it's WP:ELNEVER. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

True, despite it evoking an odd nostalgia for BBS edgelord days of yore. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

There seem to be lots of people who interpret WP:NOTCENSORED as meaning that we must link any content that anyone has tried to censor. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Technical

AfC templates with wrong timestamp

Normally, {{AfC submission}}'s |ts= takes the form |ts=YYYYMMDDhhmmss. But I've been coming across some drafts that have the ts param in the format generated by ~~~~~ (e.g. "00:00, 1 January 1970 (UTC)"). This shouldn't be happening, and breaks the template.

Does anyone know what is causing this? I wanted to code up a bot to fix all these, but this search only turns up a few results. ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 03:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You can include cases with AFC by making the regex case insensitive with i at the end.[9] I haven't worked out how it might happen. We could ask somebody who did it. @Domagoj Klarić: Do you remember how you made this edit? You may have copied code with subst from somewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: What I'm noticing is that we have two forms of this "incorrect timestamp" template: One is {{AfC submission|||ts=...}}, which renders a "submitted for review" template, but there's also {{AfC submission|d|ts=...}}, rendering a "submission declined" without a reason. ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 14:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rusty Cat Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Messed up templates, this seems to be caused by people getting instructions on submitting an article from ChatGPT. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

A technical issue

I’d like to mention an issue I’ve just recently noticed. Not serious, nonetheless inaccurate.

Something seems to be amiss with the algorithm that displays the longest stretch of consecutive days of Wiki editing that we’ve done. For a long time, my count used to be 27. Now it’s 18. This means others’ counts could similarly be affected.

Augnablik (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: The information icon at Special:Impact/Augnablik says: "This metric will only reflect editing streaks included in the most recent 1,000 edits." I assume your longer streak became older. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, then sorry I didn’t notice. But I’m surprised. Not that I really care about this, but it does seem a little odd that the clock is started every X number of days.

I have one more clock-related technical issue to report: there’s a place where the number of years we’ve been Wikipedians is shown, and my count has appeared as 3 years for several months now — even though that won’t actually be till the 2nd or 3rd week of June. Augnablik (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: I think the impact data makes a search for the longest streak each time it's viewed and the limit is for performance reasons. Where do you see 3 years? Special:CentralAuth/Augnablik says 2 years. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the number that's shown in regard to my 2nd question has anything to do with performance but just time as a Wiki editor. To answer your question about where I've seen 3 years, I don't recall now exactly where that was ... all that I recall is that it's fairly often. The next time I see it, I can return here and say. Or perhaps another editor will come along and say where that is. Augnablik (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The mobile version of your user page says "Joined 3 years ago": [10]. Matma Rex talk 20:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Fsalas87 currently says "Joined 2 years ago" (created 17 October 2022). User:PoDawg42 says 3 years (created 16 October 2022). So the feature rounds to the nearest integer. I think that's OK with the given formulation. It would be different to say an account is 3 years old if it's only 2.5. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

But PrimeHunter, my account did consistently show me as being 3 years with Wikipedia when it was only 2.5 years — last fall. And now that there are discrepancies between what several different editors see, this makes it more likely that there are bugs in the calculation.

At any rate, I don't think rounding is a good idea for reporting our "Wiki age." Aside from simple accuracy, another reason is that those of you senior editors who help newer editors might at times want to get a clearer idea of the time we've been involved with Wikipedia, irrespective of # of our contributions. Augnablik (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Your account became 2.5 years old on 15 December 2024. I doubt it rounded to 3 before that. Rounding#Rounding to the nearest integer is a very common rounding method. It's rarely used when we say how old a person is but "Joined 3 years ago" doesn't say "old" or "age", and it doesn't describe a person but an event. I think rounding to nearest integer is OK there. Initially your mobile user page [11] actually says "Joined 15 June 2022" but it's changed by JavaScript after page load. I guess the script makes its own calculation and doesn't look up the number somewhere. It also runs in safemode [12] and at other wikis so a requested change should be at phab: (see WP:PHAB). It could point out that Special:CentralAuth/Augnablik rounds down to 2. I'm OK with either rounding method but they should probably use the same method although I wouldn't call it a bug. The mobile message is made with MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-joined-years but it's called with 3 for you [13] and not a date or decimal age so we cannot change it locally. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I have created phab:T392208: "Mobile user page should round down account age like CentralAuth". PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that fix, PrimeHunter. I guess I can go on living without the other fix that I was hoping for, as there are other things in the world in greater need of fixing.

As for my recollection of what was shown as my account age some months ago, I can only say that’s what I recall. Memory can, of course, play tricks on us, and I can’t claim infallibility. Now that I’m aware that after 6 months that number will be rounded up 😢, I’ll re-check. Augnablik (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Automating argument between template and module, and finding out template name

Hi everyone,

Two questions into one today. Here is my situation.

• I have a module that I can call with {{#invoke:module_name|main|arg1|arg2}} with arg1 being either foo or bar; and
• I want to have two templates calling this module, where:
  • {{template foo|arg}} calls {{#invoke:module_name|main|foo|arg}}, and
  • {{template bar|arg}} calls {{#invoke:module_name|main|bar|arg}}.

So the idea is that each template implicitly provides the module with arg1 without the user having to write it. How do I do that?

Secondly, when I am using the module's functions, what is an easy to get the name of the module that called it? I would use this for error messages.

Thanks! Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

If I understand what it is that you want to do, you can hard-code foo and bar in the template wikitext as named parameters: |foo=<value> etc – this is probably the simplest. No doubt there are more complex ways to do what I think you want to do.

To get the name of the invoking module: frame:getTitle(); and similarly, to get the name of the calling template: frame:getParent():getTitle().

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

As TtM said, {{#invoke:module_name|main|foo| {{{arg|}}} }} should work.

If {{{arg}}} is a number of arguments, you can also make use of one or both of the following two tables (mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua_reference_manual#frame.args):

• local targs = frame:getParent().args --template arguments in template call
• local margs = frame.args --module arguments in #invoke

Ponor (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Trappist the monk and @Ponor for your help. TtM knows it takes me a bit to get these things :) I have tried and it is not yet working. Here is the template and here is what it gives.. :S Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Julius Schwarz: check this. Ponor (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Like magic!! thank you so much! And, if I got this right, we only need to do the {{}} for unnamed arguments, right? Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the module itself. But if there are named params, I'd assume you need to add translations like namedOne={{{namedOne|}}} to the template's code, for all the named ones you need. Make a test case and I'll show you, if needed. Ponor (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Just saw your second test case. The module seems smart enough (by calling another module) to get the named params without any mapping. You're good to go! Ponor (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes it seems all in order and the examples are working great. Thank you so much! Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Julius Schwarz If it were me, I would just make it so {{template foo|arg}} calls {{#invoke:module_name|foo|arg}} and {{template bar|arg}} calls {{#invoke:module_name|bar|arg}}. p.foo(frame) and p.bar(frame) can just be wrappers that call p.main(type, frame). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Technical concern about wikis using Wikipedia content.

Where can we report suspicious activity in terms of site using Wikipedia content? There is one site that may be a cybersecurity risk for unsuspecting users. Starlighsky (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Starlighsky Use of Wikipedia trademarks to mislead should be reported to the WMF legal team at legal-tm-viowikimedia.org. Security issues relating to MediaWiki or Wikimedia Foundation infrastructure should be reported to securitywikimedia.org or by using this Phabricator form. General threats to the safety of contributors can be reported to the WMF Trust and Safety team at cawikimedia.org. If you're unsure, feel free to email me and I can help route your concerns. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Starlighsky: Is this a case of reusing our content without attribution? See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and wmf:Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The site is in another language, and I don't know if they are or are not. I want to avoid the site due to the cybersecurity issues that I suspect are on the site. I emailed the issue and the language that the site was written in. Ideally, there is a cybersecurity professional who can look at the site. I discovered the site after a search for a specific topic. I recognized the content as a Wikipedia article, which I can explain later if needed. The site does see it is not affiliated with Wikimedia. That is all I know. Starlighsky (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Quarry queries don't run

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T392107

Hi, when I try to run my queries on https://quarry.wmcloud.org/, I get a pop-up message that is very long (which for some reason I can't copy) and eventually a message that states

Error

This web service cannot be reached. Please contact a maintainer of this project.

Maintainers can find troubleshooting instructions from our documentation on Wikitech.

I filed a bug report but I was hoping another editor might have more familiarity with Phab and filing tickets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like this problem might be resolved. But I'll leave it here as a report. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Why are infobox image sizes huge now?

See Mario Vargas Llosa and Margaret Thatcher, for example. This really isn't an improvement. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

See the weekly highlight above in § Tech News: 2025-16 jlwoodwa (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

This is clearly a bug. This change should only affect thumbnails, not infobox images. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought it was for all images. We were having trouble with some images loading because of issues with the thumbnails. The image has to be resized to fit in the infobox. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

There was no consensus here to increase the default size for all images, only for thumbnails. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The templates should be updated then, they just follow the default setting. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

For Vargas Llosa, if I am reading the template code at {{infobox writer}} correctly, the image is being assigned the default size of frameless, which renders the image at the default thumbnail size width. That width was just increased from 220px to 250px, per the tech note above, after that change had been requested for many years. I see the image rendering at 250px, which means that things are working as designed. (Here are archive.org snapshots of the pages yesterday, 220px image and today, 250px image.) If you are seeing something that does not appear to be working as designed, please describe it here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, the RFC from January 2024, linked to above, says This bifurcated discussion finds a strong consensus to increase the default thumbnail size on English Wikipedia to 250px. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Infobox images are not thumbnails though. They use frameless, not thumb. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Neveselbert: Yes, but as noted elsewhere in this section (twice), the width used for |frameless is the same as the width used for |thumb. See demo at Wikipedia:Sandbox, preferably when logged out. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

In which case, the width used for frameless should be restored to 220px pending consensus. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Neveselbert: They're not independent settings, and AFAIK, never have been. A configuration change for |thumb has been carried out (on 17 April), as a consequence of which the with for |frameless necessarily had to follow suit. If you want them to be divorced, you need to file a ticket at phab:. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Infobox images are thumbnails, are they not? I had my thumbnail size set to 300px in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering-files for years, and it always affected infoboxes too. Matma Rex talk 21:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Some are set to use frameless and some are set to fixed pixel sizes. Some other common infobox graphics, like maps, can't be set to use the reader's thumbnail size preference, so some editors have chosen to use fixed sizes for images to match the width of maps. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It is even less of an improvement in the case of non-free images like film posters, which are compressed and consequently lack the clarity and detail necessary for comfortable viewing at this higher resolution. Οἶδα (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Please link to an example article. Maybe we need to adjust our maximum acceptable size for non-free images. That would be a discussion for a different page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, most of them. Though many are worse than others. I realise this is an issue with the files themself but it remains that this change renders these posters looking worse. Comparing png files like the ones at Boyhood (2014 film), Drugstore Cowboy or Good Will Hunting, which are far crisper, or high-res Commons photos like the ones appearing at M*A*S*H (film) or Seven Samurai, to the jpg at Short Cuts, you should see what I mean. Viewing that thumbnail at the original resolution looks better to my eyes. To a lesser extent, the one at Pulp Fiction. Must it be expanded to fill the infobox? Of course this is my opinion and I am not suggesting any actions. But 250px looks worse to my eyes for most posters. Οἶδα (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I remember predicting this exact situation when the non-free content policy, limiting the size, was made. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The Short Cuts poster is 19KB and looks like it has been over-compressed. The previous infobox default was reducing it from 255px to 220px wide, and now it is being reduced to 250px, which highlights the over-compression. Someone needs to upload a better-quality image. The Good Will Hunting image is the same pixel size but is 231KB. That's probably why it looks better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 Film posters should be resized to 0.1 megapixels, which, for a standard 3:2 poster, means 258x387 (although they generally range from 254x393 to 260x384). We don't need to update the maximum size, but rather set the resizing bot to prefer a width of 250px if the final image is going to be close to that value to avoid unnecessary rescaling. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It depends upon the infobox. Some are coded to use a specific size; others are coded for the frameless type, which should read the user's preferences. No infobox should be coded to use the thumb type, because of the extra borders that produces. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

BTW, i’ve been running with a default of 300px for years now, which is even bigger. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I have the time enabled in preferences - should show UTC +1 for DST but doesn't

Can I fix this? Doug Weller talk 16:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

where are you not seeing it? Contributions, watchlist or somewhere else? Nthep (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I see the time, it’s in the upper right corner. But it is in UTC, amd should be one hour forward for Daylight Saving Time. It shows 17:16 instead of 18:16 Doug Weller talk 17:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

My watchlist is ok, but I sign as though it’s only 17 :17 Doug Weller talk 17:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

UTC has no concept of daylight saving time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: If you see time in the upper right corner then you probably enabled "Add a clock to the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It's meant to be UTC as it says. Signatures are saved as wikitext in UTC but you can enable "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. The timezone preference at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering is only for time logs like in the watchlist, page histories and user contributions. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: If it's the clock then add window.LiveClockTimeZone = 'Europe/London'; //LiveClock timezone settings to your common.js page. That should make it display BST for you now and it will autocorrect when the clocks go back. Nthep (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed now. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Frooti page infobox parts not working

Headquarters and countries served are in the code of the infobox but aren't showing please fix this Depotadore (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Infobox parameters have to be implemented in the used infobox template. Frooti uses Template:Infobox Beverage which has no such parameters so they are ignored. See the template page for supported parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks now im gonna fix it Depotadore (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Gadget to hide decorative sticky elements

Per Special:GoToComment/c-AntiCompositeNumber-20250420003300-RfC:_allowing_editors_to_opt-out_of_seeing_floating_decorative_elements, we should have a gadget labeled "Hide decorative sticky elements" that consists of the following CSS file:

.sticky-decoration {display:none !important;}

Aaron Liu (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I had made a thingy at User:HouseBlaster/sandbox.css. I propose and support simply making that into a gadget. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

For reference, the line of CSS I gave is the same exact thing but with 200% the spaces. Though, I also just changed my line of CSS to say "sticky-decoration" instead of "floating-decoration". Aaron Liu (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

There was no opposition to the suggestions of creating a gadget to opt-out and for other editors to edit user pages to implement the class, but these issues did not have significant discussion. does not support the creation of a gadget, so I suppose you're taking up the suggestion? A one liner isn't really what we should support gadgets for, and it really is a one liner. Izno (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you. I think that telling people, in an official guideline, to go and check a box in their preferences is far superior to telling them to fiddle with their CSS. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree, especially since this is a matter of accessibility. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Just curious, but the RfC was about user pages, but are there any legitimate uses of these "position: <absolute|sticky|fixed>;" elements elsewhere? I know I have been meaning to get the up/down skip buttons used on WP:HD and WP:TEA adjusted so they don't obscure the mobile/desktop toggle. Commander Keane (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The skip buttons you mention were brought up in the RfC statement as one example of legitimate use. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Support making that into a gadget as well. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Support, I guess. Though, this seems like a fool's errand, as editors can and will create new elements regularly, and these won't be with the class sticky-decoration (or whatever class name), so the gadget will do nothing. Gonnym (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The new section (WP:DecoFloat) created by that RfC which thus is now a guideline says that such new elements should have that class, and another thing unopposed (though not really discussed) in the RfC is that editors should be able to drive by and add the class. I'm sure opt-outers would gnome every example of such stickies. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That's all fine. As an editor who fixes lint and other errors, I doubt most people that add those annoying features are going to add the class, which then falls upon gnomes and other editors to fix those horrible features. So we require at least two steps for editors to not view these, and yet still non-registered users can't hide them. Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I feel like most of this was already discussed in the RfC. There's no independent merits you've brought up that only apply to the gadget proposal and not the RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Well then, you know what. I completely oppose on the ground that I think this will do nothing and is completely pointless. Hope that helps. Gonnym (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

If the usage on user pages is deemed a significant accessibility issue, then personally I think the elements in question should be hidden by default, and users can opt into seeing them. If there isn't enough usage to make it a significant accessibility issue, then I think the drawback of adding an additional gadget isn't warranted. isaacl (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Managing accessibility concerns is about managing tradeoffs. Neither approach is perfect. In my opinion, if the accessibility issue is significant, then the better tradeoff is to let people opt into the problem, rather than opt out of it. isaacl (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

We just had this discussion at the RfC... Elli (talk | contribs) 20:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Just raising a specific point regarding the relative tradeoffs for managing accessibility, which was not discussed during the previous RfC. (As noted in the summary, detailed discussion of a gadget did not take place.) isaacl (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It's only a significant issue for a significant but small percentage of users; I think it's worth the drawback (I presume you just mean the preferences table and the in-this-case-tiny burden on intadmins). The significant drawbacks of having such elements be hidden by default have been discussed in the RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Conditional highlighting in a table

This clever edit causes the most relevant line to be highlighted, e.g., in Butter#Nutritional information. However, in Shortening, to which Vegetable shortening redirects, the relevant line is not highlighted, because it's not at the "Vegetable shortening" page (not all shortenings are vegetable shortenings, but most of them are). Could someone please hard-code the page name "Shortening" into this template? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:  Done All that was needed was this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Eileen Kelly title italicised

The title for Eileen Kelly appears to be automatically italicised for me on my mobile device; this seems to have happened when the podcast infobox was added to the article. Can anyone help? GnocchiFan (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem was that the podcast infobox ({{Infobox podcast}}) automatically italicizes the article’s title (since it assumes it’s on the article of a podcast). I’ve fixed this by adding | italic title = no to the template.

