Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 201

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202

Two Questions About Speedy Keeps

I have two questions about Speedy Keeps of deletion discussions.

First, when are non-administrative closes of Speedy Keep in order or not in order?

Second, if an editor thinks that a deletion discussion was incorrectly closed as Speedy Keep, is there a means of challenging the Speedy Keep so that the deletion discussion can resume? Is Deletion Review available, just as it would be on a Keep after discussion? By the way, the second question is hypothetical; I don't think that any deletion discussion was recently incorrectly Speedy Kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  1. For any of the reasons listed at WP:SK.
  2. Follow the deletion review process: go to the closer's talk, ask them to reopen, and if they decline, go to DRV.
voorts (talk/contributions) 20:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Voorts. Having closed SKs on occassion, my personal position as a "NAC-er" is only to close where it is clearly unambiguous (which to me is a higher threshold than not controversial) and I find this most commonly with nominator withdrawal and no support for deletion (WP:CSK c.1(iii)). Many other criteria for speedy keep seem to fall outside that higher threshold possibility so I tend to stay away. I've discussed previously that the differences between the criteria under 1 (absence) and 3 (error) may not be immediately apparent. What's different and has more latitude will be SNOW closes, which does not infrequently get conflated in NAC SKs. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

MOS/Images § Video content

Inviting people to join the discussion at WP:VPI § Adding video content to articles re: the possible inadequacy of existing policy on videos, which seems limited to MOS/Images § Video content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Template:Finance_links Polygnotus (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Template:Finance links is used for large-scale violations of WP:EXLINK, specifically WP:ELMIN and WP:ELNO#13. This is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't end each article about a company with a list of links for finance bros. Can we delete the template and make the guideline clearer that this is not desirable? It has been used 1778 times. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Stock tickers are relevant information for a business to help readers to look them up further. Masem (t) 03:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, but this is an encyclopedia and we are not in the business of helping readers look them up further. We are not Google and we are not DMOZ or Curlie. Polygnotus (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

This example is from Ferrari#External links:

Articles should not normally have a such a spray of external links. It might be worth asking for opinions at WP:ELN. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Where is this Wiki policy?

I remember reading a resonating policy page/section/essay whose thesis was don't exhaust people by pretending like your argument has gone unaddressed and repeating it over and over, and it had a picture of a head with hands over its ears. I can't seem to find it on w:Wikipedia:Etiquette or w:Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism Lumbering in thought (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT maybe? Anomie⚔ 16:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
That's the one. Lumbering in thought (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps you're thinking of Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I may have read that essay, but I for sure read in the See Also there, Wikipedia:It's_not_the_end_of_the_world, Wikipedia:Let_it_go and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning (almost perfectly relevant) for what it's worth. Also sorry you replied before viewing my minor edit. Lumbering in thought (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
There's also WP:SATISFY which is part of WP:BLUDGEON. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Please see discussion of IPBE

Please see the latest talk page entry of WP:IPBE. I added in that users from a censored country such as China could apply for it as an explicit mention on the page itself, but an editor objected. Please feel free to provide your views. Félix An (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