Hope this helps!
— Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) _{Please do not ping on reply.} 13:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem is having an infobox at the top of the page for a sub section two-sentence long. Gonnym (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! GnocchiFan (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Layout screwed up

I have no idea how to fix this. Have tried muzzalaynees thangs, no go. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

If you go to the "View history" page, you can see a list of the edits. Click on the previous version in the left column of dots and the latest version in the right column of dots, then click "Compare selected versions". From that screen, you can see the changes that you made and click the "undo" link to restore the previous version. I did it for you this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The previous was even worse. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Regarding [14], {{stack}} should only be used around right-floating elements. If they are not consecutive in the source then move them. This works. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Unable to access Newspapers.com

As you see on this page, I've reported that I've lost access to Newspapers.com in the Wikipedia Library. As reported there, I originally lost access early last year when Newspapers.com made some sort of change and I was granted access that was to expire November 17 of this year. I've reapplied anyway, but I've heard nothing in about a week. What should I do to regain access? Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

XTools down?

Trying to reach edit statistics for another editor on XTools, and it timed out several times. Here's the url for my edit statistics, also timing out. Mathglot (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yep. down Andre🚐 06:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Same thing for me - no edit stats. — Maile (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Everything is working now. — Maile (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Maile66: It still is not working for me, are you sure that it was fixed? Catfurball (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Well. mine is working. I was initially referring to the edit stats for individual articles as well as the overall stats for individual editors. — Maile (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Maile66: It gave me this message: Your access to XTools has been blocked due to apparent abuse or disruptive automation. I find this to be very weird, since I edited last week with no trouble. And I have no need to edit XTools, so I do not understand why I am being blocked. Also the village pump over their did not even talk about me. Catfurball (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Were I to guess, your IP is being used as a proxy (and you may not know it). Izno (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposals

"WP:PROPOSE" redirects here. For proposing article deletion, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion requests.

Will an infobox have ... a collapse button?

Original heading: "Will an ibox have ... a collapse button?" ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

In some articles, the infobox visually may have disregarded the cause of squeezing text with a left image, as per MOS:SANDWICH. One explanation of the disadvantage of the longing information of ibox is pushing down the image. Removing the whole short information in an ibox is a shortcut solution but MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE mentions the purpose of providing information, or expanding too much lead in order to push down the body's text, aligning a little bit of space below the infobox, but MOS:LEAD is meant to summarize the article's body entirely, not explaining it in a superfluous way. For example, the featured article Hydrogen has a longer infobox, pushing down to two or three subsections in a section. The previous two probably worked with the 2010 Vector preference, but what about the 2020 Vector preference?

To be short, will each infobox have a collapse button, so whenever readers don't want to read the longing page, they can easily tap on the collapse button, providing a much more short summary? I was hoping this is a proposal to change the feature of an infobox in some many Wikipedia's preferences. Hopefully this is the right place to ask. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't seem unreasonable, and it would solve the headache of editing in V10 and having everything look nice and then looking at your article in V22 and being horrified. Of course, this could also be remedied by the WMF not dictatorially insisting on V22 here and on more and more other projects, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

I don't know about "will", but this is certainly a "could", maybe even a "should" – and should be relatively easy to implement, given some changes to the meta-template {{infobox}}. Cremastra _talk 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I would rather say now, that "all infobox should have a collapse button". I would rather hear more opinions from the others. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

If an infobox needs to be collapsed it’s a good sign it should probably be trimmed. Collapsing is generally not a solution I support in mainspace— either trim the cruft or split the article. Dronebogus (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

While I agree, this is a much easier and more permanent solution. I'd be in favor of looking into this further. Toadspike [Talk] 08:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Request For Comment - changing the metals in medals in Wikipedia Service Awards

You are invited take part in a request for comment re the service award system. Wikipedia:Request For Comment - Service Awards proposal Should we move from a motley collection of real and fictional elements to one based at the heavy end of the periodic table? Or a logical scientific one where the closest available halflife is used for each service award? Your input would be appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 23:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

What about starting with low-number metals, like scandium, and then continuing? I like the idea of climbing the elemental chain element by element, but I think we should start with the lowest-number transition metal and then continue. Then there would be more novelty to having high-number elements. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the number of likely discoveries in the next few decades. I'll concede that Scandium as a start point would work for the next few decades. But then so would the half life option. ϢereSpielChequers 00:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

If we are actually going to reconsider the metallurgy, there are plenty of non-meme metals we could use: vanadium, tungsten, columbium, iridium, et cetera. I think a lot of the higher synthetic elements are kind of fake, e.g. how many atoms of seaborgium even exist in the world right now?? jp×g🗯️ 12:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with JPxG that there are many metals which are far more "real" (in the sense that they exist as macroscopic pieces of metal today) than transactinide elements, which have a very short half-life and are only created a few atoms at a time. It can also help with the future-proofing, as we currently don't have elements past oganesson (118, corresponding to 25 years of service in the proposal) and we are discovering new elements at a way lower rate than one per year.

Starting with low-number metals could be a good idea, although it means newer editors might get lost if we start with some little-known element like scandium. Instead, we could begin with iron (number 26 instead of 21), giving newcomers five familiar metals (iron, cobalt, nickel, copper and zinc) to start with. Then, we can loop to the next row of the table (except if someone wants their medal to melt in their hand, of course). For reference, silver would correspond to Master Editor (6 years / 42k edits) and gold to Most Sagacious Editor (25 years / 235k edits) in this proposal.

Using exclusively transition metals gives little future-proofing (mercury is next, which again might be a bit too liquid, and then we get to transactinide elements), so an option would be to make the medals beyond gold/mercury out of lanthanides and actinides. Having lanthanides go before period 6 transition metals (like platinum and gold) would be more consistent with atomic numbers, but would give a more boring experience for our older editors and make traditional precious metals out of reach for them.

My proposal is thus: transition metals from iron to gold, followed by lanthanides and actinides. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

That would be more sensible than the sort of award system I was considering. ϢereSpielChequers 17:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This is pretty much what I was going for, so I might support something like this. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

As April Fools day ended I moved the proposal back to userspace at User:WereSpielChequers/Request For Comment - Service Awards proposal I may revive this at some future April if I have more time to promote it. ϢereSpielChequers 17:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, I think they should have iridium and carbide in them for real. jp×g🗯️ 11:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

All this discussion of iridium reminds me of Foundation. Would be a good idea though. Toadspike [Talk] 09:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

And we mustn't overlook mercury: the sweetest of the transition metals! Also bismuth, because FUCK YEAH BISMUTH --Slowking Man (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Refrigeration technology has been improving, so I don't think we should be so quick to overlook Gallium, Mercury and any other medals that are liquid at blood temperature. Especially when we consider current and future diversity of the editing community, lets not be parochial here. ϢereSpielChequers 13:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I completely did not realize this was not serious. The description text did seem a little bit humorous. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC: work field and reflinks

RfC to determine how reflinks are linked or not in the |work= field as done by bot. -- GreenC 20:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

User:GreenC bot (WaybackMedic) fixes broken URLs semi-manually per request at WP:URLREQ on a per domain basis. The bot is uniquely programmed for a single domain.

One of the features is incidentally adding reflinks in the |work= field for example converting |work=theguardian.com --> |work=The Guardian. This is done per the MOS WP:REFLINK which states

"Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article".

This is done mostly cosmetically, when making other changes within the citation or article. It is not the bot's primary purpose, but since I am making bespoke code specific to a domain, I can easily do this at the same time.

An editor recently requested this feature be disabled. So that I may continue fixing dead links, I complied and set to feature set 2A below. However I would like to see if there is preference from other editors, and to offer a set of features available.

There are 2 choices (bot or nobot), and if bot, 4 choices how:

1. Don't mess by bot

2. Acceptable by this bot, within certain rules.

A) Convert domain names to work name but don't wikilink - template documentation requires name of the work: |work=theguardian.com --> |work=The Guardian

B) Convert domain name to work name and wikilink it: |work=theguardian.com --> |work=The Guardian -- default for the past 5 years it is low volume

C) Wikilink existing work names: |work=The Guardian --> |work=The Guardian - can be high volume

D) Both B and C - recently done for thetimes.co.uk only, that triggered the complaint due to the high volume

E) No opinion

3. Other suggestion. I can not guarantee other suggestions could be programmed. Thus, please include one of the above in addition to any custom suggestions. Custom suggestions without one of the above will default to #2.E the closer will sort it out.

Note: |work= could also be: |website=, |magazine=, |newspaper=, |publisher=

The complainant User:SchroCat at User_talk:GreenC_bot#Stop_linking_newspapers. Others who may be interested based on their knowledge of this tool and CS1|2: @Οἶδα, MrLinkinPark333, Pppery, Chew, Sariel Xilo, Lyndaship, Nemo bis, Kailash29792, Random fixer upper, Headbomb, Trappist the monk, Redrose64, Izno, ActivelyDisinterested, and Lewisguile:

A !vote might look like Option 1 or Option 2B etc.. -- GreenC 20:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• I don't see why we should stop linking newspapers, etc. Linking is extremely useful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I !vote 2B, fwiw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2B, second choice 2D. Like Headbomb, I am a passionate supporter of linking reference works. In the current information environment, a top question every literate reader should be asking when they look at a reference is "Is this source reliable?" They should not have to blindly trust that it is, and a link to the article about it provides an easy way for them to investigate further. And there is extremely little downside, since references are out of the way at the bottom, and external links are marked as external with the icon, so the source links aren't distracting anyone (thus the guidance at MOS:REFLINK; WP:REFLINK goes elsewhere).
  That said, as much as I urge all editors to make linking the default in their articles, it is something where we allow variation per WP:CITEVAR, and linking only one/some source(s) could create discrepancy. For the situation in B, if an article has not had enough care put into its references to specify the publication name rather than just the URL, I see no issue with updating it to our best practice. (I make a similar call in the AWB task where I correct e.g. |work=New York Times → |work=The New York Times.) But I'm slightly more hesitant to do so for the situation in C. Sdkb ^talk 20:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2B - If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But when it is, may as well kill two birds with one stone. Adding wiki-links to citations is entirely unnecessary unless you are already fixing the citation. I would, at the very least, want it to change from the URL to the name, and if we're already updating it, why not also add a wiki-link? But forcing it to be linked without changing the contents (what is suggested in 2C) doesn't feel super necessary, unless you are already updating the citations.
  The bigger concern here is seeing what should be in the work param in the publisher param. I would, regardless of how it gets changed, make sure the publisher param is moved to work. E.g. changing |publisher=New York Times to become |work=New York Times . And, of course, you can add the wiki-link to this as well when doing so. This might end up being option 3, if the bot doesn't already do this, but I need to make sure I get this comment out. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 21:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2A. (Second choice option 1). It should be a decision by editor discretion at page level whether to link newspapers or not. It should not be decided by a few of people here or a bot. Having inconsistently formatted references, which is what this will lead to, is amateurish and second rate; it also clashes with the consistency requirements required for featured articles. The MOS does not require these links, and bots should not be forcing a change if editors have decided on following the MOS to keep them unlinked. - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2D or 2B. One complaint in 5 years does not override the clear and demonstrated usefulness of wikilinking reference names. If volume is a concern for 2D I would support rate limiting it (e.g. a maximum number of otherwise unchanged articles per day) Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• A - please, per SchroCat, or a lot of editors are in for a lot of work undoing well intentioned bot edits. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Which they should not undo if there is a consensus per this discussion. Izno (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  There is no requirement in the MOS for them to be linked, so when editorial discretion follows the line of the MOS in not linking, people will (rightly) revert something that has forced inconsistency into an article. - SchroCat (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Reverting a bot performing a job with consensus of a level that might be demonstrated in this discussion is simply disruptive behavior and would be worthy of a block. Izno (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  No it isn’t. It is editing within the confines of the MOS. If you think editing within the MOS is worthy of a block, that’s a little on the extreme side that wouldn’t stand up long at a review. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not arguing about the MOS though. If a consensus is established here, you have to abide by this consensus also. Not doing so is what earns you the block. Izno (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think you’re misunderstanding what this is about. This discussion is about whether to allow a bot to undertake one single step: it is not a discussion that forces all those aspects of the articles to remain like that forever. If this proposal gets consensus I will not stop the bot from undertaking that task (pressing the stop button to stop it, for example, would be against the consensus, and yes, it would be disruptive and blockable). But I am allowed to edit the article afterwards in my way I wish: this discussion does not change the MOS which will continue to allow flexibility on the point that the linking is based on editorial discretion on individual articles. - SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  In any way that you wish is in fact not the truth, because that leads to edit warring with the bot. Good luck with your interpretation if the bot's approach becomes consensus. Izno (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Editing one part of something a bot does that is still within the MoS will not lead to a block, unless the admin rally wants to be dragged to ANI for overstepping any reasonable grounds of behaviour. There is nothing in the RfC that means titles can be unlinked or that all titles must be linked. The MoS says differently and there is nothing in the RfC that will change that. It’s certainly not edit warring either: it’s entirely within WP:BRD to delink the names. I’m not sure why you’re so keen to block people for editing within the bounds of the MoS and our existing editing guidelines, but I hope you try and look at this more rationally before you act. - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  As I said, good luck with your interpretation. Izno (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  My “interpretation” of the MoS and the project norms of editing are the commonly accepted ones. I’m not the one trying to stretch a possible consensus on one bot’s actions to cover an entirely different part of the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• At least 2A. I'm pretty ambivalent about whether something is linked in the work field and have personally disagreed with the practice in the past, mostly because people must eventually figure out what the Guardian is. Izno (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2B, or 2D; per Sdkb and Thryduulf. Also per Chew, I have also personally not witnessed the bot adding reflinks ONLY. It is an addition made alongside a different function the bot is already performing, for example the migration of URLs from thetimes.co.uk to thetimes.com. If the bot were "fixing" every article without reflinks then that would absolutely be excessive and would have been complained about already. Instead it is merely performing a useful addition, one which is supported by MOS:REFLINK, and one within and edit that is already being performed. This had certainly already been discussed, but I fail to see how reflinks are not helpful. Look at a recent page creation like If You Only Knew (Acetone album). Not a single reflink, and most sources being ones I am unfamiliar with. I agree with Sdkb. Every reader should be wondering, "Where is this information supported?", and upon hovering/clicking on an inline citation and seeing no reflink (made even worse in the absence of URLs) readers are not helped. On the aforementioned article, I would have to copy and paste 20 work titles to even somewhat determine that these are reliable sources. I also believe most references are now being auto-generated from URLs with tools like the one in visual editor, which does not add reflinks. Οἶδα (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• 1 or 2A. MOS:REFLINK allows repetition of wikilinks within references, but does not require them. Until that changes (which would be a different discussion), linking or not is discretionary, and consistently not linking (or other consistent approaches, like linking only first appearance) shouldn't be changed without discussion. On top of that, changing it as this bot does - on a per domain basis - would introduce inconsistency in most articles, unless one happens to cite only sources from the domains the bot is working on. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2B or 2D; the links are useful, especially for sources that users may not know about. For instance, most people who actually read the sources will have some idea of what The Guardian is, but I've edited NZ-focused articles that link to The Post which readers may not be familiar with. I personally only add links to the first mention of a work in citations, but IMO a bot adding redundant links is better than there being no links because humans have better things to do than add them to all articles.  novov talk edits 01:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• I don't oppose links in work fields, although I haven't been using them myself much recently, but it does feel close to a cosmetic change. It may be preferable for 2C to happen only alongside other changes. CMD (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• 2A. I don't think it's a big consistency problem if some instances of The Guardian in the citations are wikilinked and some are not, or if The Guardian is wikilinked but The New York Times is not, but I don't think a bot should be making that call. 2A is a useful clean up, though. I would be OK with 2B if an editor specifically invoked the bot for a given article, if there's any way to do that. An edit that just adds a wikilink is not cosmetic, but has the potential to flood watchlists so I would prefer not to see 2C. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• 2A I don't understand why we would wikilink the Newspaper if there is a URL linking the actual article that is being referenced, which shows where it comes from. It's also not part of MOS either.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• 2A, for the convincing reasons above. Tim riley talk 07:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• 2B I tend to wiki-link from the work/newspaper/magazine/etc. field when I'm constructing citations, as I think it helps to establish reliability, as well as providing sometimes much-needed disambiguation when titles are similar, if not the same, for several publications. That The New York Times is often referred to as The Times is a good example of why such disambiguation is needed. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  But it you sctuslly link the article by URL, it takes you directly, so why would you need a wikilink to show who the works is? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  You may be assuming that the cited article remains live on the newspaper's main active site. Older newspaper articles are often to be found only on archive sites such as British Newspapers Online, Newspapers.com or Gale. The article is normally paywalled and most readers can't click through; even if they can, the link won't help them find the newspaper's main website. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  For some publications, especially those that are less well known or are published in foreign languages and using non-Latin scripts, it's not easy to discern whether they are legitimate news sources or something less reliable. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  @MichaelMaggs and @Dhtwiki That may be the case, however, automatically linking the work of each reference, which in some cases may have been used more than once (I.e. two or three Times articles), would be overlinking. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Not when it’s useful, namely in the references. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  How can overlinking of, for example, The Times, been useful? If an article is linked to three different articles, a bit would link every single ref to it. That is overkill. Which is why it should be down to editors to link the article. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  To help to avoid overlinking is in large part why I voted for 2B, not 2C. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Reflinks stand alone in their usage with regards to overlinking. Whether the bot should do it is another argument which is already being discussed here. But simply put, how many times a work is reflinked is not an instance of overlinking (MOS:REFLINK). Οἶδα (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  I fail to see how reflinks should ever be suppressed in the absence of URLs. Readers are not further directed anywhere for content or context. But as you alluded to, URLs correct that somewhat. However, in my view, readers are still lacking necessary context, as a URL is only a primary source for information about itself, without providing broader context for readers to discern whether the source they are reading is reliable. Unless a source is deprecated or blacklisted, any URL can be added. Also a lot of cited news sources have generic names (“Gazette”, “Herald”, “Star”, “Record”, “Mirror”), often cited without the added context needed to disambiguate, such as location. I understand the argument here is that the bot should not be making the decision to add reflinks, but this is what I find to be true at least with regards to best informing readers. Οἶδα (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  I also find it interesting that WP:CITEVAR states: "The data provided should be sufficient to uniquely identify the source, allow readers to find it, and allow readers to initially evaluate a source without retrieving it." How does one "evaluate a source without retrieving it" in the absence of further context or content? Οἶδα (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  If it were the case that a link is needed to uniquely identify a source or to evaluate it, then the MOS would already insist on the need for such links. It doesn’t and instead leaves the question down to editor discretion at the level of individual articles. If you wish to claim that this is the only was to identify or evaluate a source, then you’ll need to open an RfC to change the MoS to do just that. - SchroCat (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  I was not claming that MOS:REPEATLINK prescibes reflinks as mandatory. I was merely quoting a guideline whose choice of words I found interesting in the context of what I emphasized above. You are correct though, this would require an RfC. Οἶδα (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2B, or second choice 2D, per Headbomb, Sdkb, Thryduulf and Οἶδα. I’m particularly unconvinced by the argument that as MOS:REFLINK permits non-linking, the bot should never be allowed to do anything better, and that if it does “people will (rightly) revert”. The MOS no more says it's right to unlink than it does to link. Convenience links to newspapers and other works are extremely useful, and that utility is in my view far more important than trying to enforce essentially trivial internal consistency within a single article's source formatting. The difference, after all, is merely that the names of some works within sources may appear in blue, and some may not. So what? In the longer term, we'd serve our readers better by gradually moving towards linking all works where possible. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  If you wish to rewrite the MOS to insist on links, then you will need to have the discussion there to change it. At present it does not require links to be linked or unlinked: it is down to the consensus of editors at each individual article. Trying to force the issue by having a bot do it is a form of back-door instruction creep by proxy. - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Bots are permitted to do whatever the community authorises them to do, in discussions such as this. Their actions must be consistent with the MOS, yes, but few would be able to operate if they could do only what is specifically insisted upon by the MOS. We're not addressing here what individual editors must or can do; only what authorisation the bot should have to do something that is generally permitted by the MOS. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  As I've said, it's a back-door instruction creep by proxy. If this rather disruptive measure passes, I don't look forward to reverting these when I see them, but will do so. - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  You have voiced your opinion and it is well-understood. To be clear though, you reverted the bot wholesale, which included the main edit it was performing (migrating The Times URLs). Such a reversion would be disruptive. Οἶδα (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  MichaelMaggs, you say that REFLINK doesn't imply that bots should not link; I'd like to ask you more about that. If one of two options is allowed by the MoS, but the community authorizes a bot to always apply one of those two options, that clearly doesn't contradict the MoS, but doesn't it effectively implement one of those two options to the exclusion of the other? I think the issue here is whether the assertion in the MoS that something is up to editor discretion implies that it should not be changed globally (that is, it should be decided at the individual article level). Do you see this differently? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, if what the bot is doing is authorised globally. The point of this discussion is to determine that. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2A (second choice option 1). Linking works should not be automatic -- that is antithetical to MOS:REPEATLINK. If the work is referred to repeatedly in the article, it will create unhelpful overlinking. Instead, linking should be a decision made by the editors at each page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  References are not the article. If I click on reference 3, I want a link in reference 3. If I click a link on reference 49, I want a link in reference 49. That it's linked in reference 3 is irrelevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  One could make the same strawman argument about wikilinks in general, but we don't link everything, everywhere. - SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Wholly concur with SchroCat. A modicum of common sense is wanted here. Tim riley talk 18:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Ssilvers: To be clear, what you said is not correct. As I stated above, and which is actually quoted in the OP, reflinks stand alone in their usage with regards to overlinking. Whether the bot should do it is another argument which is already being discussed here. But it is not correct to suggest this is antithetical to MOS:REPEATLINK. What you are referring to is the guideline for links within article sections, not for citations. Οἶδα (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, what you are saying is not correct. It is not necessary or helpful for refs to link the names of works again and again, no matter how many times you repeat that you like it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Okay I'm not sure what we're doing here. Yes, I have voiced support for reflinks in this discussion. It appears I misunderstood what you wrote here and for that I apologise. You stated rather forthrightly that repeat links constitute overlinking, but then stated that it is up to consensus. I understood "overlinking" not as a general reference to an article's "citation style", so I again apologise for misunderstanding. No need for snark. Οἶδα (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2A (second choice option 1). Linking publications/publishers should not be automatic. We have WP:CITEVAR for a reason; it's disruptive to force a certain citation style using a bot. I had a situation with an article several months ago where there was some controversy over the linking of publishers for book citations; I see no reason why |work= can be thought to be exempt from such differences in opinions. With citation formatting, it is much better to allow human flexibility than to force-format things a certain way with a bot. We should be deferring to human judgment here. This proposal honestly feels like a backdoor attempt to force a certain citation style across a wide range of articles, contrary to common sense. Hog Farm _talk 20:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  It is clear the issue is boiling down solely to WP:CITEVAR. So I must ask, to what extent are reflinks actually considered part of a specific "citation style", meaning that they can become part an article's established and consistent stylistic choice, one that must be deferred to and adhered to, with any addition/removal seen as an undue disruption warranting reversion? When I think of WP:CITEVAR, I think of everything outlined at Wikipedia:Citing sources: full citation, short citation (Harvard, MLA), general references, templates, no templates, citation order, etc. Not the "variation" of whether there are reflinks or not. Could an editor also be reverted for adding an author link to a citation because it is not "consistent" in the article or because the most significant contributor of the page decides it goes against their personal/established preference? This seems like a possibly misguided cross-application being that it is not unambiguously supported by WP:CITEVAR or consensus elsewhere. Otherwise, if they are considered a component of "citation style" or the ambiguity skews toward that interpretation, then I suppose 2A really would have to be the way to go. At least until the bot can account for an article's prevailing practice. Οἶδα (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  The broader MOS:VAR indicates: "Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change...Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted. Seek opportunities for commonality to avoid disputes over style. If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style." With regards to the matter of wikilinking works within references, MOS allows but does not require this be done, bringing VAR into play. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Οἶδα: Try running an article with inconsistent linkage through FAC and you'll probably see where this gets sticky. Hog Farm _talk 17:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Then an RfC would be appropriate. I understand that the MOS leaves the door open to variety, but this does not appear to be a very common or contentious phenomenon on Wikipedia and as such this exact point does not seem to have been deliberated much before. If such a discussion exists, I cannot find it. In the absence of such discussions, it's hard to not bring these aspects up because CITEVAR is being cited as if a community consensus was determined to remand the issue of reflinks in citations to individual consensus. Rather than a general application of MOS:VAR. Was there ever a discussion to determine consensus for a large-scale disruption of established citation styles by the addition/removal of reflinks? I don't believe so. Again, it's not a very common or contentious phenomenon, nor have I seen bots performing these additions which would trigger such discussions until now. If this discussion indicates anything it is that the community would like a consensus on reflinks, and apparently we are not going to have it through a decision about this bot. There is enough ambiguity with WP:CITEVAR as it makes no prescriptions for reflinks (literally no mention whatsoever) nor does it confirm that reflinks are an established component of an article's "citation style", which is what I was referring to above. Οἶδα (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• 1 or 2a: per above, and WP:CONLEVELS -- a discussion as to how to programme a bot shouldn't override the MoS, which is to leave this up to individual discretion. We already see good-natured but time-consuming bot edits from various bots which are, by their nature, unable to understand the citation practices established in an article (WP:CITEVAR), and end up acting in ways (such as repeatedly editing an article to change its established citation style) which would see a human editor criticised or sanctioned. 2B, 2C and 2D would all make this problem worse. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  So then if a bot was hypothetically able to determine the "citation practices established in an article" by assessing whether the citations fully or at least consistently (greater than 50%) included reflinks, you would endorse it? Οἶδα (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  It would be easy for the bot to determine a prevailing practice of reflinks: parse all the templates and count how many have links. A bot could be more aware and consistent of prevailing practice than humans. BTW in all my years making millions of edits, not a single editor has ever complained of an edit war, it's not that kind of bot constantly running unattended across 6 million pages. It's targeted based on requests for certain domains only, and I don't usually repeat the same domain. -- GreenC 00:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  I suspect that's because 2B, as you note at the top, includes the conversion of the domain name to the work name, which is a useful thing to do, and because it's relatively low volume. If I had seen one of those edits on an article for which the link contradicted an established consensus, I would not have reverted; I'd have just unlinked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2B or 2D: as other editors above have highlighted, linking within sources can be useful; I don't think whether or not something is linked is really an citation style issue so much as many editors use automated tools for creating citations to save time which may or may not include a link for them leading to inconsistency. The fundamentals of the citation format doesn't change (ie. WP:LDR vs in-line with the visual editor) by improving existing citations with links. I've mostly seen requests for consistency (ie. either all sources link or all sources don't link) in good/featured article reviews so having an option for the bot to convert one direction or the other on demand would be useful. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• GreenC, would it be possible for the bot to include an option for the requesting user to ask for all links, no links, or as you suggested above to follow the prevailing practice? That would ensure that the decision is always left to editor discretion rather than being a bot default. MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  eh? It wouldn’t be editor discretion, would it? That would be a single editor’s personal preference enforced across several hundred or thousand articles at any one time, regardless of the local consensus at each individual page. - SchroCat (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  With such an option, the editor has discretion to instruct a globally approved bot to follow existing prevailing practice on every page, in perfect compliance with the MOS. Though I’m not expecting that even that will be enough to change your mind, it does at least dispose of all the arguments you have enunciated thus far. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that's nonsense, and it disposes of absolutely nothing. If there is "an option for the requesting user to ask for all links", it enables a single editor to overrule the status quo on hundreds or thousands of individual pages. That's ridiculous. It would be akin to an editor ordering a bot to add (or remove) every serial comma to their own preference, or change language parameters - not just to one article but to thousands. And that's before you even think about what happens when Editor A asks for links to be added and Editor B comes along with the next request and exercises "an option for the requesting user to ask for ... no links" - ie, asking for them to be removed? This isn't a question that can be determined by this RfC - it would need a more fundamental change of the MOS before it even comes close to this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  If I understand correctly, you're not objecting to Option 3: the bot is changed so that it always follows existing prevailing practice on every page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  There is no option three at present. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• I propose the discussion of a new Option 3A: that the bot is changed so that it always follows the existing prevailing reflink practice on every page. GreenC has stated above that this would be easy to program, and it avoids the objection of some contibutors that the editor who instructs the bot could potentially be overriding local page consensus, where that exists. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think we should have a clear definition of what the set of "existing prevailing reflink practices" are before this can be considered. Also, a problem I see is that if the practice is being consistently followed already at a given page, there's nothing for the bot to do; and if it's not being consistently followed, it can't determine what the prevailing practice is. It would not be OK to then assume there is no prevailing practice, since a recent edit might have rendered the page inconsistent and not yet been reverted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am a bit confused by the different uses of "prevailing practice" and "consistently followed" here. I believe you're saying local page consensus might not be reflected in the current revision of an article due to a recent edit. Yes, each article can have their own documented consensus for reflinks and the bot needs to account for that. But in reality, they typically do not. It hasn't exactly been a very common or contentious phenomenon from what I can find. An article's current makeup should be enough for the bot to run. If a revert is already needed then the bot can be reverted as well, at which point the bot will not perform that same edit. If anything, I was more wondering if the bot could account for pages where the reflink style is MOS:LINKONCE. Without mistakenly linking twice, for example. Οἶδα (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• 2D Per Dhtwiki, when the work is wikilinked, I immediately know that the source is notable, and I can read its article to determine reliability before heading off-wiki. When the work is simply a URL, I am potentially left confused between sources with similar names or wary of heading to an unfamiliar site. When MOS:REPEATLINK exists to avoid a sea of blue in the article text, I agree with GreenC that the current guideline that "citations stand alone in their usage" justifies this new wikilinking function. While I can understand requesting the bot to not wikilink in citation templates that do not support it, the appeal to WP:FACRITERIA is maddening. WP:CITE's discussion of consistency in citation styles explicitly refers to the big choices over templates, not whether some works are wikilinked and some are not, even stating that "the data provided should be sufficient to uniquely identify the source, allow readers to find it, and allow readers to initially evaluate a source without retrieving it." Thanks for maintaining this useful bot work, GreenC! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• 2B My personal preference would be 2A, as I dislike the sea of blue that overlooking in references can cause. However other editors appear to find such linking useful, and my distaste of it is not enough to impede other editors. The flip side of that though is that high volume edits such as 2C/D also impact editors, so the lower volume of 2B seems like a sensible compromise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• 2A per comments above. If someone prefers the "link each one" style, go for it, but the default bot-level option should be the safest option. If a reader is curious about a reference, we generally want them to click on a URL of the article itself, not an article about the work it was published in. There are times when adding such links is good, but let humans do that, not bots. SnowFire (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• 2B In a multicultural English language encyclopedia, linking to the Wikipedia article for the publication is a benefit for users of this Wikipedia. I know it would be for me when I check a citation to an unfamiliar publication. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 14:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC) —
• 2B Others have said it better, but I think having the publisher linked to its WP article is good for the encyclopedia, even it I personally don't do so consistently when creating citations. - Donald Albury 15:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  There is no option to link to the publisher and no-one has suggested that would be a beneficial step. That is not what this RfC is about at all! - SchroCat (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• 2B citevar is not an excuse for avoiding doing something that has a clear, tangible benefit to any reader. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• 2D or 2B. Wikilinks are very useful in giving context to the citation. I've also found that when the values aren't linked, then there are often times typos in his field which are left uncaught because they aren't linked.

Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue you are complaining about won't be resolved by a bot adding wikilinks to correctly spelt titles. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes they would. Linked redirects that are tagged with {{R from misspelling}} appear on Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, which then can be fixed. Gonnym (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The bot wouldn't add wikilinks to misspelt names unless it was coded to recognise them, in which case it may as well just fix the spelling. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• 2A definitely oppose 2C/2D. I've only ever once clicked on a wikilink to a work in a reference and it was an accidental click when I was aiming for the url. I have never found these useful, some readers may find them useful but I do not believe their usefulness justifies the the enormous amount of edits this bot would be undertaking to do so. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• 2B – everything should be wikilinked. As Wikipedians, it should be obvious that wikilinks are useful – I use wikilinked source names all the time, for instance when trying to figure out the ownership and biases of the many Hong Kong newspapers. The easiest, most consistent, and only sustainable solution is to link every reference. Linking the only first instance means that whenever the reference order is changed (a very common occurrence) the link has to be moved, which is busywork that nobody should actually bother doing. Toadspike [Talk] 09:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• 2D with the exception of not converting |work=[url name] to a wikilink. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

2B - as a reader, my preference is for the work to be wikilinked whenever it can be. This link leads me to an article where I can learn more about the publication and its reliability, which is a crucial and core service of Wikipedia. Helping readers assess the reliability of a work helps readers assess the reliability of a citation and thus the accuracy of a Wikipedia article.

The URL to the work is not a substitute for information about the publication; more information about the publication will often be available in a Wikipedia article about the publication than on the publication's own website (which will inevitable have a pro-publication bias).

Wikilinking the work field in every reference is important, even though that results in repeated wikilinks in the reference section. To understand why, first remember that the vast majority of readers read on a mobile phone. Next, take out your phone and browse (in default mobile mode, not desktop-on-mobile mode) to any article and click on any reference. Note how it just shows you the one reference you clicked on--it doesn't take you to the references section the way desktop mode does. If that one reference you clicked on doesn't have the work wikilinked, you won't see another wikilink on your screen. Even on desktop mode, in articles that have hundreds of references (which most highly read articles do), if the one you clicked on doesn't have a wikilink to the work, it can be hard to find that link amongst the hundreds of other references listed. For both mobile and desktop users, it's important that the work field be linked in every citation. Levivich (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• 2A would be preferable to prevent further fighting. I appreciate the attention to cleaning up citations, but it would be jarring to introduce linking inconsistency to an otherwise stable article, all at the hand of a bot without a human to sign off on every edit. SounderBruce 00:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

mass-creation of china township articles

hello i want to mass-create china township articles i have this brilliant python code^{link redacted — Tamzin} that i spent weeks creating that mass-creates the pages and then posts them like bam bam bam and it cites citypopulation.de which is a good source for its population and demographics and exact coordinates and area and even its chinese/pinyin text. its very robust and if there's a single bit with an error or if the formatting doesn't add up its like "nope" and skips onto the next article so it never posts buggy stuff and i could red-to-blue like 90% of the china township articles with it in all provinces. i already generated 90% of a-g hebei townships (until someone threatened me) like this one this one and this one and this one and even ethnic townships with no mistakes they're all 100% perfect can i do it thankyou. i can also reprogram it so that submits them all to the draftspace for review if you dont trust theyll be up to standard for publication. Mayeva8823 (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

and yes ill be around to look at them and make sure theyre ok before theyre published i wont just leave the script on while im at college or something Mayeva8823 (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Never heard of citypopulation.de but I can see it's popular around here:[15] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It may be popular, but is it reliable? From a quick look it seems to be the work of one person. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Some hits at RSN [16], including Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_339#citypopulation.de. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Not reliable. Some of the UK tien and cities quote census results but they don't match. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely opposed. Mass geostub creation has wasted more cleanup time around here than almost anything else. How are you going to demonstrate that these are real settlements which really are at the locations given, and really have the names supplied? If you are willing to go over the output of this script and check it, one by one, then I might reconsider. But given that someone else is going to have to do just that, I have to object. We have spent several years cleaning up the US mass creation spree, and we're nowhere near finished. China is surely a much larger project, and verification is surely going to be more difficult considering the PRC's location falsification. Also, haven't we already agreed we aren't going to do this anymore? Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Total agreement! Mass creation should be banned. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we had bad experiences with GNIS, but that doesn't mean that every country has equivalently bad databases. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I also think we should keep in mind the systemic bias aspect. A stub is better than nothing, and often for non-Western countries, the choice is between having a mass-generated stub or having nothing. I'm not saying this alone is sufficient reason to let OP go forward, but it leaves a sour taste in my mouth for us to say that we were willing to permit and then spend the effort to clean up mass stub creation for U.S. municipalities but that we're not willing to do likewise for China. Sdkb ^talk 19:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

An inaccurate or completely false stub is worse than nothing, and we've had too many problems to assume that any source is reliable enough. And I'm sorry, but even where the databases are relatively good, we still have to interpret them properly. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect some degree of human verification on everything we publish, and for geography that means checking to see that it's really there. The choice is never between having a mass-generated stub or nothing, and our experience here is that database dumps for third-world countries have been particularly bad precisely because of the poor quality of information about them. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking at what this now blocked editor has added today, he has just added stubs based upon an unreliable website which reportedly use census data, which probably do not meet WP:GEOLAND. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "threat"? The closest I can find is User talk:Mayeva8823 § Rapid recreation of many articles, and Chaotic Enby was not threatening you there. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

If a bot could be coded to be consistent and accurate with decent facts using PRC sites it would actually be beneficial long term and reduce inconsistencies. We do need the articles on township divisions. But it needs to be done right and ideally a start class article or meaty stub. I would allow this editor to generate an example and we can survey it. But use direct government sources, not that website. If all you add is a population figure and create short stubs I oppose. They've got to be informative and accurate if using a bot.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Since I got a question on my talk assuming otherwise, just to clarify, I've blocked Mayeva for account security reasons ancillary to this thread, but this is not a for-cause block related to their editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Not advocating for or against, but one might look into Qbugbot, which created about 20k insect articles, and Lsjbot, which has created ~3M articles in Swedish, Dutch, Cebuano, and Waray Wikipedias.

• Dutch nl:Lsjbot stats – 132k edits; 126k articles created, nearly all deleted
• Swedish sv:Lsjbot stats – 10M edits by the bot; NUMBEROFARTICLES=2,608,203
• Waray war:Lsjbot stats – 3M edits; NUMBEROFARTICLES=1,266,654
• Cebuano ceb:Lsjbot stats – 29M edits; NUMBEROFARTICLES=6,116,748

Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the Swedes decided to stop Lsjbot because problems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's terrible what has happened to Cebuano and Swedish Wikipedia, so many bot generated articles renders them soulless. But for missing places where there is generic data I think long term it works out better if started consistently with a bot. Spanish municipalities are a mess and some still without infoboxes, basic data and maps. They should have been generated consistently back in like 2006. Somebody competent with coding bots should sort out China.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about China in particular, but we've had issues with setting bots to work using official census data that turned out to include a lot of statistics tied to census dropoff locations that are not standalone places. In particular, this was a problem for Iran and Russia, with the former listing gas stations and convenience stores as census locations, and the latter assigning arbitrary geolocations in rural areas where there are no distinct populated settlements. I would be very hesitant to do any automated locality-article creation unless the datasets have first been vetted by editors fluent in the language and familiar with the country in question, and at that point the benefits of automation in terms of time saved would likely be marginal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Lsjbot is possibly the worst thing that ever happened to Wikipedia. Because of it we have about 10 million out-of-date, rotting stubs that are full of bogus information from low-quality self-published databases and will never be updated or maintained. Even worse, the 10 million junk articles have polluted Wikidata and other projects due to efforts to synchronize content (e.g. Joopwikibot on Vietnamese Wikipedia). So now in Wikidata we have entries for places and taxa that never actually existed but are impossible to remove since they have articles in 3 or 4 different wikis (two of which are ghost towns), all created by Lsjbot. Please don't let this happen again. Nosferattus (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that Swedish wiki bot articles are hideous and that there are potential problems. The Demographics bloat in US place articles are also hideous due to the generic bot generation and 2010 and 2020 updates. But with a country like China, articles run the risk of being a mess and inconsistent without at least some sort of organized manual approach. Any thoughts Markussep ? For me I want to see consistency with data and infoboxes, but loathe seeing hundreds of articles in categories which all read the same. It makes us look soulless and like a database. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this would work if the articles were created in a liminal space such as draftspace, project space, or userspace, and then promoted to mainspace upon some minimal review. BD2412 T 18:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yup, just said the same thing. Ideally a bot which can mass generate basic entries with consistent data in the WikiProject space and then an editor or two gradually manually working through them writing unique content for each and gradually creating in the mainspace would be better. At the very worst, meaty stubs which are consistently formatted and sourced with government data and sites and which are individually written on top of the raw data, no generic soulless articles allowed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

For the interested, Wikipedia's largest non-English version was created by a bot. Generative AI poses new problems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

a few standards

I have a system I would like to suggest. How about picking a few of the simplest and most frequently used templates or luas and designating them as something like "Standard Lua" or "Standard Templates"? These templates or luas would use the same scripts and syntax in all language versions and sister projects. Whatback11 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I've left a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) about this discussion as folks there are likely to be interested/knowledgeable. 15:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

That could be interesting (I'm thinking of templates connected to a Wikidata item), but the issue is that it might require a lot of standardization as each project might have its technical ecosystem already adapted to specific variants of these templates. In my opinion, the benefits of intercompatibility outweigh the cost of changing the syntax of frequently-used templates on many projects.

One point where this has already been done is citation templates, where foreign-language parameters are often interpreted correctly when copy-pasted from one language version to another. However, these are implemented as aliases for similar parameters, and don't imply that all the versions of the citation templates must function the same way "under the hood". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

phab:T121470 is an old request. There are other connections there that you can look at. Izno (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

This is being implemented as WikiFunctions In the future: It will be possible to call Wikifunctions functions from other Wikimedia projects and integrate their results into the output of the page., which has... an interesting approach to things. The wiki-functions are already available on the Dagbani wiki. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Space tourists: "crew" or "passengers"

Our spaceflight articles seem to continue to call the paying passengers without duties on recent spaceflights "crew", despite the fact that this doesn't match the normal meaning of the word. While this glorifying of what these actually do (spend 1 minute in actual space, have no duties at all on board), is uncritically repeated by too many news reports, I don't think Wikipedia should contribute to such incorrect promotalk. We clearly use the distinction in every other type of article (e.g. for airline crashes, we list "crew" and "passengers" separately), and no one would dream of calling themselves crew simply for boarding a plane or train. Can we please bring back some accuracy to our spaceflight articles as well? Fram (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Personally I agree, but what matters is what terminology sources use and how. It's possible that "crew" in reference to a spaceflight means "anyone on board a spacecraft" while with aircraft it means "those tasked with operating the aircraft". 331dot (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• We could use quotes around crew, as did you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  WP:SCAREQUOTES might be a reason not to. Sdkb ^talk 17:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that applies in a case where the word is used metaphorically. We're not making an accusation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with Fram (which doesn't happen often!). Six people who take a boat on a pleasure cruise are no "crew" and nor are these people. In the same way that we don't uncritically repeat other neologisms from press releases, we shouldn't stretch the plain-English definition of a term here and there's nothing in policy that binds us to the exact wording used by the sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree here, but I would like to know a little more about how much safety training etc. is involved for paying voyagers on spacecraft. Another way to look at the promotionalism concern is that these companies may want to minimize how much preparation is required to make the flights seem more routine than they actually are yet. Sdkb ^talk 17:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Might be worth using the NASA definition Mrfoogles (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Crew. Any human on board the space system during the mission that has been trained to monitor, operate, and control parts of, or the whole space system; same as flight crew.

Passenger. Any human on board the space system while in flight that has no responsibility to perform any mission task for that system. Often referred to as "Space Flight Participant."
— NASA Procedural Requirements 8705.2C, Appendix A: Definitions

I don't know if those are the right NASA definitions, but using NASA definitions or other scientific/academic expert definitions, rather than promotional media spin, seems to be the better choice for wikivoice. Levivich (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Have you got an example as to when this comes up? Can we not just say that eight people were "on-board" rather than give them a job. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Every article about a human spaceflight names the participants, currently called the "crew". Having passengers not involved in the operation of the craft is a relatively recent development. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

First let me say that I know everyone working on these articles has been doing so with good intent and every effort at NPOV, it's just that language evolves very quickly sometimes and there may not be good models on how to write about very recent innovations, and thus Fram has identified a received weakness in existing published matter on this topic.

In any case: If you pay for a ride you are a passenger; if you get paid for going on a ride, you are crew.

I personally think we should use Fram's first phrase in his subhed and just should call them space tourists. Why? Because they're not even passengers on a journey to a destination in the sense that the spaceship is going from a port on Earth to a port on the Moon. They're going on a canned tourist cruise to see whales in the bay or look at that famous rock formation or view the reef by glass-bottom boat, and then return from whence they began. Similarly, people who pay for passage on submersible trips to shipwrecks should be referred to as deep-sea tourists.

FWIW, there is already sitcom-theme-song canon law on this issue:

The mate was a mighty sailing man,

The skipper brave and sure.