URLs with utm_source=chatgpt.com codes

Hi, certain articles replicate sources recommended by ChatGPT, which may not always be entirely accurate. I think Introducing a new policy could effectively address this issue. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Why do we need a new policy for this? If source A simply republishes or quotes source B, one we determine the reliability based on how reliable source B is. If a source is simply replicating ChatGPT then the replication is exactly as reliable as ChatGPT (which is of wildly inconsistent accuracy, ranging from completely correct in all regards to the exact opposite and everything in between). Replicating an unreliable AI chat bot is no different to replicating an unreliable human source. If what you are talking about is not using ChatGPT as a source but using a third party source suggested by ChatGPT, then ChatGPT is completely irrelevant to the reliability of the source: ChatGPT recommends both sources of the highest reliability and sources that are utter garbage (as well as sources that don't exist). All sources suggested by ChatGPT should be checked for reliability and relevance, but then all sources added to articles should be checked for reliability and relevance. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
You have been quite busy doing your best to try and keep Wikipedia from having any kind of policy on generati AI, haven't you? If there's a thread on this, you're there defending generative AI. The reality is that many of us are now dealing with the ramifications of machine-generated text, which is almost always just outright garbage trained on who-knows-what, from editors and we clearly need policies on it. We didn't sign up to sort through someone's prompt-generated misinformation and it is a total waste of every editor's time here to even engage with machine-generated text. :bloodofox: (talk)
I'm not defending generative AI, I'm defending Wikipedia from short-sighted policies that are unnecessarily redundant to existing policies and/or will do more harm than good. If text is garbage it's garbage regardless of the source, if it isn't garbage then it isn't garbage regardless of the source. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Are there any specific instances of disruption through AI that aren't already covered by existing P&G? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
The simple answer: The ease of use of this new technology needs new policies to deter its use to disrupt the site and waste the time of human editors. The site is being flooded by machine-generated text which has only recently been a possibility for anyone to produce with ease and Wikipedia editors are now having to deal with it on a daily basis. No doubt we even have new users who don't even realize it's a problem. Making the issue and its ramifications crystal clear would help. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Making the issue and its ramifications crystal clear would help yet in all the discussions nobody has yet managed to make it clear why existing policies and guidelines are unable to deal with the problems. Lots of people have tried and everybody has failed. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
While I'm sure tech companies like OpenAI appreciate your constant and full-throated defense of all things generative AI on Wikipedia whenever the matter arises, those of us who have to clean up after it don't appreciate it. As anyone even vaguely familiar with the topic knows, machine-generated text takes seconds to produce and a tremendous amount of time to attempt to correct by we human editors. We have no meaningful policies on machine generated text at the moment and anyone watching this page knows it is in part due to your 24/7 attempts at defending the status quo of 'we shouldn't do anything about generative AI on the site' and obfuscating change in the matter. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
As I have explained to you and others in pretty much every discussion we shouldn't do anything about generative AI on the site' is not my position and I really would appreciate it if you would stop repeating the falsehood that it is. My position is that whether text is AI-generated or not is completely irrelevant to and a distraction from the actual problems. If the AI-generated text is a copyvio then the problem is that the text is a copyright violation not that it is AI-generated, and we have existing policies for how to deal with copyright violations that apply regardless of whether the text is AI-generated or human-generated. The exact same is true for every other actual problem anybody has listed. Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not buying it. Everything you've said on these threads has been nothing more than a complete and total defense of the use of machine-generated text on the site, a total defense of the matter with zero criticism and absolutely no concern about associated problems. The makers of these companies couldn't have been more full-throated about it than yourself. Let's not play pretend here. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Either you are not reading what I'm saying, you're not listening to what I am saying, you are so blinding by your point of view that you are ignoring what I am saying, or you have some ulterior motive (although this last seems the least likely the evidence doesn't allow me to rule it out). Regardless of which it is there is clearly nothing I can say that will convince you that when I say "X" I actually do mean "X" and not "Y", ao engaging with you is clearly a waste of everybody's time. Thryduulf (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
As a debate, you win because anyone can post anything and its source is not relevant. However, that pollyanna approach assumes there is an infinite supply of good editors who are able and willing to spend hours investigating and correcting AI text that was generated and added in a minute. That may be correct at the moment, but the trend of recent months shows that the supply will outpace human editors very soon. A rational discussion of AI in Wikipedia needs to account for the fact that it will drive away good editors. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
A rational discussion of AI on Wikipedia needs to confine itself to sober discussion of facts and not hyperbolic FUD. If you want to solve a problem, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, you need to identify the actual problem and implement solutions that address that rather than introducing more problems by focusing on irrelevances. AI-generated text can be both good and bad, bad text can be bother AI-generated or human-generated. The problem is that bad text is bad, not that AI-generated text is AI-generated. What we need is solutions for dealing with bad text regardless of the source. Thryduulf (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
And now we have this editor referring to anyone who objects to cleaning up masses of AI slop on Wikipedia as 'buying into manipulative anti-AI propaganda'. See Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. For those of you haven't encountered it yet, today you're likely to encounter it in pro-AI and "effective accelerationism" circles where true believers dismiss those who for example 'stand in the way of' "the Singularity" and/or on Tech company blogs and posts like this one from Microsoft encouraging mass embrace of generative AI. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Denialism occurs when trillions of dollars are bet on a technology with adverse consequences. Similar with global warming denial, the most frequently used logical fallacy is the reduction fallacy (which is the argument that because climate has changed naturally in the past, current climate change must also be entirely natural). The same argument presented here (because current policy works for human editors, it also works for bot produced text). AI text is not equivalent to human generated text, it is different enough to create problems. This is very obvious, but then, not everyone has tackled an AI written article. Yet. -- GreenC 06:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
If text is garbage it's garbage regardless of the source That is not true. Equating problems with AI text as equivalent to human generated text is seriously misguided. -- GreenC 23:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I really need a citation on that. How is AI-generated text so categorically different to human generated text that existing policies can't deal with the issues? How does AI-generated text-soup differ from human-generated text soup that means we need a policy for AI-generated text-soup that is different to our policy for all text-soup? Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Just off the top of my head, potential answers to this question that I have seen offered in previous discussions include:
  • the ease with which AI slop can be created versus the effort required to vet and assess it.
  • the tendency of AI text to be very good at mimicking the style of high-quality text (so the normal patterns that provide a cue to low-quality human contributions are harder to spot).
  • the difficulty in assigning responsibility and assessing intent with AI-text.
  • the actual current outcomes of AI use (which some have argued are poor).
  • the argument that Wikipedia's benefit to society lies in its human qualities, and that pasting ChatGPT content into the Wiki doesn't provide a benefit to readers who could have just queried ChatGPT directly if that is what they wanted.
  • The concern that because Wikipedia is used as a major source of training data for LLMs, the inclusion of LLM-generated content in Wikipedia creates a potentially-pathological loop situation.
I understand that these aren't convincing reasons for you, and I respect your position (I'm somewhat in the middle ground on this issue myself), but let's not pretend that the people opposed to AI use haven't voiced coherent concerns. -- LWG talk 23:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Everything listed by LWG is correct. Until you encounter one of these animals, and spent days trying to untangle, you probably won't understand. It's not at all like working with human created text. -- GreenC 04:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
The gist is that it falls in a different place with regard to good faith. AI hallucinations often aren't like human errors and aren't the kind of thing that humans would make up in good faith.
For instance, someone might make a typo and write that the dotcom bust in March 2020 put Pets.com out of business, rather than March 2000. But there's not really a plausible way that a well-meaning human would write a detailed paragraph analyzing how the COVID-19 pandemic, which happened in March 2020, resulted in Pets.com going out of business, unless that person was deliberately creating a hoax. But a well-meaning human might use ChatGPT and have that output be generated and be none the wiser. Or with regard to ChatGPT-generated URLs, LLMs often just make up an article title or URL that doesn't exist, which is not something a human is going to do in good faith. All this affects how the edit should be treated -- someone creating a hoax is vandalizing the encyclopedia and knows it, someone producing a comparable AI hallucination is likely just misguided.
I still think an edit filter is better than a policy, to just stop this stuff at the root, though. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand how any of that is any indication of the faith that the person prompting the LLM is acting in? Someone using an LLM to create a hoax is acting in bad faith by creating a hoax, not by using an LLM. Someone posting LLM content that they believe improves an article is acting in good faith, even if the content is riddled with errors. Someone posting LLM content with the goal of introducing misinformation is acting in bad faith, even if the content doesn't contain errors. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Right, exactly, that's my point. If someone posts a made-up article title and URL there are basically only two ways that can happen:
1) They're deliberately inserting a fake citation
2) They're using a LLM that hallucinated a fake citation
Both of these result in the same fake citation getting added to an article, but editor #1 is obviously not acting in good faith, while editor #2 likely is. Moreover, editor #1 knew what they were doing, while editor #2 probably didn't. So while the fake citation should be still removed either way, editor #2 probably shouldn't face the same consequences that editor #1 would. This is technically covered under WP:VANDALISM already but I don't think it's a bad idea to add a specific note about LLM-generated misinformation there. (or, better yet, just filter them out) Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. Wikipedia is now plagued with machine-generated text that the few human editors here have to contend with. Recently I have had to deal with two of such instances full of misinformation and other nonsense. Without action this problem is only going to spread and get worse. We need policies on this yesterday: we're well on our way to becoming overwhelmed by AI slop that takes two seconds to produce and much longer to correct in every nook and cranny of the site. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Bloodofox: Yup. It's a huge waste of time, just dealing with one short AI generated article has taken days of research to untangle, only to conclude the entire thing should be redirected and summarized into a single paragraph. AI makes much out of nothing .. then gets it wrong anyway! -- GreenC 23:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Any sources may not be entirely accurate. While people should definitely not rely on ChatGPTs description of the source, it may be a worthwhile tool for finding sources with reliable and usable content... much as Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, but one of its great uses is finding the sources it uses on a given topic, which themselves may be reliable. So if the policy change you're suggesting is that you can't use sources suggested by ChatGPT, I don't see it... but if it's some sort of policy that you cannot use a source until you actually verify what the source says, that's at the very least a good guideline no matter where you find the source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Are these fake sources? Sources that are real but don’t support the content? Or what?
Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I did check just two of these, and in one of them I found real problems. In this paragraph claiming controversy about a living subject, there were two sources -- one which was a tweet from the subject (which did not thus show "controversy", although it was certainly a statement that could have generated such), and one which covered a controversy without mentioning the subject. Plus, it had the biggest Wikipedia sin of all: curly quotes. So that definitely looks like ChatGPT generating things that are not up to our standards, but also something that could have been caught if a good faith editor generating such material had checked the sources and understood BLP sourcing requirements. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Editors have the responsibility of using citations to sources that they read to craft the text they wrote. They also are responsible to evaluate the reliability of sources and their suitability for the content being added. What additional guidance are you proposing? isaacl (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
There is a proposed edit filter to track these additions. Of course, the filter is not going to capture all uses of llms, just the ones where the llm helpfully appends a tag to the url and where the editor does not delete those tags. Last time I checked some they were riddled with problems, but you can revert them under current policies. CMD (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Sounds like a good way to catch an editor's LLM use early before they rack up thousands of edits adding AI text. That's the sort of thing we should be focusing on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
To make sure I understand this properly: this thread seems to be about links added in refs where the link's UTM source parameter is ChatGPT. Apparently ChatGPT adds that now when it references a URL in output.
I think an edit filter in articlespace is the best solution here, it's a great, unambiguous smoking gun for AI-generated text. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
To test how unambiguous, there is a trial filter at Special:AbuseFilter/1346. CMD (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't see a need for a new policy here when the problem is just one of countless possible ways to violate current policies with inappropriate sourcing. But there's little doubt that one of the things chatgpt is worst at is identifying sources (it would be bad for business to too easily connect specific sources with its output). Since the only way we'd be able to identify these sources to enforce this hypothetical policy is if they carried through the referral in the url, this is a case for an edit filter, not a new policy. I've talked to many people who mistakenly think that because chatgpt is decent at summarizing sources you feed it, it must be helpful with a literature review -- they're not fiends trying to ruin Wikipedia but people trying to improve an article using a popular new tool. This is a case for an edit filter, not a new policy. If someone adds a source with that chatgpt referral (and presumably other tools have something similar), we should explain to them that chatgpt stinks at connecting information with sources and flag the edit for others to look at. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
With the caveat that a LinkedIn post is not a reliable source and I don't trust this guy at all, apparently other tools do. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
[Tangent] What I really want right now is a list of links to prior discussions about AI rules. I'm imagining a transcludable list, so every time someone posts yet another idea for yet another rule, we can ask them to read the previous discussions and give them a link to WP:Nobody reads the directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
A partial list of AI-related discussions is at Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence#Discussion timeline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I was wondering the same thing, a central place to track the discussions. Now, we need AI to summarize each discussion for salient points. It would have to be in userspace, but its nature. Then a meta-analysis. This is IMO a good application of AI, which is essentially statistics based summation. -- GreenC 18:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Wikimedia Global Search shows a total of 2716 articles with this URL parameter. Riad Salih (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Editors need to verify the sources themselves, as they are ultimately responsible for the edits they make. But as long as they have done so there's no issue with using sources that an LLM suggests. Editors just adding text and sources created by LLMs without checking are already covered by guidance on disruptive editing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that the presence of the url parameter is not an indication that the sources have or have not been checked. Even someone who knows about the existence of the parameter (which is likely to be a minority of people using LLMs in this manner) is unlikely to specifically remove it - if the source is OK they're most likely to just leave it as is, if it isn't they'll remove the whole thing. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
In cases where the source is good we probably should be removing the utm_source parameter since otherwise we are causing any clickthroughs of Wiki references to appear on site analytics as ChatGPT referrals. -- LWG talk 02:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't saying we shouldn't remove them if they are added, just that them being added is not an indication that the source is good or bad or that the URL has or has not been checked. Thryduulf (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with others that existing policy seems sufficient here. I do think it would be reasonable to add an edit filter with a reminder to verify the content of added sources (or, perhaps, a new custom edit tag). Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages § RfC: allowing editors to opt-out of seeing floating decorative elements

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages § RfC: allowing editors to opt-out of seeing floating decorative elements. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)


Taiwan MOS

In WP:NC-CN, We can clearly see when to use "China," "PRC," and "Mainland China." However, there are only a few sentences regarding "Taiwan" and "ROC." Due to the Political status of Taiwan is much more sensitive—for example, calling Taiwan a "country" may be controversial, while saying that "Taiwan belongs to the ROC" and that "the ROC is a country commonly known as Taiwan" is broadly acceptable—I believe it is necessary to establish a MOS for Taiwan and ROC, similar to that for China.