Five passengers set sail that day

For a three hour tour, a three hour tour.

So yeah I vote passengers over crew (although I would personally prefer tourists over both although I'm simultaneously concerned it has a slightly disparaging connotation).

jengod (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You mean Tina Louise and Jim Backus weren't crew members? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

For those three hours, they were just passengers. But then the weather started getting rough... oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

We call Dennis Tito a "space tourist", Donald Albury 22:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Did I mention that I'm an official part of the crew of planet Earth? O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Tito was a space tourist, who was a member of the 3-Man SM-24 mission crew*, people can be multiple things at the same time. (According to NASA NASA - NSSDCA - Spacecraft - Details JeffUK 17:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You still call people on boats passengers though even if the route is a circular sightseeing one. Same goes for other forms of transport, cf. Mount Erebus disaster. In this case I think passengers is the best term  novov talk edits 00:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Wait, does this mean that the flight was "uncrewed"? We have been using that term for robotic missions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

We could say the Blue Origin flight earlier today was "unmanned". (Duck and run.) Donald Albury 01:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I would just urge some caution here. I wouldn’t count the passengers of the New Glenn flight as crew. It’s a fully-automated capsule on a suborbital flight. They get basic training on “safety systems, zero-g protocols, and execute mission simulations”. They’re tourists/passengers.

However, the occupants of the recent Fram2 mission trained for months and while the Dragon is highly automated, it’s not fully automated. They still had a lot to learn. They’re definitely a crew.

The problem with the term spaceflight participant is that the Russians define pretty much everyone who’s paying them for a ride as a spaceflight participant… including those who undergo extensive professional training and for whom conducting scientific research is the primary reason for their spaceflight. RickyCourtney (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

They are as much made crew by the safety briefing as my going to muster drill on a cruise ship makes me a member of its crew. If they are a) not paid for their services aboard ship and b) take no real part in controlling the craft or operating onboard equipment, I don't see them as crew. That being said, there is always going to be a gray zone.Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. Sdkb ^talk 17:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I dropped a note about this discussion at Talk:Blue Origin NS-31#"Crew" or "passengers", which has so far fewer participants but a quite different point of view... Fram (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Crew is clearly the common term. NASA refer to the 'participants' on a missions who's only purpose was tourism as 'crew' here The Soyuz MS-20 and Expedition 66 crews - NASA

The European Space Agency refer to the 'tourists' amongst the crew here too.

'Crew' is clearly just 'the people on board' when talking about spaceflight. Maybe that will shift if the distinction between 'crew' and 'passengers' continues but it hasn't yet. The recent 'all-female crew' aboard the latest Blue Origins flight are referred to in all reliable sources as 'A crew', as are the crew-members of all previous blue origins flights. JeffUK 17:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I am going to drop out of this convo now bc I realized I might reinforcing or enabling misogynist presumptions that "if a bunch of women can do it must not be hard work." And that's absolutely on me because I have long-standing bitter POV feelings about Lauren Sanchez dating to So You Think You Can Dance. ANYWAY, my take is that the bifurcation is very clear and has been so since humans first started offering to ferry other humans across the river on janky rafts:

If you pay for a ride, you're a passenger. If you get paid to give a ride, you're crew. Participation in tasks onboard is not the determinant.

If we have reliable sources stating that someone paid money or items of equivalent value (publicity valued at X?) to go on a space trip or were sponsored to go on a space trip, they are passengers (and space tourists).

If we have reliable sources stating that someone is getting paid money by any space agency or rocketship-owning private company to go on a space trip, they are crew.

If we have no reliable sources about the financial/funding arrangements that determined which people are getting onboard a rocket ship, it seems fine to fall back on the default and current practice of using crew. But also don't let marketing practices and publicity stunts fool you.

This debate is a legacy of the Space Age when all space flight was quasi-military, government-sponsored, and "exploration." The transition to commercial space flight and private exploitation of extra-atmospheric travel is obviously well underway and will require a transition in perspective, including perhaps additional skepticism about motive.

Good luck on your debate and I hope you all have a wonderful April!!

jengod (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Space tourists are barely one step up from luggage and are not crew, are not astronauts, are not exceptional except perhaps in the size of their bank accounts. Simonm223 (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Some might qualify as “experiments”… so “equipment”. :) Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Participation in tasks onboard is absolutely a determinant.

I’d argue that if you have an active role in the operation of the craft, you’re part of the crew… even if you’re paying for the privilege.

If you’re paying to be there and you’re just along for the ride without any active operational duties (and knowing what to do in an emergency doesn’t count)… you’re a passenger. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't need specific rules for this, we should follow what the reliable sources say, regardless of what we think about what they say as we do in other situations. If reliable sources disagree, either just go with the majority or note and/or explain the disagreement as we usually do. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• We should follow what reliable sources say, but perhaps we do need clarifying guidance that this doesn't mean we have to or should follow the particular wording they use. That's mimicry, not neutral point of view. It's not so unusual for otherwise reliable sources to use terminology in an incorrect or misleading way, especially in niche topics. This is a good example of that. If reliable sources say that a person did something that meets the commonly understood definition of a 'passenger', then we can and should call them a 'passenger', even if the source itself (for whatever reason) uses the word 'crew'. – Joe (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think what we do already is a perfect balance between those. We refer to the people on board as 'Crew' in aggregate, then describe the role of each crew member (Tourist, Space Participant, Payload Specialist) etc. JeffUK 08:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  The word crew implies assigned duties. A passenger has no assigned duty. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

As a matter of convenience it can be useful to describe the humans on board a 'crewed spacecraft' as the crew of that spacecraft. We just don't have readily available terms like 'passenger spacecraft' or 'human-occupied spacecraft' in common use. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 03:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

How about 'autonomous spacecraft' or 'pilot-less spacecraft'? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Date-fixing bots

I would like to formally understand what the community would think of a date-fixing bot. Such a bot would fix dates in articles to conform either {{Use dmy dates}} or {{Use mdy dates}}. To be clear, this bot would not revert any good faith changes that add content and dates of the wrong format; instead, it will just change the date format. In my opinion, there are a few different ways such a bot could be implemented (or not):

• Option 1: no bot, everything stays as is
• Option 2a: a supervised bot (so every edit is manually reviewed before publication) that would have to pass BRFA to be implemented. I think this would alleviate any concerns of the bot creating errors based on context (such as changing date formats in quotes, links, references, etc.)
• Option 2b: an automatic bot that does something similar in proposal 2a, but wouldn't actually have its edits be checked before implementation
• Option 3: some other solution; no guarantee that this is actually feasible

Thanks for your consideration – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm an extensive user of a script that automates date style fixes. My experience has been that it's crucial to spend time reviewing the edits both to fix errors and to ensure that I am not making a purely cosmetic edit (e.g. by only changing dates in citations which are automatically rendered in the preferred style identified by a "Use XXX dates" tag). I have some doubts that it would be possible to create a date-fixing bot that wouldn't have the same issues, so I I would be unlikely to support 2b. That said, I'm happy to hear from those with more techincal capability.

On a procedural note, is the goal here just to see if this effort is supported by the community? Any bot created would still need to go through BRFA, right? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the goal here is to see whether the community supports the creation of such a bot. A BRFA would still be necessary to ensure the technical competence of any bot. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1: no bot, everything stays as is. Experience indicates that bot edits that are supposed to be manually reviewed don't actually get reviewed. Just look at the never-ending complaints at User talk:Citation bot. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose option 2b. There are many examples of contexts where dates should never be altered, articles about/discussing different date formats, including but not limited to direct quotations, version numbers, timestamps, and things that look like dates but aren't. Many, probably the vast majority, of these will not be able to be correctly identified by bot. If something supervised is desirable (and I am presently unconvinced it is) then adding to something like AWB would seem a more useful and safe option. Thryduulf (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• It's difficult to evaluate this in the abstract. I could theoretically be persuaded to support 2a or even 2b if the error rate is shown to be low enough, but we can't know the error rate until implementation gets farther along. If fixing dates to conform with an article's tag doesn't turn out to be feasible, I think there might be potential in having a bot assist with identifying articles to tag with formats based on their categories. Such a bot would have to be tuned to handle exceptions, but I think it could be tailored to an uncontroversial set that'd still be quite large. Sdkb ^talk 04:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I guess you raise a chicken-and-egg type problem: you want to see the error rate, but to start a bot trial we need consensus first. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  A supervised bot working on a limited sample of pages, with human review, could be a good way to evaluate whether such a bot can actually be fit. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1, because option 3 has already happened. The dmy and mdy templates already transform citation display. CMD (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• BAG note... 2B is a non-starter per WP:BOTPOL. All bots have to go through BRFA, and a bot like this would definitely need testing and review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  • This RFC is probably for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PharyngealBOT, which is currently on hold pending a consensus discussion like this one. Anomie⚔ 11:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 no bot. This proposal assumes that all {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use mdy dates}} tags are correct and should be enforced throughout the article. It ain't so. Yesterday I spent too long checking and reverting a new editor's mass additions of these tags, almost all contrary to MOS:DATERET and/or MOS:DATETIES, seemingly made without having read Template:Use mdy dates/doc or Template:Use dmy dates/doc, and otherwise inappropriate. A bot of this sort would have made that a considerably more tedious task.
  Dates within quotations should never be changed. The technical difficulty of doing this, catching quotes between quotation marks as well as in {{blockquote}}, has defeated other autoformatting attempts and I see no suggestion here that a solution has been found. NebY (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Would your concern be somewhat alleviated if the bot checked that the "use xxx dates" template was on the article at least 6 months prior to the revision it checks? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Not really. Many of the tags I corrected yesterday were on low-traffic articles; many of our articles are, and the tags are invisible to readers and to editors reviewing the article in reading mode or editing a specific section of the article; and even those editing the lead may have no reason to pay any attention to the tag. I was also reminded yesterday how long errors can survive, when I examined and corrected a factual error in the text of a high-traffic article (105,213 page views in 30 days); that one had survived over 3500 edits since 2011. NebY (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3, have a supervised trial, similar to option 2a (with human review) but on a limited sample of pages, to evaluate the error rate and find out whether it is fit for deployment. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 Uniformity is a vastly overrated condition. It's small value, if any, is not worth the downsides of having a bot mess with dates. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 Thanks for thinking about this but experience shows that automated edits lead to disruption. As outlined above, exceptions exist and many good editors become highly agitated when bots repeatedly fiddle with article style without an understanding of context. No significant benefit would result, for example, from protecting readers from the horror of encountering "April 1, 1725" in an article on a British monarch. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 As per Johnuniq, to many issues with bots, and would hate to see American dates on pages fir any article that should be DMY.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Superscript and subscript typography guideline

Is there support to upgrade Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts to a guideline? 04:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Rationale of the proposer: The main effect would be to officially recommend using HTML superscripts and subscripts instead of Unicode subscripts and superscripts (e.g. ² instead of ². This has generally been done on a de facto basis, for example in widely used templates like {{convert}}, {{frac}}, and {{chem2}}. I estimate only about 20,000 out of about 7 million articles use the Unicode characters outside of templates, mostly for square units of measure or in linguistic notation that should be put into a template. A lot of articles have already been converted to the HTML method, either organically or systematically.

This would also bless the exceptions for linguistic notation, which have arisen after complaints from some editors of that topic, who say these Unicode characters are specifically intended for that purpose.

The other exceptions and sections are I think just summaries of other guidelines, put in one place to help editors who are working on typography or e.g. asking the on-site search engine "how do I write subscripts?" when they really want to know how to write chemical formulas specifically. -- Beland (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support upgrading to guideline. I don't see any reason not to and this looks like good advice. However, I am also no expert on HTML/Unicode, so if some compelling issue with this proposed guideline emerges, please ping me. Toadspike [Talk] 09:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support as someone who is reasonably knowledgable about HTML/Unicode.  novov talk edits 09:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support as good HTML/Unicode practice. However, it could be good to have input from editors who might be more directly affected by this (maybe editors who use screenreaders?) to make sure this will not cause any unforeseen accessibility issues. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  For context, the reason Unicode characters are allowed for only 1⁄2, 1⁄4, and 3⁄4 is that these are the only fractions in ISO/IEC 8859-1; others can cause problems, according to Graham87 comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics/Archive 4#Accessibility of precomposed fraction characters. The only superscript or subscript characters in ISO/IEC 8859-1 are superscript "2", "3", "a", and "o". I would expect using HTML superscripts and subscripts consistently should avoid screenreaders skipping unknown characters (certainly mine reads out footnote numbers). I use a screenreader for convenience and not necessity, though, and I welcome comments from others! -- Beland (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly this. Graham87 (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources is currently having extensive discussions about which rules apply to citations and which do not. Beland (talk · contribs) is heavily involved in these discussions. I believe those discussions should be resolved before any new related guideline are created. Failing that, I notice the essay has no mention of citations. This means whoever wrote it wasn't giving any thought to citations. Therefore an prominent statement should be added that it does not apply to citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone is proposing to use Unicode superscript characters for endnote indicators? It seems reasonable for endnote contents to follow the general guidance on the use of superscript and subscript markup. isaacl (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support with the obvious exceptions of references to characters themselves. I don't see why citations would have an exception here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Provisional Initiative: Improving Judy Garland Content on Wikipedia

Hello Wikipedia editors,

I’m thrilled to announce that I’ve created a provisional project page aimed at organizing efforts to improve and expand coverage related to Judy Garland—her extraordinary career, her lasting cultural impact, and her place in classic Hollywood history.

This initiative invites passionate editors to collaborate on enhancing articles about Judy Garland and the broader context of musical cinema and classic film. Whether you’re a film buff, a musical theatre enthusiast, or someone interested in the nuances of biographical research, there’s room for your expertise in this project.

Why Join This Initiative?

• Judy Garland’s legacy deserves more thorough and systematic documentation.
• Articles related to her life and career can benefit from improved research, quality upgrades, and expansion.
• It’s a great opportunity to work together and foster collaboration within the Wikipedia community.

Explore the Project Page: Check out the provisional draft, where you can find goals, activities, and ways to contribute: User:Jorge906/WikiProject_Judy_Garland

Your participation, feedback, and suggestions are invaluable as we build this collaborative effort. Whether you’re interested in drafting new content, refining existing articles, or organizing edit-a-thons, every contribution matters.

Feel free to share your thoughts on the draft project page or reply to this post. Together, we can create a meaningful space to celebrate Judy Garland’s influence while enriching Wikipedia’s coverage of film history and musical performance.

Thank you for considering this opportunity to contribute—let’s make a difference together!