I think WP:NC-TW is a good solution, but it didn't work due to lack of consensus or other reasons. ?8 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Would you mind articulating the specific points you had in mind that require additional guidance? The one example offered is not terribly helpful, given that (as you have been told repeatedly) we refer to Taiwan as a country because that is what our sources do, regardless of what one feels to be controversial about it. There's nothing based in policy (which region-specific guidelines still have to obey) that allows one to circumvent that reality. Remsense ‥ 论 16:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
No, I just think that PRC has a detailed MOS and ROC should have one too. ?8 (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
We do not write guidelines simply because there are no guidelines – that's instruction creep. We write guidelines to record consensus if an issue arises and is discussed repeatedly. If you insist on pursuing this further, I would appreciate an example that does not contradict itself and illustrates an actual gap in the MOS. Toadspike [Talk] 12:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Use ROC in my opinion. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
That has clearly not been an option on the table for decades. Remsense ‥ 论 23:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The current WikiProject infrastructure was set up around 2006 with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council and its Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. This system defines a WikiProject as "a group of people" and "a social construct" as opposed to a resource for the community. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals: A WikiProject is a group of editors who want to work together. A WikiProject is not a subject area, a group of pages, a banner on talk pages, or any of the infrastructure used to support the group. I don't believe this lines up with how they're currently used or how the community sees them.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide has guideline status but is relatively obscure and reflects how Wikipedia worked in its early days. Note that it also has additional guideline-style subpages at Guide/WikiProject, Guide/Task forces, and Guide/Merging WikiProjects, as well as a Proposals subpage. Given how much Wikipedia has changed in the 15–20 years since this system was established, and the growing opposition to insular groups on Wikipedia since then, I'm asking the community whether everything regarding the WikiProject Council and its guidelines still has sitewide consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

TBUA, it's customary to discuss changes to a guideline at the talk page for that guideline. You already started a discussion there. Why did you create this WP:TALKFORK? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
That's not a guideline talk page, that's a WikiProject talk page, and the fact that you want to constrain it there instead of get community feedback kind of proves my point. Especially since you've been the editor enforcing the current system more than anyone else. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
It's both, because Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Guide redirects there. There are thousands of centralized talk pages on wiki, and this is one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
On the subject of WikiProject resources, I have raised a couple of times, including as a response to a request by the WMF for collaboration ideas, that the WMF explore the separation of the tools that rely on WikiProjects from the rigid WikiProject system. It would be great if others do the same, if they also feel that the use of WikiProjects has diverged from their original design. CMD (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
How else would we define these projects? Moxy🍁 04:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
My hope is not to redefine WikiProjects, but to have ways to use tools such as WP:Article alerts without requiring they be linked to a dead noticeboard. CMD (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis, I've not spent much time with the Wikipedia:Article alerts system, but I don't believe it actually requires a WikiProject. You can set up an alert page several different ways. I believe it would be possible, for example, to set up an alert based on Category:Featured articles or {{infobox book}} (giving you notifications about all actions affecting FAs or all actions affecting articles containing that infobox, respectively). It's possible that its |maincategory= would even let you get alerts to articles within a chosen content category like Category:Italian artists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes there are a few options, but there is a limit to the flexibility. CMD (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I do think the community views a WikiProject as a group of editors collaborating on a shared area of interest, without any special powers beyond those of any group of collaborating Wikipedia editors. I think the statements at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide § What is a WikiProject? continue to be an appropriate description of the roles currently filled by active WikiProjects. isaacl (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm mostly active in one project (organised labour) and drop in and out of a number of others, but I'm really not clear what is the problem being called to attention here? If it is about the tools projects use, no problem, wish we could develop more, but I think generalising in toto about projects rather than pointing to specific projects with problems seems to be throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to evolving the WikiProject system but the statement, the current [X] infrastructure was set up around 2006 could apply to pretty much any process X. It's not in itself a reason to overhaul things – when a guideline remains unchanged for many years, we usually take that as a sign of more consensus, not less. – Joe (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
That guidance lines up pretty well with how I see the role of Wikiprojects. In what way do you believe that it does not line up with how they're currently used or how the community sees them? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is definitely prioritizing new tools to be agnostic from WikiProjects, for example the mw:Help:Extension:CampaignEvents (recently enabled on English Wikipedia in Event namespace. You can read more about Wikimedia's broader research on WikiProjects at Meta:Campaigns/WikiProjects. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Was there a dispute that led to this? What is broken that we are trying to fix? The only problem with WikiProject is that they're just not really popular. There are a handful of active ones, a handful that are just a labor of love for one or two people, and a slew of inactive projects. There have been multiple efforts to reinvigorate them (see WP:WikiProject X for one that involved developing new tools), but I don't think any have been terribly successful (or perhaps haven't been funded long enough to evaluate successfulness after the short-term?). I'm all for tools that help with things like article alerts, assessments, etc., whether or not they're connected to a WikiProject, but ultimately WikiProjects are just handy ways to divide up millions of articles into topics/themes. Strong disagree with growing opposition to insular groups on Wikipedia since then being applicable here - WikiProjects aren't insular. Anyone can join, and they're fully transparent. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
but ultimately WikiProjects are just handy ways to divide up millions of articles into topics/themes This is what I'm proposing. Right now, the editors who maintain WP:WikiProject Council insist that this is not what they're to be used for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites, if WikiProjects were merely the division of articles into topics/themes, then it wouldn't actually be possible for any WikiProject to be inactive. Groups of people can become inactive; dividing lines cannot.
Mainspace categories, starting with Category:Main topic classifications is the way to divide articles into topics/themes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Not "merely". And yes, categories also divide articles by topics/themes. The WikiProject approach to dividing comes with categories as well as a space to put information, communicate, and coordinate about those articles. I'd call them a topical or thematic grouping of articles with space to coordinate rather than a group with space for grouping articles. I'm not sure what real difference that makes, though, or what point you're making. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
One requires constant maintenance, one doesn't. So when editors create dozens of inactive WikiProjects, it falls on other editors to clean up. Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
What cleanups do inactive WikiProjects require? Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
In the easiest cases, it just needs a trip to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. In most cases, it needs a fairly cumbersome merge process, including a trip to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion to get templates deleted and a bot to merge them.
A couple of us have been picking at the edges of this to figure out how to describe the process. At the moment, I estimate the problem to need a few thousand hours of hands-on time to resolve. This cannot be done by simple bot. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese in New York City is defunct. It was doomed from the beginning due to choosing an overly narrow subject area, and there has never been a group behind it. But should it be merged to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City or to Wikipedia:WikiProject China or to Wikipedia:WikiProject Immigration or to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups or to Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans or to something else? Or would the editor who created it just prefer to have it disappear via MFD?
Addressing these can have some benefits. For example, the WikiProject banner on an article's talk page is a false promise for former groups: "You can join the discussion" – only nobody's home, so you can't actually get your question answered. Similarly, if obvious sub-groups get merged up (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City → Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state) → Wikipedia:WikiProject United States – though at the moment, the NYC group may be stronger than the other two), then editors will spend less time trying to find and add all the banners. It will be easier to find a relevant subject, and when you do find a relevant subject, you'll be more likely to find an actual group of editors there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The current guidance has it right, and if anything the problem is implementing it more broadly. WikiProjects are Wikipedia-side entities; they are not the same as Categories, which are on-encyclopedia ways of divvying up content. We don't need Categories, Again. And we don't need people creating shell, phantom Wikiprojects that cover some category but don't actually have a population of editors discussing things, maintaining standards & structure suggestions for a topic, tracking recent articles in the topic, etc. Inactive Wikiprojects also have the problem that there's nobody to define their scope - which will result in well-meaning editors spamming it on loosely related articles and there not even being anyone to clarify if that was useful or not. There are lots of Wikiprojects that probably should be deleted precisely because they represent broken promises - they don't actually have a community behind them and that is unlikely to change, and were instead created because someone felt that their favorite sports team / band / etc. "deserved" one. SnowFire (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Question About Merge Proposal

I have what may be a two-part question about the procedure for a merge discussion. An editor, Editor A, proposed that two articles be merged, and put a {{merge from}} on the proposed target article, and a {{merge to}} tag on the proposed source article. Another editor, Editor B, thought that the merge proposal was misguided. So the first question is: What is the proper procedure for Editor B to follow? Is removing the merge tags an appropriate response? The second question is: If Editor B removes the merge tags, is there a way for Editor A to discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  1. No. Editor B should start a merge discussion.
  2. Editor A should follow the instructions for starting a merge discussion and replace the tags. If Editor B disrupts the process by removing the tags again, they should be brought to AN/I.
voorts (talk/contributions) 23:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Exactly what voorts said. If you disagree with a proposed merge, you need to discuss it. If someone objects to a merge you've proposed, you need to discuss it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. That is what I thought, but I wanted to be sure that I wasn't mistaken, and didn't want to worsen a mess. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
That is the advice that I have given them at DRN, User:Voorts, User:Thryduulf. You probably knew I wasn't asking a hypothetical question. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Two ideas to improve wikipedia

I have two ideas to improve the current situation with wikiprojects and users

Idea 1: Limiting the edit count of IP users

Limiting the amount of edits IP users can make(ideally to something between 50-250) has several benefits:

  1. It incentivizes people to make accounts, which makes it better to incorporate people in the community. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for more details.
  2. It can be useful to prevent vandalism. The vast majority of vandalism in my experience in the CVU comes from IP editors(though vandalism from registered accounts still exist), and limiting the amount of edits can stop vandals using IP accounts from vandalizing too much before admins react.
  3. This may sound counter-intuitive, however linking back to reason 1, people with accounts are more likely to edit wikipedia. If we make people have accounts, they will have better incentive to edit wikipedia(I also used to be an IP user, but now I have an account and I am more motivated.)

Idea 2: Automatic invites to Wikiproject upon making the first few edits

My Idea is that, when a registered editor makes a new account and does his or her 10th-20th edits, the Wikiprojects which his or her first edited articles fall under will send invites to join the wikiproject.(e.g. A new registered editor's 10th edit is on an article that is under the scope of WikiProject China and WikiProject Military history, so both of those wikiprojects send invites to the editor.).

This idea would work best with Idea 1, but could work on it's own.

The most obvious advantage here would be recruiting new editors to Wikiprojects, and potentially saving semi-active wikiprojects. Though I would still suggest that if you are experienced and like editing certain articles, do join a related wikiproject if you haven't already; i would rather have experienced editors than amateurs saving semi-active wikiprojects and expanding active wikiprojects. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Idea 1 sounds like an interesting thing to test and see what happens. However, I wonder if "people with accounts are more likely to edit wikipedia" is factually true (it might be). An IP-editor always has at least one edit (and may have more under other IP:s), but there are WP-accounts with very few or any edits at all. And this would be more like a technical limitation than a policy, perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
The way I interpreted "people with accounts are more likely to edit Wikipedia" is that because the user managed to spend enough of their time crossing the 50 to 250 edit threshold, the fact they went out of their way to create their own account means they want to edit past the limit for the future, making them more likely to contribute than someone who didn't want to contribute in the first place. Tarlby (t) (c) 21:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
I think many people might create an account but then don't edit for some reason, or make one to get away from the fundraising banners. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
When Vector 2022 was deployed, we saw a small, temporary uptick in the number of accounts created. That aligns with the idea that some fraction of people create accounts to get access to various settings.
Template:Registered editors by edit count has the data on account activity. Most accounts never make an edit; of the ones that do make an edit, most never edit on a second day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I can't speak for anybody else, but the rollout of Vector 2022 is what caused me (not to create an account) but to log back into this one. I didn't edit, of course, because it turns out a full set of courses in topology, discrete maths, and real analysis does not free time create, but if anybody's looking for anecdotal evidence that Wikipedians are created by a desire to get rid of trivial things that annoy us... GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
My first edit (which was as an IP) was probably to fix a punctuation error. There is a user mw:persona among Wikipedia editors that aligns with https://xkcd.com/386/. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
What I mean is, having an account is a huge motivation to edit wikipedia. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
In the way I meant it? Tarlby (t) (c) 00:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Maybe wanting to edit Wikipedia is a huge motivation to create an account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
It looks like time to pull out the mantra, "correlation is not causation". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Perennial proposal. Even then, why? Not everyone will want or be able to invest time into the encyclopedia. Most IP editors correct a mistake they see or add info. Also abuse filters and Cluebot ng is a thing. DotesConks (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I like idea 2 in particular. My concern with idea 1 is that it would catch IPs for schools and other places from which multiple individuals might edit. You don't become a Wikipedian if you are first ever attempt to edit from an IP is already blocked because others have made innocuous edits from that IP. BD2412 T 21:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah I agree slightly with your point; However cases are pretty rare overall from my experience Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
    From informal discussions, about half of existing editors first edited as an IP. A behavior that can be seen in the logs (but not publicly connected) is an edit from an IP, followed by Special:CreateAccount from that same IP. Another behavior that can be seen is an IP opening a [View source] page, and then giving up. That isn't necessarily a lost edit (e.g., it could be an established editor who was going to fix one quick thing, but doesn't want to put their real login information into a school/work/public computer), but it sometimes is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
i think the assumptions implied by both of those need to be examined. Why is it a good thing to have more people editing Wikipedia (I know it sounds like heresy to even ask that question)? There are good edits and bad; it is not self-evident that we would get more good edits than bad by following your first proposal. And do editors who are engaged with Wikiprojects make any better edits than those who are not? Again, this is not self-evident. I don't know the answers to these questions, but before entertaining any policy proposals I would need to. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
I think the more people edit wikipedia, even though there would be some more problems, two heads are better than one, and it could help to solve many issues.
As for wikiprojects, Wikiprojects are a great resource to help new editors. Linking back to why 1 and 2 would be best added together, I am currently part of wikiproject law enforcement, a semi-active wikiproject, where I notice many major edits are done by IP editors/new editors. Would be very useful if there was some way to automatically invite them, as currently the wikiproject is struggling to some extent. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
If you're willing to do some manual work, then you might see User:WhatamIdoing/WPMED invitations. I use it occasionally to find promising new editors and invite them to WP:MED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Sounds like a useful proposal to me. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm OK with #1. Not so keen with #2. If done, it should not include any new IPs posting to CTOPs as we have an enormous amount of difficulty with new users in those articles nearly all pushing a POV, and many probably brought from external forums. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
That's why I propose the user's 10th-20th edits instead of 1st-10th.
By their 10th edit, most users will have some basic knowledge of at least part of the guidelines. Additionally people's first edits often tend to have many issues, often in good faith.(just see my first few contributions)
Additionally, certain wikiprojects may have specific guidelines, and the invite link could help lead new users to them if they are interested in that aspect. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Thing is, many of the new folks that have been "sent" to CTOPs are here to "fix" evil Wikipedia they believe is paid by communists. Some appear knowing a long list of our polices used in Wikilawyering. I like ideas to get IPs to register. Not so much with getting them to join projects in the contentious arena, particularly before they are EC. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I also agree with this, again i would suggest the invites being sent on the 10th-20th edits, because that gives us some time to see if they are paid editors, vandals or working in bad faith. It also filters out the people only doing 1-2 edits. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
You could just skip the invitations to people editing any sort of CTOP article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I know, but some wikiprojects lack invite templates, and most of the time, it takes quite some time Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2, on any sort of an automated basis, sounds like a way to let people know were tracking them, like when Amazon tells you that you've been buying lots of tissues and lotion, maybe you'd like the ebook Naughty Busty Cowgirls (oh, okay, some less spicy equivalent of that.) I'm not sure it will generate any reasonable embracing of the goal. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I mean at some point you have to realize you are getting tracked
I'm part of the CVU and I have monitored potential bad-faith editors before(and I am sure I also get monitored at times)
Additionally the contributions page is public, I'm sure everyone will eventually find out. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but there's a difference between "there's a record of what I did" and "automated systems are using that to make assumptions about me". There's a creepiness factor that occurs. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Sort of agree yeah
Maybe we could add an opt out option for people when they make accounts Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
There are probably more important things to do with people's attention when they create their accounts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps a compromise... after someone has been editing a while, an automated message that promotes project management and has a link that will, at their request, generate some project suggestions for them. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Further compromise idea(which also basically destroys the idea as a whole):
Maybe allow wikiproject pages be more accessable? Maybe when someone creates and account, there is a banner showing the list of wikiprojects to possibly join, OR, maybe on the welcome message, add links to wikiprojects Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
That assumes active WikiProjects, which is not at all a given. Directing new users to the WP:TEAHOUSE, which I believe our welcome messages generally do, is the right way to get them advice. CMD (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
You could limit the invitations to known-active groups, or even to known-newbie-friendly groups. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
That sort of consideration is going to be fluid, so even if was automated it would need manual maintenance. At that point, manual responses on TEAHOUSE serve the same function. CMD (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
When someone is new, our main communication goal is:
  • Please add a source.
After that, we have a large number of things we want them to learn, like:
  • Next time, try adding a source that's actually reliable.
  • Unfortunately, a source published by this person/business/event does not prove that this person/business/event is notable.
  • No copyvios.
  • Please do not use promotional language. Every single word you have written, except "is an author" and "published a book in 2013", is an example of promotional language.
  • If you need help, please try the Wikipedia:Teahouse, where more than half of the editors make an attempt to be nice to newbies.
  • That's not a reliable source for "everybody thinks A" because that source actually says "everybody thinks either A or B".
  • Welcome to Wikipedia. No, you're not actually welcome at articles about Wikipedia:Contentious topics. See you in six months at minimum.
  • If you keep trying, you'll eventually qualify for access to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, which will help you find reliable sources.
Points like:
  • There are various ways to hang out with other Wikipedia editors.
  • If you know something about website coding, you can do some fun stuff here.
  • There are occasional contests.
are really far down the priority list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I was about to argue against 1, but it's a moot point – enwiki will get temporary accounts in a few months. jlwoodwa (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Temporary accounts will function like IP accounts in terms of not being able to access account-specific tools like newcomer features. Those using cookie-based temporary accounts will still have to be encouraged to create an account, the same as those who currently use IP-based accounts. CMD (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh ok thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but temporary accounts aren't tied to IPs, so the limit mechanism proposed here wouldn't make much sense. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
They're tied to cookies, so you could implement a similar mechanism, to similar effect (or lack thereof). CMD (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
At the moment, they're only going to last for 90 days, so it might not be pointful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion around suggestion 2 should really take account of the Growth initiatives around supporting new editors, in particular the Mentoring, which is offered to all new user accounts, and the structured editing tasks for new users. AllyD (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  • No, no, no! to #1, no real thoughts on 2. High edit count IPs usually just have something against creating an account, and I'd not want to lose them. JayCubby 04:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia's editing standards require editing guidelines to be consistent across articles?