Best regards, Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide - proposals for new Wikiprojects should be made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

thanks. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It's good to have a goal to work on a particular set of articles collaboratively, even outside of a formal WikiProject, although there needs to be a list of articles for that to work. I would advise against relying on AI-generated text for such a project, as llms can easily misunderstand Wikipedia's goals, for example not being great at understanding aims such as WP:IMPARTIAL and other parts of WP:NPOV. CMD (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Jorge, I wish you luck, but fear that you will need a lot of it. The scope of your proposal seems very narrow. Please read carefully the advice given at the page Andy linked. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Idea lab

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

WMF

Wikilinking to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

Recently an editor removed wikilinks to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation from many articles. [17][18][19][20][21] What are our thoughts on if we should or should not wikilink to the article Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation? I am inclined to keep these links and have said so before, but would appreciate hearing some other thoughts. cc Pppery. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae All wikilinks to the article ANI v. WMF should be removed as the article isn't even an article. Its just a template saying "Asian News International is trying to censor Wikipedia for simply telling the truth". DotesConks (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My comment there:

I think it's better we try to heal into a self-consistent state involving that article not existing, rather than deliberately sending people to the memory hole. Reverts are cheap, so when it comes back it won't be hard to revert my edits. I likewise would prefer that the article on the individual case be a redirect to an appropriate section rather than a visible sore (assuming that's legally allowed). I totally get the other viewpoint, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Rephrased, I don't think it's appropriate to have a link that looks like it's going to point to something, but instead points to nothing. The only information the link conveys is that the WMF has blocked access to the article. In all of those cases the article still says that later in the same paragraph, so the link is redundant. I was inspired to do this now (after having been previously reverted in October) because months later I think the case for doing this is stronger than it was back them when things were still in flux. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflicted but applicable here too) If that is the consensus, is there a Template:ill type solution that could hide the wikilink if that is the case? Usually for pages with possibility redlinks mean there is not a need to redo all links if a page is created, however in this case there the wikilink removal is creating future work that would involve tracking down prior links as well as reverting. CMD (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we retain the links. The situation has already forced us to make extraordinary against-encyclopedic-interests changes, and modifying other articles as well would be an unforced deepening of the wound. Links, even when not clicked, reveal information to readers about e.g. which topics are notable enough to merit coverage. Removing them would send the false message that we don't consider the topic notable. This is also analogous to the situation with red links for notable topics, which we retain despite them not leading to information, so I don't find the "links need to lead to info" argument above persuasive. Lastly, reverts aren't the most expensive change, but they do take some work, especially once an article has evolved around them (e.g. by providing more context when a link is absent or by adjusting MOS:SOB workarounds). Keeping the links takes the longer-term view, in which the article will eventually go up again and we won't have to reintegrate it into the rest of the encyclopedia. Sdkb ^talk 07:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that links should be retained, unless there is any legal compulsion against it. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Sdkb makes sense to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I came in here with no strong opinion, but I think Sdkb makes a good point that the links, even to a removed topic, are valuable information. Valereee (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep the links. Our practice is to wikilink notable topics on which we have no article. These links may be red (for logged-in editors) or may redirect to a related topic such as a list entry. In this unique case, the link is to a page documenting the WMF's redaction but the principle remains valid: if the topic is notable, we link to whatever we have. Certes (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I see a rough consensus to restore the wikilinks. Any objections before I go making edits? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Status

While we're all here, can we get an update on the case itself? Is there a time estimate on when the page could be made available again? Are the editors out of legal risk? Is this case going to lead to risks of other articles going down and/or restricted availability in India? Tazerdadog (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: There's been some updates over at WP:ANIVWF, and you can follow the court case directly here. Most recent update is that the WMF has appealed for the plaint to be rejected; the editors' details were disclosed to the court under a sealed cover and they have been served with a summons, but no affidavit has been filed by them and nobody has appeared in court on their behalf. There haven't been any real proceedings since this update as the presiding officer was on leave. Unfortunately I can't answer the rest of your questions, as it all depends on how the court case proceeds. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog Recent coverage: ANI vs Wikipedia: Supreme Court questions Delhi HC over Wikipedia page takedown order. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The Delhi High Court has now issued an interim order for the WMF to take down alleged "defamatory statements" on the ANI article. (Bar and Bench) --Grnrchst (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales or anyone from WMF who is reading here...is it possible to get some discussion here of what WMF's response to this will be? The community will want to be able to give input if there's any chance WMF is considering anything like edit/blacklock or remove that article. While either would be objected to, it's likely the reaction from the community will be worse if WMF simply presents us with a fait accompli. Valereee (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding to this, editors are trying, based on media-coverage and discussion, to do something constructive with the ANI article over at Talk:Asian News International. However, without any word on WMF-intent regarding article content, it may just be a waste of time and energy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

US government questionnaire

The organisation I work for has been sent this questionnaire by the US government. It has 36 questions that produce a score between 12 and 180. I would like to know what WMF's score is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

combatting Christian prosecution I would normally think this was a typo. But given the circumstances... GMG^talk 13:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I keep thinking that they can't be that bad, but then they come out with something that shows that they are. I'm just glad that I don't live in the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Me neither, but I still have to deal with the questionnaire. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I have to wonder what the actual US government would score on that thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The WMF doesn't need to do it though. And I'm not sure why you are posting here instead of contacting the WMF directly. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Universities in Europe are generally advising not to fill in or respond to the survey. – Joe (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

We have to encourage free speech and encourage open debate and free sharing of information but also be sure to not work with any party that espouses anti-American beliefs, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 04:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

All right, I filled it out. Somewhat surprisingly, Wikipedia scores a respectable 90/180 (a lot more than you would expect given the fact the organization has a suspicious absence of minerals):

1: Yes, I would hope so. (5)

2. Yes, collaborating with any such organization (or any organization with a political viewpoint at all) would violate WP:COI (5)

3: No, most Wiki-meetups are informal gatherings of editors so vetting them for being terrorists would be a waste of time as well as pointless. (0)

4: WTF. No. Clear WP:NPOV vio. (0)

5: Yes, per WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:FREECONTENT. Speech is constrained by the practical constraints of an encyclopedia but that’s about it. (5)

6: Yes? We don’t really collaborate with any organizations with policies for or against the US, per WP:COI. (5)

7: No, per WP:NOTCENSORED, we have abortion information on our website. (0)

8: Yes. Wikipedia is a well-funded organization with more than enough money to cover its operating cost. (5)

9: Yes. Let’s be honest, there is a fair amount of complaining on the site of Wikipedia’s high overhead costs, but the overhead costs of Wikipedia are dwarfed by the impact of the site. (5)

10: No. Why would we? We’re an encyclopedia? (0)

11: Yes? Again, we don’t really collaborate with any organizations with policies for or against the US, per WP:COI. (5)

12: No. As an international organization with global governance structures, we collectively politely tell you to go soak your head over this one. (0)

13: Yes. Local branches of Wikipedia have, at points, received money from Russia, and worked with groups such as Wikipedians in Mainland China. That being said, Wikipedia no longer receives funding from those organizations and has never partnered with them per WP:COI. (5)

14: No, per WP:NPOV. (0)

15: No. We have programs that seek to include and improve coverage of areas not currently covered. That’s a good thing. (0)

16: Yes. Endorsing any policy positions officially would be WP:NPOV. We let the facts speak for themselves. (5)

17: No, per WP:NPOV. (0)

18: No. Even though sometimes it sure feels like it. (0)

19: No per WP:NOTCENSORED. Although, let’s be honest, the fact that Wikipedia fails this is more because “Gender Ideology” is really just talking about trans people. (0)

20: No per WP:NOTCENSORED (0)

21: Yes. Wikimedia Enterprise is the business arm of the foundation. (5)

22: Yes. Millions of people across the US use Wikipedia every day. Not to mention search engines rely on it. (5)

23: Yes. We’ve already done so. (5)

24: Yes. If the free flow of and access to information is a national security need, you could hardly find a better organization to fulfill this need. (5)

25: Providing access uncensored information to authoritarian regimes who are (for now) the primary “malign influencers” undermines their interests. (4)

26: I doubt Wikipedia has any impact whatsoever. We let the facts speak for themselves, and people make their decisions with those. (1)

27: I doubt Wikipedia has any impact whatsoever. We let the facts speak for themselves, and people make their decisions with those. (1)

28: Ironically, we probably do a better job of providing accurate health information than the current US government, which definitely mitigates biological threats and pandemics. As per “foreign dependence on medical supplies”, why even include that in this question you morons? (4)

29: Again free speech has generally helped promote US national security interests (we’ll see for how much longer). (2)

30: I guess disclosing what they are and providing information helps, sort of? That being said, WP:NPOV applies here. (1)

31: WP:NOTCENSORED means Wikipedia has information on most religions, benefiting religious minorities. Unfortunately, as you may know, the facts have a well known anti-Christian bias.(3)

32: None beyond letting the facts speak for themselves. That may be a bad thing for the current regime. (1)

33: People like Wikipedia, and many Wikipedia editors are American. That sort of cultural exchange hopefully helps people abroad see not everybody in the US is quite as bad as the current regime. (3)

34: The financial return of Wikipedia, when taking into account the benefits its provides, is massive. We’re one of the most visited websites in the world (5)

35: Wikipedia Enterprise makes bank, man [22]. (5)

36: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is a concept, not a mining company. (0) Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The MS forums will be CLOSED soon

WMF is closing the MS forums. please see the link below for details.

Here is the official WMF announcement: Based on the data and the learning, we will be archiving the Forum in April 2025. It will be put in read-only mode for a year - during this time all the discussions will be available online, but no new discussions can be started. After this period we will export all the data and retain a full archive.

• LINK: meta:Movement Strategy/Forum/Archiving

--Sm8900 (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Sunsetting the Movement Strategy forum is probably a good move, in my opinion. The Movement Strategy forum's location and software is a bit on the bespoke side, and runs the risk of raising barriers to entry, and fragmenting policy discussions away from the already existing place for such discussions (metawiki). –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of the MS forums, so anecdotally I feel that the attempts to promote it were unsuccessful. Also, The hosting and maintenance cost of the MS Forum is $20K per year. Even if it had worked, I can't imagine it would have ever given us anything near $20k-worth of benefit. I'm wondering if there was ever demand for this, or if it was one of the WMF's many "initiatives" that no one asked for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

There was demand from multiple groups:

• Groups that needed private off-wiki discussions. For example, event planners or admins sometimes need to talk privately, because you don't want discussions about some subjects (e.g., venue contract negotiations or the latest move by a long-term abuser) to be publicly visible to anyone on the internet. These have always happened, but they have previously happened via private m:IRC channels or private m:mailing lists.
• People who wanted a discussion system with built-in machine translation available so they could have discussions across language barriers. Japanese editors have been particularly under-represented in prior movement discussions, and they have been somewhat over-represented in the Movement Strategy Forums.
• People who wanted to be certain that the person they're talking to is actually the editor of the same name. On the Forums, you can be certain that "WhatamIdoing" is me. On most other channels used by editors, you have no such certainty, because anyone can sign up under any name. For example, years ago, an LTA impersonated me on a couple of social media websites.
• People who don't use the Latin alphabet. Several language communities have relatively little discussion on wiki, because typing in their home language, and especially typing wikitext codes, has been difficult. We don't necessarily want editors to use external apps, with their anti-privacy policies, to talk about Wikipedia's everyday business. Having a bespoke forum under our own privacy policies helps keep editors safe. (The Reply tool is another initiative from the WMF to reduce this voluntary, editor-initiated fragmentation.)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Agree i absolutely agree with you, 100%!! well said!! Sm8900 (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing It shouldn't be too difficult to implement oAuth on existing forum software (Flarum?), and add some JS that translates posts. If that demand still exists I'll do it for 19K USD per year. Polygnotus (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi

Could have its own artificial intelligence from the wikimedia foundation to be consulted in auxiliary ways. (red annales) (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that actually existing ai like chatgpt is useful if one needs it as one possible resource for simple research. Sm8900 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Can we add anything related to AI to WP:PEREN? I feel like by now it's clear how wikipedians feel about the topic by now and the recent AI hype means we'll keep seeing proposals like this until the WMF makes a statement mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 6

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on 21 March. Please help translate.

---

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

• Progress on the Annual Plan: Six-Month Snapshot.
• Global Trends: A message from Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees on global trends and strengthening Wikipedia’s neutral point of view.
• Wikimedia Hackathon: The registration to attend the Wikimedia Hackathon is still open until midnight April 13.
• Central Asia Wikicon: The Central Asian WikiCon 2025 will take place on April 19–20 in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Infrastructure: How crawlers impact the operations of the Wikimedia projects.
• Tech News: The CampaignEvents extension will be released to multiple wikis (see deployment plan for details) in April 2025; The Editing team is working on a new Edit check: Peacock check. This check’s goal is to identify non-neutral terms while a user is editing a wikipage. More updates from tech news week 13 and 14.
• Wikifunctions: Read the latest status updates.

Annual Goals Progress on Knowledge Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki

• Wikipedia Library: What’s new from January to March 2025.
• Let's Connect Learning Clinic: Missed the last Learning Clinic on "Safe Spaces, Strong Voices: Advancing Inclusion through the UCoC"? Recording is now available.

Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog

• Transparency report: The Wikimedia Foundation’s publishes its latest Transparency Report covering the period from July to December 2024. View highlights from the report.
• Global Advocacy: Read the latest developments on public policy advocacy from Wikimedia Foundation's Global Advocacy team.

Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: quarterly Metrics Reports

• Wikimedia Enterprise: Wikimedia Enterprise Partners with ProRata.ai to Champion Sustainable Search Engine Practices.

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

• Elections Committee: Wikimedia Foundation Governance Committee has appointed a new Elections Committee.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 15:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Update on developments in India

This communication is intended to provide an update on ongoing developments in New Delhi, India, involving Wikipedia, which have also been reported in the media. In the interest of transparency, our endeavour remains to keep Wikimedia volunteers informed regularly; however, please note that, in accordance with the applicable law, commentary on pending litigation by the parties involved is limited due to the sub judice rule.

We currently have two important updates to share:

• Supreme Court Proceedings: On April 9, 2025, the Foundation concluded its arguments before the Supreme Court of India in its challenge [SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 2483/2025] to the Delhi High Court's takedown order concerning the English Wikipedia article "Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation". The Supreme Court has now reserved its judgment (i.e., it will deliberate and deliver its written verdict in due course).
• Delhi High Court Proceedings: On April 2, 2025, the Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court issued an order on interim injunction in the ongoing civil suit titled ANI Media Private Limited v. Wikimedia Foundation and Ors [CS (OS) 524/2024, IA 32611/2024]. In response, the Foundation filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court [FAO (OS) 41/2025]. The Foundation's Legal Department is currently awaiting the Division Bench's order.

Please note that the Foundation is unable to respond to specific questions or discuss the ongoing proceedings further at this time; however, the Foundation has also taken note of concerns raised by members of the Wikimedia community.

As developments unfold, we will continue to provide updates to the extent permissible under applicable laws. The Foundation remains steadfast in its commitment to access to knowledge as a global human right and will continue to take all necessary measures under applicable laws to ensure that everyone can share and access free knowledge on Wikipedia in accordance with its Terms of Use and applicable policies. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF): On April 8, the Division Bench upheld the single bench judgment and ordered the content to be taken down. Wikipedia is an intermediary, can’t appeal takedown court order on merits: Are you not updated with this news? GrabUp - Talk 04:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

They will have been, by their lawyers, and not a media source. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Joe. I hope for the best possible outcome from the Supreme Court proceedings. Unfortunately I can't say I'm optimistic about the appeal to the Delhi High Court, given how it's gone so far, but it's good to hear the WMF is challenging these orders at each possible opportunity. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Joe, the Division Bench's order has long been available. Upd Edit (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I think a backend tool for WMF legal that gives HTTP 451 for specific pages might actually be better than a plastered notice. I don't think anyone likes censorship (not even me), but this may be the best option to preserve access to the most number of Wikimedians. And if it is necessary to block VPNs from those same pages, so be it. It unfortunately would also mean that the page would be inaccessible from logs and recent changes. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Update on the update: Relief for Wikipedia as Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High Court order to take down defamatory edits against ANI Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 7

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on April 4. Please help translate.