OP blocked by Yamla for violating editing restriction. No need to continue with this. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

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

I think it should since without consistent guidelines, editors with a bias (conscious or subconscious) can adhere to certain rules for some articles and not others, giving the article a one-sided showcase of information that can skew readers' understanding of the particular issue. Adding a rule of cross-article consistency (or stronger enforcement of any requirements for consistency already in place) would mitigate bias and maintain Wikipedia's ability to provide accurate, non-partisan information. LordOfWalruses (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

What you are saying is unclear; are you saying that the editors on one article need to be constricted and controlled base on the edits of some other article, whether or not they are editing it or even aware of it? We do have guidelines which generally apply to all articles (some topics have topic-specific guidelines.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
We already have policies and guidelines that apply to every aspect of the encyclopedia. People are allowed to disagree on what they mean or how to apply them. That's how we reach consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
It is not very clear what you are saying here; "Editing standards and guidelines" ARE consistent across all articles. It is just that some editors do not follow them, which is why you have this misconception.
However, different Wikiproject do have different notability guidlines, which makes sense. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Amending ATD-R

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Much discussion preceded this RfC's filing. In 2018, consensus was found that "AfD is a right venue to seek for redirect(s), which have been challenged" (emphasis in original). In 2021, consensus was found that "Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting". Then, in October 2024, a discussion was had at Wikipedia talk:Redirect about whether WP:ATD-R should mention WP:RFD specifically as an available venue. This gained some participation with ultimately no one gaining any ground. This then led to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, with the same stalemate with the same editors continuing, which then led to this RfC. This issue has continually been discussed within this RfC by the same editors (with minimal new participants) as well.

WP:DISCARD explains that closers are "there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments... [and] those based on personal opinion only" (emphasis mine). As previously mentioned, a lot of prior discussion involved WP:RFD's suitability in some context. However, the scope of this RfC does not relate to WP:RFD's suitability in any context. Nor did a plurality of participating editors in this RfC comment on it. This RfC asks whether or not, when a BLAR has been contested as outlined by WP:ATD-R, whether going to the deletion venue appropriate to the page's pre-direct content — as determined by existing guidance — is the preferred option to determine consensus, rather than it being held as an equal option to that of the talk page. The question of what, for an individual page, is the appropriate deletion venue is not in scope nor a topic a plurality of participating editors engaged in. As such, discussion outside of this scope, such as arguments made solely on the basis of the WP:RFD dispute, were discarded.

I have opted to interpret supports which indicate a preference for a deletion venue over the talk page, yet only mention a specific venue (e.g AfD), as ultimately being in support of the proposed wording. The spirit of such supports is that the appropriate deletion venue is preferable to the talk page. Otherwise, if such supporters were literal, that would mean they'd want files and templates, as two examples, to go to their singularly named deletion venue. Given the experience level of most all participants, I find this very unlikely.

In the support camp, most editors argued that AfD (and thus, a deletion venue) is far more likely to get eyes both from more editors in general and from editors which possess relevant knowledge of policy, such as WP:NOTABILITY. Because of this, they argue a more binding consensus is likely to develop, unlike for the talk page, which may have as little as 2 participants. In the oppose camp, there were 2 arguments shared by more than a single editor. The first is the axiomatic preference that XfD and talk pages be equally valid venues. The second is the preference for talk pages over the deletion venue, with an editor using WP:NOTBURO to justify it. These arguments do not weigh well and, in my view, are defeated by the aforementioned supports and their own rationale. A lot of the remaining oppose discussion revolved around material that I classified, as closer, as "irrelevant arguments".

As such, I find there is rough consensus to adjust the wording as currently proposed at time of close. This close does not comment on WP:RFD suitability for BLARs in any scenario, nor does it comment on what deletion venue is appropriate for what kind of page. Questions about those things will require separate consensus discussions to resolve. —Sirdog (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The following has been added with Chetsford's consent (diff):

The lead closer suggested a collaborative close on this RfC. I have independently reviewed the discussion and arrived at an identical conclusion drawn from identical reasoning as the lead closer. I concur with the closing statement. Chetsford (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Should WP:ATD-R be amended as follows:

−
A page can be [[Wikipedia:BLANKANDREDIRECT|blanked and redirected]] if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not [[Wikipedia:R#DELETE|inappropriate]]. If the change is disputed via a [[Wikipedia:REVERT|reversion]], an attempt should be made to reach a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]].
+
A page can be [[Wikipedia:BLANKANDREDIRECT|blanked and redirected]] if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not [[Wikipedia:R#DELETE|inappropriate]]. If the change is disputed, such as by [[Wikipedia:REVERT|reversion]], an attempt should be made to reach a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before blank-and-redirecting again. The preferred venue for doing so is the appropriate [[WP:XFD|deletion discussion venue]] for the pre-redirect content, although sometimes the dispute may be resolved on the page's talk page.
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, Wikipedia talk:Deletion process, Wikipedia talk:Redirect, Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Support (Amending ATD-R)

  • As proposer. This reflects existing consensus and current practice. Blanking of article content should be discussed at AfD, not another venue. If someone contests a BLAR, they're contesting the fact that article content was removed, not that a redirect exists. The venue matters because different sets of editors patrol AfD and RfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Summoned by bot. I broadly support this clarification. However, I think it could be made even clearer that, in lieu of an AfD, if a consensus on the talkpage emerges that it should be merged to another article, that suffices and reverting a BLAR doesn't change that consensus without good reason. As written, I worry that the interpretation will be "if it's contested, it must go to AfD". I'd recommend the following: This may be done through either a merge discussion on the talkpage that results in a clear consensus to merge. Alternatively, or if a clear consensus on the talkpage does not form, the article should be submitted through Articles for Deletion for a broader consensus to emerge. That said, I'm not so miffed with the proposed wording to oppose it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see this proposal as precluding a merge discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't either, but I see the wording of although sometimes the dispute may be resolved on the article's talk page closer to "if the person who contested/reverted agrees on the talk page, you don't need an AfD" rather than "if a consensus on the talk page is that the revert was wrong, an AfD is not needed". The second is what I see general consensus as, not the first. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I broadly support the idea, an AFD is going to get more eyes than an obscure talkpage, so I suspect it is the better venue in most cases. I'm also unsure how to work this nuance in to the prose, and not suspect the rare cases where another forum would be better, such a forum might emerge anyway. CMD (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support per my extensive comments in the prior discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support, although I don't see much difference between the status quo and the proposed wording. Basically, the two options, AfD or the talk page, are just switched around. It doesn't address the concerns that in some cases RfD is or is not a valid option. Perhaps it needs a solid "yes" or "no" on that issue? If RfD is an option, then that should be expressed in the wording. And since according to editors some of these do wind up at RfD when they shouldn't, then maybe that should be made clear here in this policy's wording, as well. Specifically addressing the RfD issue in the wording of this policy might actually lead to positive change. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Moving to oppose. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Support the change in wording to state the preference for AFD in the event of a conflict, because AFD is more likely to result in binding consensus than simply more talk. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Per Thryduulf's reasoning in the antecedent discussion. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support. AfD can handle redirects, merges, DABifies...the gamut. This kind of discussion should be happening out in the open, where editors versed in notability guidelines are looking for discussions, rather than between two opposed editors on an article talk page (where I doubt resolution will be easily found anyways). Toadspike [Talk] 11:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support firstly, because by "blank and redirect" you're fundamentally saying that an article shouldn't exist at that title (presumably either because it's not notable, or it is notable but it's best covered at another location). WP:AFD is the best location to discuss this. Secondly, because this has been abused in the past. COVID-19 lab leak theory is one example; and when it finally reached AFD, there was a pretty strong consensus for an article to exist at that title, which settled a dispute that spanned months. There are several other examples; AFD has repeatedly proven to be the best settler of "blank and redirect" situations, and the best at avoiding the "low traffic talk page" issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support, my concerns have been aired and I'm comfortable with using AfD as a primary venue for discussing any pages containing substantial article content. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support - So as I see it, the changes proposed are simply to say that disputes should be handled at AfD in preference over the talk page, which I agree with, and also to acknowledge that a dispute over a BLAR could consist of something other than a reversion, which it can. Sounds like a good wording adjustment to me, and it matches what I understand to be already existing wikipedian practice anyway. I agree that it may be a good idea to expressly state in policy that a BLAR should not be deleted at RfD, ever... a BLAR could be retargetted at RfD, but if a BLAR is proposed for deletion it needs to go to AfD instead... but that's not at issue in this proposal, so it's off topic for now. Fieari (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Support. I've made use of ATD-R, but it did occur to me that it is something of a back door option. If a redirect is reverted, that means we have a controversial article which must be brought before wider scrutiny. You can't achieve that on the article talk page, unless the redirect supporter concedes the point, and so it must go to AFD. Having said that, I see no reason to amend the words "via a reversion". Spartathenian (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
    It's necessary because not everyone may have the ability or desire to use reversion to challenge the deletion. For example someone who lacks sufficient permission to edit the page may still wish to dispute a redirection. Or perhaps they don't want to get into edit wars and would rather leave the task of reverting to the status quo to someone else. The key point is that the action is disputed, not how the dispute manifested itself.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Support - although talk page discussions are useful for most processes, I think those which affect the fundamental existence or otherwise of the page should go to a formal venue if there is a dispute. The big advantage of XfD is that it has a large number of eyes on it and is frequented by people with lots of experience in notability and deletion policy; whereas a talk page probably has a much smaller number of watchers, some of whom may have particular alignments or points of view. Blank-and-redirect may not meet the technical definition of deletion, but it amounts to the same thing. A similar system applies for requested moves too - if a bold move is reverted per WP:RMUM then the next step it to start a formal WP:RM discussion, not for informal discussions on the talk page.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose (Amending ATD-R)

  • Oppose. The status quo reflects the nuances that Chipmunkdavis has vocalized. There are also other venues to consider: if the page is a template, WP:TFD would be better. If this is long-stable as a redirect, RfD is a better venue (as I've argued here, for example). -- Tavix (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    The intent here is to address articles. Obviously TfD is the place to deal with templates and nobody is suggesting otherwise. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    The section in question is about pages, not articles. If the proposed wording is adapted, it would be suggesting that WP:BLAR'd templates go to AfD. As I explained in the previous discussion, that's part of the reason why the proposed wording is problematic and that it was premature for an RfC on the matter. -- Tavix (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    As a bit of workshopping, how about changing doing so to articles? -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    Done. Pinging @Consarn, @Berchanhimez, @Chipmunkdavis, @Thryduulf, @Paine Ellsworth, @Tavix. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    Gentle reminder to editor Voorts: as I'm subscribed to this RfC, there is no need to ping me. That's just an extra unnecessary step. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not everyone subscribes to every discussion. I regularly unsubscribe to RfCs after I !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't. Just saving you some time and extra work. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    considering the above discussion, my vote hasn't really changed. this does feel incomplete, what with files and templates existing and all that, so that still feels undercooked (and now actively article-centric), hence my suggestion of either naming multiple venues or not naming any consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 23:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agree. I'm beginning to understand those editors who said it was too soon for an RfC on these issues. While I've given this minuscule change my support (and still do), this very short paragraph could definitely be improved with a broader guidance for up and coming generations. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you re-read the RFCBEFORE discussions, the dispute was over what to do with articles that have been BLARed. That's why this was written that way. I think it's obvious that when there's a dispute over a BLARed article, it should go to AfD, not RfD. I proposed this change because apparently some people don't think that's so obvious. Nobody has or is disputing that BLARed templates should go to TfD, files to FfD, or miscellany to MfD. And none of that needs to be spelled out here per WP:CREEP. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you want to be fully inclusive, it could say something like "the appropriate deletion venue for the pre-redirect content" or "...the blanked content" or some such. I personally don't think that's necessary, but don't object if others disagree on that score. (To be explicit neither the change that was made, nor a change to along the lines of my first sentence, change my support). Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    Exactly. And my support hasn't changed as well. Goodness, I'm not saying this needs pages and pages of instruction, nor even sentence after sentence. I think us old(er) farts sometimes need to remember that less experienced editors don't necessarily know what we know. I think you've nailed the solution, Thryduulf! The only thing I would add is something short and specific about how RfD is seldom an appropriate venue and why. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    Done. Sorry if I came in a bit hot there. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, I think something about RfDs generally not being appropriate could replace the current footnote at the end of this paragraph. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Voorts: That latest change moves me to the "strong oppose" category. Again, RfD is the proper venue when the status quo is a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm going to back down a bit with an emphasis on the word "preferred". I agree that AfD is the preferred venue, but my main concern is if a redirect gets nominated for deletion at RfD and editors make purely jurisdictional arguments that it should go to AfD because there's article content in its history even though it's blatantly obvious the article content should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    this is a big part of why incident 91724 could become a case study. "has history, needs afd" took priority over the fact that the history had nothing worth keeping, the redirect had been stable as a blar for years, and the ages of the folks at rfd (specifically the admins closing or relisting discussions on blars) having zero issue with blars being nominated and discussed there (with a lot of similar blars nominated around the same time as that one being closed with relatively litte fuss, and blars nominated later being closed with no fuss), and at least three other details i'm missing
    as i said before, if a page was blanked relatively recently and someone can argue for there being something worth keeping in it, its own xfd is fine and dandy, but otherwise, it's better to just take it to rfd and leave the headache for them. despite what this may imply, they're no less capable of evaluating article content, be it stashed away in the edit history or proudly displayed in any given redirect's target consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 10:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    As I've explained time and time again it's primarily not about the capabilities of editors at RfD it's about discoverability. When article content is discussed at AfD there are multiple systems in place that mean everybody interested or potentially interested knows that article content is being discussed, the same is not true when article content is discussed at RfD. Time since the BLAR is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    if you want to argue that watchlists, talk page notifs, and people's xfd logs aren't enough, that's fine by me, but i at best support also having delsort categories for rfd (though there might be some issues when bundling multiple redirects together, though that's nothing twinkle or massxfd can't fix), and at worst disagree because, respectfully, i don't have much evidence or hope of quake 2's biggest fans knowing what a strogg is. maybe quake 4, but its list of strogg was deleted with no issue (not even a relisting). see also quackifier, just under that discussion consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 11:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would think NOTBURO/IAR would apply in those cases. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would think that as well, but unfortunately that's not reality far too often. I can see this new wording being more ammo for process wonkery. -- Tavix (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    Would a footnote clarifying that ameliorate your concerns? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unless a note about RfD being appropriate in any cases makes it clear that it strictly limited to (a) when the content would be speedily deleted if restored, or (b) there has been explicit consensus the content should not be an article (or template or whatever), then it would move me into a strong oppose. This is not "process wonkery" but the fundamental spirit of the entire deletion process. Thryduulf (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    ^Voorts, see what I mean? -- Tavix (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    See what I mean this attitude is exactly why we are here. I've spent literal years explaining why I hold the position I do, and how it aligns with the letter and spirit of pretty much every relevant policy and guideline. It shouldn't even be controversial for blatantly obvious the article content should be deleted to mean "would be speedily deleteable if restored", yet on this again a single digit number of editors have spent years arguing that they know better. Thryduulf (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    both sides are on single digits at the time of writing this, we just need 3 more supports to make it 10 lol
    ultimately, this has its own caveat(s). namely, with the csd not covering every possible scenario. regardless of whether or not it's intentional, it's not hard to look at something and go "this ain't it, chief". following this "process" to the letter would just add more steps to that, by restoring anything that doesn't explicitly fit a csd and dictating that it has to go to afd so it can get the boot there for the exact same reason consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 10:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks. That alleviates my concerns. -- Tavix (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • oppose, though with the note that i support a different flavor of change. on top of the status quo issue pointed out by tavix (which i think we might need to set a period of time for, like a month or something), there's also the issue of the article content in question. if it's just unsourced, promotional, in-universe, and/or any other kind of fluff or cruft or whatever else, i see no need to worry about the content, as it's not worth keeping anyway (really, it might be better to just create a new article from scratch). if a blar, which has been stable as a redirect, did have sources, and those sources were considered reliable, then i believe restoring and sending to afd would be a viable option (see purple francis for an example). outside of that, i think if the blar is reverted early enough, afd would be the better option, but if not, then it'd be rfd
    for this reason, i'd rather have multiple venues named ("Suitable venues include Articles for Deletion, Redirects for Discussion, and Templates for Discussion"), no specific venue at all ("The dispute should be resolved in a fitting discussion venue"), or conditions for each venue (for which i won't suggest a wording because of the aforementioned status quo time issue) consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 17:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proper initial venue for discussing this should be the talk page; only if agreement can't be reached informally there should it proceed to AfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written to capture some nuances; there may be a situation where you want a BLAR to remain a redirect, but would rather retarget it. I can't imagine the solution there is to reverse the BLAR and discuss the different redirect-location at AfD. Besides that, I think the intention is otherwise solid, as long as its consistent in practice. Moving forward it would likely lead to many old reversions of 15+ year BLAR'd content, but perhaps that's the intention; maybe only reverse the BLAR if you're seeking deletion of the page, at which point AfD becomes preferable? Article deletion to be left to AfD at that point? Utopes (talk / cont) 20:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC), moving to support, my concerns have been resolved and I'm happy to use AfD as a primary venue for discussing article content. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the first part of the new wording makes it more vague than before. "If the change is disputed via a reversion" was clear. "If the change is disputed, such as by reversion" is vague. What other ways of dispute other than reversion are there? I am assuming "reversion" here implies reversion to pre-redirect content. If the intent of the change in wording to is incorporate scenarios where an editor prefers a redirect target of "Article B" instead of "Article A", or a dab page, or sees no appropriate target, where it is not a reversion, but a bold edit or an RfD nomination, then the accompanying phrase "before blank-and-redirecting again." does not make sense.
I oppose the second part of the new wording as well. The current wording gave editors an equal choice of forum - talk page vs XfD. Why should XfD be the preferred venue, and the talkpage be the forum only "sometimes". I see what Berchanhimez says. If an editor wants to revert and add a {{mergeto}} as a better alternative to BLAR, and all parties are agreeable to in the talk page, why force them to go to XfD. Although, I won't go as far as Espresso Addict in saying the talk page "should" be the proper initial venue, the current wording of giving equal choice of venu goes better with me, than forcing a preference. If editors do not agree on a talk page, it is understood one of them, or a neutral party will take to AfD/XfD.
I support the third part of the change, courtesy Thryduulf, of "appropriate deletion discussion venue for the pre-redirect content" which resolves Tavix's concern of AfD/TfD/MfD.
Note that I haven't touched upon RfD at all, or the prior heated discussions around it, because I don't see the current or new wordings addressing anything about Rfd. It would require a separate RfC to resolve the RfD concerns.
In summary, retain current wordings for part 1 and part 2. Go ahead with new wordings for part 3. Jay 💬 16:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
The first part was intended to make clear that if someone doesn't revert, but nonetheless contests the BLAR, they should still bring it to the appropriate non-RfD XfD. The second part doesn't limit anyone from going to talk to discuss things first. It merely makes clear that if something can't be resolved, it should go to the appropriate XfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
How can a nomination can be made at the appropriate (non-RfD) XfD without first reverting to the pre-redirect content? To repeat my question from the earlier comment - what other ways of dispute other than reversion are there? One way to contest the BLAR is to go to RfD to state that turning the article to a redirect was not an acceptable ATD, and that the page should be completely deleted. Someone could overwrite the page with new article content, or non-article content (disambiguation, SIA, for example), but that wouldn't be seen as contesting the BLAR, more like overwriting the BLAR.
For the second part, why will editors use the talk page, if policy sets the preference to XfD? Why do you want XfD to become more preferable over the article talk page discussion? What is the basis for that? Jay 💬 13:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose per editor Jay above pretty much word for word, an eloquent positional description! I'm slayed and swayed, and that doesn't happen much. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose; while we'd like consistency with the WP:BRD cycle, we'd also like less bureaucracy and less work distracting from building the encyclopedia, so it should be rewritten to explicitly prefer the talk page over XFD. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose in strongest possible terms. XFD is a process-heavy, red-tape-filled procedure that is used solely for two reasons; first, because deletion is impossible for regular editors to implement or reverse; and second, because the WMF requires that we have a way to remove things from where ordinary editors can see them. A blank-and-redirect meets neither of these criteria - it is inappropriate to send it to XFD. I would in fact support language specifically discouraging taking such disputes to AFD, where they waste time and energy and involve far more bloated red tape than such discussions ought to have, while also creating a bias towards retaining newly-added disputed material that goes against WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN, and WP:ONUS. Making it possible to send a redirect to AFD implies that an editor can add something on which there is no consensus, then respond to any attempts to remove it by demanding a hearing at AFD, leading to it being retained if discussions there fail to reach a consensus; this is inappropriate and against our other practices and policies, which normally result in new additions that fail to obtain a consensus getting removed. If anything we should therefore prohibit sending redirects to AFD in situations where an actual deletion is not being requested, or make it clear that if the article is newly-created and was redirected prior to being sent to AFD, an AFD outcome of no consensus leads to it remaining a redirect, such that editors cannot abuse AFD to turn WP:BURDEN on its head like this. --Aquillion (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Amending ATD-R)