---

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

• Annual Planning and global trends: Join one of the many conversations happening over April and May about how Wikimedians around the world are responding to global trends and help shape the Foundation's annual plan.
• CEE Catchup: Join the upcoming global trends workshop for the CEE communities organized together with the CEE Hub on April 23 at 16:00 UTC, to discuss AI, NPOV, Wikimedia communities and more.
• Neutral point of view: More information and an update about the work to strengthen Wikipedia's neutral point of view.
• Wiki Workshop 2025: Register for the 12th annual Wiki Workshop taking place on May 21–22. It brings together researchers and scholars from around the globe who are interested in or actively engaged in research and development on Wikimedia projects.
• Learning Clinic: The upcoming Let’s Connect Learning Clinic is focusing on "Understanding and Navigating Conflict in Wikimedia Projects (Part 1)" and will take place on April 29 at 14:30 UTC.
• Community Resilience and Sustainability: Quarterly Conversation hour taking place on April 24 at 18:00 UTC to discuss Trust and Safety, the Universal Code of Conduct, Committee Support, and Human Rights.
• Wikimedia Hackathon: The Wikimedia Hackathon 2025 will take place on May 2–4.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Wikifunctions: Wikifunctions is now integrated with Dagbani Wikipedia. It is the first Wikimedia project that will be able to call and integrate functions directly into Wikipedia articles. Read more weekly updates on Wikifunctions.
• Edge Uniques: Introducing Edge Uniques, a technical approach which consists of privacy-preserving first-party cookies that will enable usability testing of features through A/B testing, more accurate counting of site visits, and a way to stop distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) with better precision.
• Tech News: The Design System Team is preparing to release the next major version of Codex (v2.0.0) on April 29; Last week, the default thumbnail size was increased from 220px to 250px. This changes how pages are shown in all wikis and has been requested by some communities for many years, but wasn’t previously possible due to technical limitations. More updates from Tech News week 15 and 16.
• Outreachy: Celebrating the excellent contributions from both interns and mentors in Round 29 of the Outreachy internship program.
• Developer Satisfaction Survey: The results of the Developer Satisfaction Survey (2025) are available. Thank you to all participants. These results help the Foundation decide what to work on next and to review what they recently worked on.

Annual Goals Progress on Knowledge Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki · WikiLearn

• Wiki Loves Monuments: Celebrating the winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2024.
• Wikimedia Research Showcase: Watch the latest research showcase featuring the theme of "Motivation of Wikipedia Editors".

Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog

• Digital Rights: Wikimedians leading conversations at the Digital Rights and Inclusion Forum 2025 (DRIF25).
• Community Resilience: To better support community members when they are facing challenges while contributing to Wikimedia projects, the Trust and Safety team worked with the Arbitration Committees to create Project Maps of communities.
• RightsCon 2025: Key takeaways on advocacy and inclusion.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 17:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Nation names

It is English language Wikipedia policy, largely defined, to use English language word for some nations, even if they've requested otherwise. The most obvious example is Côte d'Ivoire, the name used by FIFA, still known as [[Ivory Coast]]. The argument is that usage dictates policy, and I don't know how much usage changes that policy. A recent example is Czechia, which is stil [[Czech Republic]] (though an article such as this year's Berlin Film Festival uses Czechia and this hasn't been edited, interestingly). I think we all know the talk page of the Turkey article is now a daily request bonanza of editors asking it to be renamed Türkiye.

Is there any chance of the policy being reexamined? I notice, obviously, that Eswatini was changed from Swaziland. There is inconsistency and I wonder if that inconsistency will ever be resolved doktorb _words^deeds 13:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The policy is WP:COMMONNAME (part of Wikipedia:Article titles), there is no specific policy about the names of nations. As someone who has followed relevant move requests for a few years, I don't think there is inconsistency, and I have not seen any real enthusiasm to either ditch the article title policy, or create specific carve-outs. CMD (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Chipmunkdavis I think Turkey vs Eswatini shows there is some inconsistency. But obviously I know that editors tend to be cautious about policy changes like this. I'm just curious (and with Czechia being used in some articles unedited I wonder if these things will change organically.). doktorb _words^deeds 13:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Swaziland was moved to eSwatini in 2018, in an RM that included a survey of RS that found that the common name had changed to reflect the name change. Further discussion later moved it to Eswatini. RMs for Turkey have included surveys of RS that have found that the common name has not significantly shifted. The inconsistency here reflects real-world inconsistency, it is not an en.wiki creation. It also is not restricted to country names, take Indian cities. Mumbai appears to have been the main article since before article history was fully worked out, which was only about half a decade after renaming. On the other hand, Bengaluru was only moved late last year, a decade and a half after its official renaming. Pondicherry has not been renamed Puducherry, although this may be partially disambiguation. Why was Swaziland changed much faster than Turkey? Hard to say, but English is an official language in Swaziland so perhaps its writers had more cultural pull. Do these change organically? Yes, Timor-Leste was only recently moved, and its RM cited a spike in 2024 in the use of "Timor-Leste", which, as far as anyone has theorised, was due to the pope travelling there late that year. CMD (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Our consistency lies, rightly, in applying WP:COMMONNAME. That Eswatini has become the common name fairly fast may indicate that "Swaziland" was not mentioned often or embedded in global-north consciousness to the extent of "Czech Republic" and "Turkey". NebY (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes there are a few that are actively debated and there is no one answer that will satisfy everyone. A few. One thing we want to watch out for is nationist special pleading. I'm not saying that that is a major problem. But sometimes. It isn't a mjor problem regarding Türkiye, for instance, but still I would expect that naming to be favored by Turks, who would likely be somewhat nationalistic, not in a bad or toxic way, but in understandably wanting to not use a foreign name for their country. But we really don't care what a native Turkish speaker prefers much more than what a native Humgarian speaker prefers, or shouldn't, and we care more about what native English speakers prefer, or should. We are supposed to be ice-cold neutral about these things. Granted that there will always be political feelings around these things, that is normal, but not a feature.

IMO diacritics are a complication (not all agree). I have no idea how that ü is pronounced, nor ı, and can't be bothered to learn and for good or ill that applies to most readers, who pronounce "straße" as "strabe" and "kanał" as "canal" and just blip over others. Granted the camps for "use diacritics generously" and "use diacritics sparingly" are divided about 50/50 last I knew. Herostratus (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Just shoot me

Trying to work on article relating to Israel. I am finding it less pleasant than french kissing an alligator. I think we need to have a banner like this on some articles:

Herostratus (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a good idea but will likely only lead to the ire of editors being directed even more fiercely or towards others/the creator of said banner(s). See: any time someone is told to cool off and work on something else (here or elsewhere). Reconrabbit 14:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The only topic notices I can find are Template:Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice and Template:Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice that appear as an edit notice and on the talk page, respectively, and the user talk page CTOP notice. Nothing as bluntly honest as yours. Progress was made at WP:ARBPIA5 in getting some of the hateful/unreasonable editors out of the topic area, but there are still plenty more. All we can do is to be active at WP:AE and tell administrators that the community wants long-term pov pushing to be sanctioned more severely, especially in this topic area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Right. We do have {{POV}} for article pages. Problem I am having with that is my colleagues on the article we are engaging on are like "No, we can't have that tag. No sane, reasonable person could believe that the article is POV" (altho it is actually quite POV, or at any rate arguably so). So I mean if we did have a tag -- alright, not like the one I wrote about, but something along the general lines of "Because of the topic, this article may not meet our usual standards for neutrality and veracity" or something -- it would have to be placed by some outside agency, such as members of the admin corps or something. But that's not an admin function and would be viewed poorly, with perhaps some justification.

We do have {{Recent death}} which has

This article is currently being heavily edited because its subject has recently died. Information about their death and related events may change significantly and initial news reports may be unreliable. The most recent updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Please feel free to improve this article (but edits without reliable references may be removed) or discuss changes on the talk page.

which is kinda-sorta similar in way, at least in that it warns about possible unreliablity. But people are usually on one side or the other of a clear DEAD/NOT DEAD line where there's no arguing over whether the tag should apply or not.

Oh wait we do have {{Unbalanced}} and {{cherry-picked}} and various kinds of POV templates. But all those have the same problem: "Article is fine, removed per WP:BRD, make your case [which we will never, ever accept or even bother to read] on the talk page." I mean we could have a rule that everything in Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict gets tagged. Some won't rate having it but some do, and it gives a clear GO/NOGO line. (Yeah then you coulg get "This article doesn't belong in Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict so I am removing the category and the tag" even if it does belong. But unless it really is a marginal case that might not be super easy. IDK.

Oh well. Governance here is pretty much Rube Goldberg. I hope the Foundation doesn't feel they have to come in and basically take over editorial oversight, at least on this subject. But, entities that are unable to govern themselves find themselves governed by someone else sooner or later. So maybe. Herostratus (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{POV}} should be used as a link to active discussion. If there's not an active discussion on the talk page, then drive-by POV tags should be removed. But if there is an ongoing discussion at the talk page, it belongs on the page per WP:WNTRMT and I'd support a pban or a topic ban against people who keep removing it. But again, the most efficient way to handle this is to have these people removed from the topic area, which many admins are too scared to do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Scared of what? Herostratus (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Scared to impose topic bans at WP:AE on the basis of WP:TENDENTIOUS POV pushing. (They can also impose them unilaterally, but that should only be used for egregious offenses rather than long-term issues.) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Because of being brigaded and scolded by one "side" or the other? Herostratus (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been wondering whether pages like Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict would benefit from a basic primer on the subject area, especially wrt to neutrality. Maybe a top 10 list? I'm not sure what the main points of contention are, but imagine a page that says things like:

• Do not conflate anti-Israel or anti-Zionist sentiment with antisemitism, even if you can find a source that uses the terms sloppily.
• It is possible to support Palestinian people or to oppose Israel's actions in Gaza without approving of Hamas or being antisemitic. It is possible to support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself or to oppose Hamas's murders and kidnappings, without approving of Israel's actions in Gaza.
• Wikipedia does not decide whether a situation truly is a genocide. Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say about that. When enough reliable sources say that something is genocide, then Wikipedia will state it "in wikivoice", i.e., will write things like "The Gaza genocide is..." rather than softer things like "The situation in Gaza, which has been called a genocide by many observers..." or "The situation in Gaza, which Alice Expert and Paul Politician have called a genocide...". As of 2025, editors have formed a consensus that enough reliable sources say that the situation is Gaza is a genocide, so we are using the stronger wording. WP:Consensus can change if future sources do.

but I'm not sure (a) what would go on the pages and (b) whether they'd really be useful. Maybe something more behavior-oriented would actually be more useful (like "report this kind of behavior here, add this template there")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

"Aftermath" sections

aftermath noun the period that follows an unpleasant event or accident, and the effects that it causes

I'm not sure if it's limited to specific domains on Wikipedia, but I often see subsequent events and news under a page section titled "Aftermath", even if the page is not about a disaster, accident, etc. For example, 2020 United States presidential election § Aftermath and 2024 United States presidential election § Aftermath. Is there an alternative meaning of aftermath that is not necessarily preceded by negative circumstances? Or is this a case of Wikipedia misuse that could end up speaking it into existence? —Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Collins says "an important event, especially a harmful one", and gives an example where the "event" is "the Soviet era", so it is not necessarily preceded by negative circumstances (opinions on the Soviet era may vary). That said, your examples seem to indicate a use here as more of a synonym of "impact"/"effects"/"legacy", which is definitely out of proportion to the dictionaries defining it as predominantly linked to negative events. CMD (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"Legacy" or "retrospective" is often more appropriate describing second-order analysis and long-term effects, but I ruminated and flipped around thesauruses and there would seem to be no formal English word that has a similar sense when it comes to summarizing the short-term ramifications of an event. Remsense ‥ 论 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Sports championship pages sometime use "Aftermath" to document how the winner and loser fared afterwards e.g. 2019 NBA Finals § Aftermath. Sometimes I wonder if it's just a WP:COATRACK, but it's rarely about the "Legacy" or a "retrospective" of the event itself. —Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

For the 2019 NBA Finals#Aftermath example, I would probably use "Post-series developments" instead of "Aftermath". Some1 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree that it is probably the most appropriate word for short- or medium-term effects of events, including battles, disasters, accidents, and I often use it in that way myself. In my experience "Legacy" is more often used for bios to cover longer-term impact of a person's life and work, I'm not sure how often it is used for events, I certainly haven't seen it used much for war-related events. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Great Tea Race of 1866 uses "Afterwards" to head the section that says what happened to the ships mentioned (and some captains) after the race. "Aftermath" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate in that situation. Whatever such a section is called, it really counterbalances any "Historical background" (or similar section). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 11:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Section names should normally be a noun or noun phrase, but Afterwards is an adverb. —Bagumba (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Desperate times call for desperately taking measures? Remsense ‥ 论 12:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"Normally" gives some latitude, surely. Given the struggle here to find the right word, is that latitude needed? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Afterward or Afterword seem distinctly plausible, especially in the singular. Maybe Postface? The first two are potentially a hair over-narrative-y, the latter potentially not enough so?

(Maybe it's a bit of a generational distinction, perhaps even one mediated by younger people having grown up reading Aftermath sections on Wikipedia?) Remsense ‥ 论 11:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I was going to suggest sequelae, but that seems to have been hijacked by the medical profession and since nobody learns Latin now, the specialised meaning is fixed as the sole one. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 14:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd love a better word to describe relevents as a result of the big thing implied by the topic. Eg in various SCOTUS cases, events that occurred after the decision. Wording like Legacy or Impact doesn't seem to make sense when we are discussing events after the fact. Masem (t) 14:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"Impact" would be more encyclopedic, but imagine they often are reduced to WP:EXAMPLEFARMs instead of a summary of consequences. —Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

An impact is what a rock produces when it encounters the side of your head. An effect is something that is caused by (e.g.,) a court ruling. Results or consequences might also work, but all of these imply causation, which is not necessarily appropriate. Sometimes a direct reference to time might work, e.g., Post-election or Afterwards.

I don't agree that aftermath is negative. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aftermath gives "consequence, result" as the first relevant definition. Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English says it's "usually" used for negative events or negative outcomes, but that this is not absolute. It is probably appropriate for us to keep an eye out for truly incongruous uses ("In the aftermath of the wedding, Cinderella and the prince lived happily ever after"), but I don't think we should be overly concerned about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

... it's "usually" used for negative events or negative outcomes, but that this is not absolute ...: If, at best, it's ambiguous to a reader if the non-negative meaning is intended, it seems we should seek an alternative to aftermath when a POV interpretation is not intended. —Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I think "Aftereffects" or "Consequences" would be more suitable for subsequent events that were directly attributable to the occurrence of the event. In the case of sporting events where the section is used to describe the next time the teams made the playoffs, I think that content should be removed, as it is not a direct consequence of the event, and is better covered in the team's article (or a spinout article on the team's history). isaacl (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"What happened next" may be essential for completeness, but not "after effects" or "consequences" of the article subject.
For example, suppose there was an article on Emigration from Scotland, 1750-1930 (there is a reasonable case for such an article – it covers the demographics of when people left in large numbers and, in total, matches the dates used by sources, the end date being the economic depression in the USA). A closing "what happened next" paragraph would not be a result of the events in the article – covering, among other things, post WW2 emigration and present day events. But without some brief summary mention of emigration after the period, it leaves the subject in a contextual vacuum, making it difficult to understand the significance of this huge outflow. As already suggested above, this would be mirrored by a "historical background" section which covers the "beforehand". The "after" is equally essential for an understanding of the subject. Clearly if the "after" is a big enough subject for its own article, that is a different situation.
(I am aware of Scottish diaspora but that covers a different aspect of the same story.) ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, whether or not such a section should exist is subject to editorial judgement on what best serves coverage of the event in question. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

If there is a better word I have not found it. Legacy is good for long-term consequences, but that is not aftermath, which is shorter term. Consequences or after effects is along the lines of legacy, and is also not quite the same, as something can happen in the aftermath that is relevant but not necessarily a consequence. Afterward/Afterwards seems inappropriate for a section heading. Aftermath does have a connotation of a negative event, but not exclusively as shown by the Soviet example. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath does have a connotation of a negative event, but not exclusively as shown by the Soviet example.: I'd argue that aftermath there was meant to imply a negative, as the Soviet Union is often portrayed negatively by Western media. —Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

If there is more events to cover after the main subject of the article, then I feel a topic-specific heading should be used, rather than a generic one. isaacl (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Current example 2025 Ecuadorian general election, currently linked on Main Page under In the News, has an "Aftermath" section.—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Seven million articles

Seeing as we are probably about less than two months away from reaching 7,000,000 articles, I created Wikipedia:Seven million articles, based off of Wikipedia:Six million articles, and updated what I could. If anyone else thinks there are enhancements to the page, please feel free to add to it! Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Many editors think that stubs should be merged to other articles. As one of the dwindling number of editors that remembers paper encyclopedias, where most articles consisted of one or two sentences, if that, I happen to disagree, but I seem to be in a minority. Please be aware that such people do not regard large numbers of articles as something to celebrate. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "many" editors think stubs should be merged. I think it's mostly a handful of editors who are very vocal about their beliefs. (And in at least two cases, I think they'd rather see many stubs deleted instead of being merged.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it is a good thing than you did prepared this text for this article that was not published yet.

Maybe it was not wrote yet.

My point of view is the next. This page is acceptable.

I saw only a minor problem.

It's wrote : "* Wikipedia in more than 350 language editions with over 64 million articles in total."

There are 341 active editions when I'm writing this message. I don't know if it's better to take into accounts only the active Wikipedias. Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:UPSD Update

Following Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_201#URLs_with_utm_source=chatgpt.com_codes, I have added detection for possible AI-generated slop to my script.

Possible AI-slop sources will be flagged in orange, thought I'm open to changing that color in the future if it causes issues. If you have the script, you can see it in action on those articles.

For now the list of AI sources is limited to ChatGPT (utm_source=chatgpt.com), but if you know of other chatGPT-like domains, let me know!

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: this may be of interest to you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Headbomb, do you also want to update User:Headbomb/unreliable/testcases to show this? --rchard2scout (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Non-free licenses for PD-USonly works

I've got a file that's {{PD-USonly}} but also available under a non-free Creative Commons license. I'm sure there are readers outside the United States who'd benefit from knowing that reuse is allowed, albeit with restrictions. Unfortunately, the only relevant licensing tags I can find are {{Non-free with NC and ND}} and {{Non-free file with no derivative works license}}, which assume the file has a non-free license tag.

Is there any good way to tag files with these licenses without putting them in Category:Wikipedia non-free files? Should we modify these templates so they can be used with PD-US files, or maybe create alternate versions of them? hinnk (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

How about just stating the licence without using a template? If there are several of them, then it could be worth having a teplate set up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's gonna end up being more. A lot of material archived by the National Library of Norway (and still under copyright there) is available as CC-BY-NC, so anything pre-1930 may end up falling into this category. hinnk (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Random drive-by talk page posts by IPs

Talk pages of articles get a large number of random drive-by talk page posts by IPs, consisting of single words, nonsense or complete gibberish, which may normally be presumed to be test edits. But some pages seem to attract disproportionately more than others. Can anybody suggest why Talk:XXX and Talk:XXXX get so many of these? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Redrose64, a bunch of Xs is associated with porn and forbidden topics. That's catnip to people with certain immature and disruptive personality traits. Cullen328 (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

We should probably SEMI those pages, even though we wouldn't normally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:  Already done by Pppery (talk · contribs), see logs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

How ridiculous

The featured article for today is about a single planned edition of an annual competition that never happened. Am I the only one who finds this absurd? 2601:644:8184:F2F0:A15D:AF8E:82A5:35DA (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It's part of a historical event that was postponed by a historical event: it's notable for being a long-running tradition that couldn't be allowed, with tonnes of evidence and context to justify its importance. Sometimes what doesn't happen is as important as what does. doktorb _words^deeds 02:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

For the lazy, The Boat Race 2020. It's not compulsory to read it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It is an unwritten law of Wikipedia that The Boat Race must receive maximum exposure on the main page, even when it does not happen. Cullen328 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata edits: P- and Q-numbers

Hi everyone, I am wondering what your thoughts on how P- and Q-numbers are displayed in an edit summary (when the edit is from Wikidata). Currently, the edit summary will just show a P-number and Q-number or the value text. Could that be improved if we showed the labels instead, or both? I'd like to hear your thoughts over on this discussion page.


Thanks, - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The less we use Wikidata the better. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Blueboar, would it be possible to expand your thoughts on why? -Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m not going to repeat what I and many others have said over and over. Look through the archives here and at the Village Pump. Look at just about every discussion we have had that concerns Wikidata for the last five years. Problem after problem after problem. Wikidata simply does not work well with Wikipedia. I would simply ban it completely. Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The question at hand is about cross-wiki watchlist notifications. Specifically, if you have enabled "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist-advancedwatchlist, do you want your watchlist to say "Q123" or or do you want it to say "September"?

Cross-wiki watchlists are an optional way for an editor at this wiki to be alerted to changes in the Wikidata items for articles on your local watchlist, without ever having to go to Wikidata directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Can't speak for Blueboar, but for me it's, among many other issues, for things like this: this item has since it was deleted on enwiki as basically unverifiable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dabil (1517)) had the following English titles on Wikidata, starting from Battle of Dabil (1517), in 2025 alone:

• Chaldiran recaptured
• Battle Of Dabil
• Battle Of Qara Hamid
• Battle Of Erzurum
• OTTOMAN SWORD ⚔️-Safavid And Ottomanist Shia War
• Result Safavid And Ottomanist Shia Victory
• OTTOMAN SWORD ⚔️ ☠️
• Battle Of Erzurum
• Battle of Dabil
• Battle of Urfa
• Battle of dabil
• Ottoman-Qajar War (1906-1907)
• Tabriz Occupation (1915)
• 8-10 million killed
• Battle Of Chapakchur (1387)
• Battle Of Mush (1387)
• Battle Of Dabil
• Sultan Salim VersaqCastle Campaign
• Battle of Urfa
• Russia-Safavid War
• Battle of Polun Altı
• Assassination Of Omar Ibn Abdulaziz
• Assassination Of Valid Ibn Yazid
• Assassination Of Ibrahim İbn Valid
• Assassination Of Marvan Ibn Muhammad
• Assassination Of Al-Muktadir
• Assassination Of Ar-Radi
• Assassination Of Al-Mutawakkil
• Assassination Of Al-Mustazim
• Assassination Of Al-Mustənsir
• Assassination Of Al-Mutawakkil III
• Qajar-Wahhabi War
• Rexy-Mark War
• Rexyoe (WIA)
• Rexy-Ma3kx War
• Rexy - Talzk War
• Rexy - T4lzk War
• Battle of Dabil
• 2 Million Abbasid killed
• Battle Of Asad
• Fotball Wars

Please tell me how such a site can be taken seriously as a steady source for anything? Fram (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

They also have little to no checks on newly created items, the place is filled with spam entries. Something blatant like this would be rapidly spotted on enwiki, but on Wikidata is passes unnoticed. Or this one, 5000+ edits, 1 year and counting, constant spam: "COLWORTHS Medical Centre offers professional services on male infertility and erectile dysfunction with well equipped experts for the job" (well, they just seem to copy the first line of "about" pages likehere, so more copyvio spam than self-written spam). It really is a much less well-regulated version of enwiki (which has plenty of problems of its own), so "outsourcing" our data needs to there is just a very poor idea (and that's before one even starts about the editing environment). Fram (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Danny Benjafield (WMDE), I'd love to see the English labels here. I'd also love to see these labels in e-mail messages about changes to watchlisted items. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the use of Wikidata. Would be happy to see English labels. (no preference on p/q numbers) JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Globally locked

See Wikipedia talk:Courtesy vanishing#Globally locked. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia

Hello, I'd like to revive a topic that has been mentioned here a long time ago: the problem that existed, and still exists, on Spanish Wikipedia. Reverters and patrollers are abusive toward ordinary users, especially anonymous users, reverting legitimate edits without reason. Administrators (librarians) do the same, reverting users who protest and, in extreme cases, blocking them. It's a kind of "dictatorship" on Spanish Wikipedia. I'll mention a few: UA31 (admin, abuses the automatic revert button and blocks users without reason); Rafstr (admin, deletes protests); Luicheto (reverter, abuses reverts, persecutes anonymous users); and there are others who do the same or similar things. If there's a victim of this persecution on Spanish Wikipedia here, feel free to share your experience here so we can all be heard. 181.20.199.64 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

We cannot help you with issues on the Spanish Wikipedia, nor is this the forum to air grievances with the Spanish Wikipedia or its administrators. If administrators there are behaving badly, you need to take that up with the WMF. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the U4C would be the right place. RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Anyway the English Wikpedia is certainly the wrong place. It has no more power over the Spanish Wikipedia than the Spanish Wikipedia has over the English. I don't understand why people persist in thinking that the English Wikipedia has any influence over other language editions, unless it's some sort of cultural cringe. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The fact that each language wikipedia is a distinct project with its own governance may seem obvious to those of us who work here, but to most of our users, it really is inside baseball. RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2025: Invitation

Please help translate to other languages.

Hello, dear Wikipedians!

Wikimedia Ukraine, in cooperation with the MFA of Ukraine and Ukrainian Institute, has launched the fifth edition of writing challenge "Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month", which lasts from 14th April until 16th May 2025. The campaign is dedicated to famous Ukrainian artists of cinema, music, literature, architecture, design, and cultural phenomena of Ukraine that are now part of world heritage. We accept contributions in every language!

The most active contesters will receive prizes.

If you are interested in coordinating long-term community engagement for the campaign and becoming a local ambassador, we would love to hear from you! Please let us know your interest.

We invite you to take part and help us improve the coverage of Ukrainian culture on Wikipedia in your language! Also, we plan to set up a banner to notify users of the possibility to participate in such a challenge! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk)

16:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect middle names

Yesterday, an IP noticed that the article Josef Mengele incorrectly stated that Mengele's middle name was "Rudolf". This had been in this vital article for more than two years, and it isn't by far the first incident involving fictitious middle names. Have there been attemts to adress this issue systematically? Janhrach (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It was added by an IP on 18 Nov 2022; that IP has only made 4 edits so this one doesn't seem to be part of a major problem. It's disappointing that none of the 853 editors with this article on their watchlist (according to Xtools noticed and queried that unsourced addition, but it happens. PamD 21:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Vote now on the revised UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter

The voting period for the revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines ("UCoC EG") and the UCoC's Coordinating Committee Charter is open now through the end of 1 May (UTC) (find in your time zone). Read the information on how to participate and read over the proposal before voting on the UCoC page on Meta-wiki.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review of the EG and Charter was planned and implemented by the U4C. Further information will be provided in the coming months about the review of the UCoC itself. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Citations

I have in the past made numerous references in Wiki and, a few years ago, on citations being requested, I went through them and added citations, mostly to source documents in google, which I found in Google Chrome. These were fine and showed the pages from original documents. Recently I have discovered that google have been altering these documents, so that my citation references do not arrive on the correct page. This means that all citations to google sources are unreliable. Whilst I was checking them I found that some citations I made on Corfu have been altered by means of a citation bot and now the citation points to the pages in Wikisource, which whilst accurate in every way regarding text etc are not original documents. What exactly is going on with citations? Esme Shepherd (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

When you are adding citations, you aren't adding citations to Google, but to the original document, with a convenience link to a version being hosted on Google (or elsewhere). The citation doesn't become invalid just the link changes or gets broken, just as we are allowed to cite printed sources that aren't freely archived on the Internet. Note that what google books shows users can change over time, and can differ depending on where in the world the user is, so it is always important to give full enough details (publisher, dates, page numbers etc) so that they can be verified if the link disappears or changes.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I guess this edit is an example of what you are concerned about. For one thing, based on what you say in your edit, you did not read the original document. You read a Google excerpt of the original book. Since Google is pretty reliable, that's OK, but you should have given the page(s) of the book in your citation, or other location parameters, which are explained at Template:Cite_book#In-source_locations. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I must agree that the people at google provide a wonderful service. Unfortunately, I naively assumed that ancient documents from the 1830s are unlikely to be modified and, as my citations were pointing to the exact page in question, that would be enough. Now I know better and I will make it my next task to add these page numbers. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

CentralNotice for Bengla Wikibooks contest 2025

A contest will take place from May 7, 2025, to June 7, 2025, on Bangla Wikibooks to enrich its content. A central notice request has been placed to target both English and Bangla Wikipedia users, including non-registered users from Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal. Thank you. —MdsShakil (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Web archive is a reliable source ?

Hi ,I answer the web archive is a reliable source?? (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The internet archive generally isn't a source at all - it hosts archives of websites which may or may not be reliable and must be assessed individually.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Nigel is exactly correct. The same is true of any service which simply aggregates, archives, and/or delivers content from other publishers: Google Books, YouTube, JSTOR, Newspapers.com, Wikisource, etc. The reliability of a source derives from the source itself, not from the service which delivers it. RoySmith (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the archive is a reliable source for the fact that a website contained particular content at a particular time. The reliability of that content depends, as Nigel Ish says, on the website hosting it. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish@Phil Bridger and @RoySmith:Thank you for responding me ,you right (google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

whitehouse.gov status as source

Given things like https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19/, in which a controversial theory is stated as fact with no indication of uncertainty, can whitehouse.gov any longer be considered a reliable source for anything other than the views of the current administration? (This may be tricky: it may be that the status for current content is different from the status for archived content from certain past periods.) Do we already have a determination on this somewhere? (I know it is not on the blacklist.) - Jmabel | Talk 16:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought it was ever to be taken as anything other than a collection of statements—propaganda—by the current administration. Note that the entire site is replaced every Inauguration Day, as it's a set of position pieces, not an enduring portal for truth. Well-intentioned or not, in good faith or not, it isn't objective, objectively peer-reviewed content.

As for now, given my impression (I say this based on the couple of times I've brought myself to look at it, I could be wrong about the rest of it) that this incarnation is written in the style and with the tone of a crew of petulant, defiant teenagers looking to offend and in want of critical thinking skills, I can't imagine using it as a source other than as a primary one for confirming anything other than, as you said, the administration's views on something. Largoplazo (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

But on many, many topics, the White House's opinion will be a notable one. StAnselm (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I am sure that statements from the White House will continue to be reported by major media sources. That does not make the White House a reliable source. The current White House is fast building a reputation for dispensing inaccurate and misleading information, and of changing its story from day to day. Donald Albury 20:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Request to move User:Jorge_Ariel_Arellano/sandbox to mainspace

Hello, I am user Ariel Arellano. I have created an article about **Ariel Arellano** in my user sandbox (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ariel_Arellano. The article is now ready to be moved to the mainspace, as it complies with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could help me with this process. Thank you in advance! Jorge Ariel Arellano (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am user Ariel Arellano. I have created an article about **Ariel Arellano** in my user sandbox (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ariel_Arellano). The article is now ready to be moved to the mainspace, as it complies with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could help me with this process. Thank you in advance!

Jorge Ariel Arellano (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Jorge Ariel Arellano (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography and the policies and guidelines that are linked there. If you do meet the requirements in the notability guideline for sports, then someone who is not connected to you can write an article about you. Donald Albury 15:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Central Notice

Hi!
For the second edition of the Wikidata contest Coordinate Me (May 2025) we, that is the organizing team at Wikimedia Österreich, would like to deliver central notices - request page - on several Wikimedia projects in the 27 participating countries and regions to invite people to join in. The CN shall be delivered, not permanently of course, from April 28 to May 11, in English only to users in Canada and India. --Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)