  • not entirely sure i should vote, but i should probably mention this discussion in wt:redirect that preceded the one about atd-r, and i do think this rfc should affect that as well, but wouldn't be surprised if it required another one consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 12:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I know it's not really in the scope of this discussion but to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why BLAR is a still a thing. It's a cliche, but it's a hidden mechanism for backdoor deletion that often causes arguments and edit wars. I think AfDs and talk-page merge proposals where consensus-building exists produce much better results. It makes sense for duplicate articles, but that is covered by A10's redirection clause. J947 ‡ edits 03:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    BLARs are perfectly fine when uncontroversial, duplicate articles are one example but bold merges are another (which A10 doesn't cover). Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is my impression that BLARs often occur without intention of an accompanying merge. J947 ‡ edits 03:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes because sometimes there's nothing to merge. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    I didn't say, or intend to imply, that every BLAR is related to a merge. The best ones are generally where the target article covers the topic explicitly, either because content is merged, written or already exists. The worst ones are where the target is of little to no (obvious) relevance, contains no (obviously) relevant content and none is added. Obviously there are also ones that lie between the extremes. Any can be controversial, any can be uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    BLARs are preferable to deletion for content that is simply non-notable and does not run afoul of other G10/11/12-type issues. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to align to whatever consensus decides, but I'd like to discuss the implications because that aspect is not too clear to me. Does this mean that any time an redirect contains any history and deletion is sought, it should be restored and go to AfD? Currently there's some far-future redirects with ancient history, how would this amendment affect such titles? Utopes (talk / cont) 09:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    see why i wanted that left to editor discretion (status quo, evaluation, chance of an rm or histmerge, etc.)? i trust in editors who aren't that wonk from rfd (cogsan? cornsam?) to see a pile of unsourced cruft tucked away in the history and go "i don't think this would get any keep votes in afd" consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 11:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    No. This is about contested BLARs, not articles that were long ago BLARed where someone thinks the redirect should be deleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    then it might depend. is its status as a blar the part that is being contested? if the title is being contested (hopefully assuming the pre-blar content is fine), would "move" be a fitting outcome outside of rm? is it being contested solely over meta-procedural stuff, as opposed to actually supporting or opposing its content? why are boots shaped like italy? was it stable as a redirect at the time of contest or not? does this account for its status as a blar being contested in an xfd venue (be it for restoring or blanking again)? it's a lot of questions i feel the current wording doesn't answer, when it very likely should. granted, what i suggested isn't much better, but shh
    going back to that one rfd i keep begrudgingly bringing up (i kinda hate it, but it's genuinely really useful), if this wording is interpreted literally, the blar was contested a few years prior and should thus be restored, regardless of the rationales being less than serviceable ("i worked hard on this" one time and... no reason the other), the pre-blar content being complete fancruft, and no one actually supporting the content in rfd consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 13:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well that case you keep citing worked out as a NOTBURO situation, which this clraification would not override. There are obviously edge cases that not every policy is going to capture. IAR is a catch-all exception to every single policy on Wikipedia. The reason we have so much scope creep in PAGs is becaude editors insist on every exception being enumerated. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    if an outcome (blar status is disputed in rfd, is closed as delete anyway) is common enough, i feel the situation goes from "iar good" to "rules not good", at which point i'd rather have the rules adapt. among other things, this is why i want a slightly more concrete time frame to establish a status quo (while i did suggest a month, that could also be too short), so that blars that aren't blatantly worth or not worth restoring after said time frame (for xfd or otherwise) won't be as much of a headache to deal with. of course, in cases where their usefulness or lack thereof isn't blatant, then i believe a discussion in its talk page or an xfd venue that isn't rfd would be the best option consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 17:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the idea that that redirect you mentioned had to go to AfD was incorrect. The issue was whether the redirect was appropriate, not whether the old article content should be kept. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    sure took almost 2 months to get that sorted out lol consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 17:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    Bad facts make bad law, as attorneys like to say. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    Alright. @Voorts: in that case I think I agree. I.e., if somebody BLAR's a page, the best avenue to discuss merits of inclusion on Wikipedia, would be at a place like AfD, where it is treated as the article it used to be, as the right eyes for content-deletion will be present at AfD. To that end, this clarification is likely a good change to highlight this fact. I think where I might be struggling is the definition of "contesting a BLAR" and what that might look like in practice. To me, "deleting a long-BLAR'd redirect" is basically the same as "contesting the BLAR", I think?
    An example I'll go ahead and grab is 1900 Lincoln Blue Tigers football team from cat:raw. This is not a great redirect pointed at Lincoln Blue Tigers from my POV, and I'd like to see it resolved at some venue, if not resolved boldly. This page was BLAR'd in 2024, and I'll go ahead and notify Curb Safe Charmer who BLAR'd it. I think I'm inclined to undo the BLAR, not because I think the 1900 season is particularly notable, but because redirecting the 1900 season to the page about the Lincoln Blue Tigers doesn't really do much for the people who want to read about the 1900 season specifically. (Any other day I would do this boldly, but I want to seek clarification).
    But let's say this page was BLAR'd in 2004, as a longstanding redirect for 20 years. I think it's fair to say that as a redirect, this should be deleted. But this page has history as an article. So unless my interpretation is off, wouldn't the act of deleting a historied redirect that was long ago BLAR'd, be equivalent to contesting the BLAR, that turned the page into a redirect in the first place, regardless of the year? Utopes (talk / cont) 20:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think so. In 2025, you're contesting that it's a good redirect from 2004, not contesting the removal of article content. If somebody actually thought the article should exist, that's one thing, but procedural objections based on RfD being an improper forum without actually thinking the subject needs an article is the kind of insistence on needless bureaucracy that NOTBURO is designed to address. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see, thank you. WP:NOTBURO is absolutely vital to keep the cogs rolling, lol. Very oftentimes at RfD, there will be a "page with history" that holds up the process, all for the discussion to close with "restore and take to AfD". Cutting out the middle, and just restoring article content without bothering with an RfD to say "restore and take to AfD" would make the process and all workflows lot smoother. @Voorts:, from your own point of view, I'm very interested in doing something about 1900 Lincoln Blue Tigers football team, specifically, to remove a redirect from being at this title (I have no opinion as to whether or not an article should exist here instead). Because I want to remove this redirect; do you think I should take it to RfD as the correct venue to get rid of it? (Personally speaking, I think undoing the BLAR is a lot more simple and painless especially so as I don't have a strong opinion on article removal, but if I absolutely didn't want an article here, would RfD still be the venue?) Utopes (talk / cont) 21:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would take that to RfD. If the editor who created the article or someone else reversed the BLAR, I'd bring it to AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    Alright. I think we're getting somewhere. I feel like some editors may consider it problematic to delete a recently BLAR'd article at RfD under any circumstance. Like if Person A BLAR's a brand new article, and Person B takes it to RfD because they disagree with the existence of a redirect at the title and it gets deleted, then this could be considered a "bypassal of the AfD process". Whether or not it is or isn't, people have cited NOTBURO for deleting it. I was under the impression this proposal was trying to eliminate this outcome, i.e. to make sure that all pages with articles in its history should be discussed at AfD under its merits as an article instead of anywhere else. I've nommed redirects where people have said "take to AfD", and I've nommed articles where people have said "take to RfD". I've never had an AfD close as "wrong venue", but I've seen countless RfDs close in this way for any amount of history, regardless of the validity of there being a full-blown article at this title, only to be restored and unanimously deleted at AfD. I have a feeling 1900 Lincoln Blue Tigers football team would close in the same way, which is why I ask as it seems to be restoring the article would just cut a lot of tape if the page is going to end up at AfD eventually. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the paragraph under discussion here doesn't really speak to what should happen in the kind of scenario you're describing. The paragraph talks about "the change" (i.e., the blanking and redirecting) being "disputed", not about what happens when someone thinks a redirect ought not to exist. I agree with you that that's needless formalism/bureaucracy, but I think that changing the appropriate venue for those kinds of redirects would need a separate discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough, yeah. I'm just looking at the definition of "disputing/contesting a BLAR". For this situation, I think it could be reasoned that I am "disputing" the "conversion of this article into a redirect". Now, I don't really have a strong opinion on whether or not an article should or shouldn't exist, but because I don't think a redirect should be at this title in either situation, I feel like "dispute" of the edit might still be accurate? Even if it's not for a regular reason that most BLARs get disputed 😅. I just don't think BLAR'ing into a page where a particular season is not discussed is a great change. That's what I meant about "saying a redirect ought not to exist" might be equivalent to "disputing/disagreeing with the edit that turned this into a redirect to begin with". And if those things are equivalent, then would that make AfD the right location to discuss the history of this page as an article? That was where I was coming from; hopefully that makes sense lol. If it needs a separate discussion I can totally understand that as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
In the 1900 Blue Tigers case and others like it where you think that it should not be a redirect but have no opinion about the existence or otherwise of an article then simply restore the article. Making sure it's tagged for any relevant WikiProjects is a bonus but not essential. If someone disputes your action then a talk page discussion or AfD is the correct course of action for them to take. If they think the title should be a red link then AfD is the only correct venue. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Alright, thank you Thryduulf. That was kind of the vibe I was leaning towards as well, as AfD would be able to determine the merits the page's existence as a subject matter. This all comes together because not too long ago I was criticized for restoring a page that contained an article in its history. In this discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Canada, I received the following message regarding my BLAR-reversal: For the record, it's really quite silly and unnecessary to revert an ancient redirect from 2011 back into a bad article that existed for all of a day before being redirected, just so that you can force it through an AFD discussion — we also have the RFD process for unnecessary redirects, so why wasn't this just taken there instead of being "restored" into an article that the restorer wants immediately deleted? I feel like this is partially comparable to 1900 Lincoln Blue Tigers football team, as both of these existed for approx a day before the BLAR, but if restoring a 2024 article is necessary per Thryduulf, but restoring a 2011 article is silly per Bearcat, I'm glad that this has the potential to be ironed out via this RfC, possibly. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
There are exactly two situations where an AfD is not required to delete article content:
  1. The content meets one or more criteria for speedy deletion
  2. The content is eligible to be PRODed
Bearcat's comment is simply wrong - RfD is not the correct venue for deleting article content, regardless of how old it is. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Understood. I'll keep that in mind for my future editing, and I'll move from the oppose to the support section of this RfC. Thank you for confirmation regarding these situations! Cheers, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
@Utopes: Note that is simply Thryduulf's opinion and is not supported by policy (despite his vague waves to the contrary). Any redirect that has consensus to delete at RfD can be deleted. I see that you supported deletion of the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 17#List of Strogg in Quake II. Are you now saying that should have procedurally gone to AfD even though it was blatantly obvious that the article content is not suitable for Wikipedia? -- Tavix (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm saying that AfD probably would have been the right location to discuss it at. Of course NOTBURO applies and it would've been deleted regardless, really, but if someone could go back in time, bringing that page to AfD instead of RfD seems like it would have been more of an ideal outcome. I would've !voted delete on either venue. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
@Utopes: Note that Tavix's comments are, despite their assertions to the contrary, only their opinion. It is notable that not once in the literal years of discussions, including this one, have they managed to show any policy that backs up this opinion. Content that is blatantly unsuitable for Wikipedia can be speedily deleted, everything that can't be is not blatantly unsuitable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Here you go. Speedy deletion is a process that provides administrators with broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion. RfD is a deletion discussion venue for redirects, so it doesn't require speedy deletion for something that is a redirect to be deleted via RfD. Utopes recognizes there is a difference between "all redirects that have non-speediable article content must be restored and discussed at AfD" and "AfD is the preferred venue for pages with article content", so I'm satisfied to their response to my inquiry. -- Tavix (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Quoting yourself in a discussion about policy doe not show that your opinion is consistent with policy. Taking multiple different bits of policy and multiple separate facts, putting them all in a pot and claiming the result shows your opinion is supported by policy didn't do that in the discussion you quoted and doesn't do so now. You have correctly quoted what CSD is and what RfD is, but what you haven't done is acknowledged that when a BLARed article is nominated for deletion it is article content that will be deleted, and that article content nominated for deletion is discussed at AfD not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I requested closure at WP:CR, but that was a week ago. Fortunately, I changed the "do not archive" date to two more weeks before the bot does something. Is one closer sufficient? If so, why hasn't the closure been done yet? George Ho (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
    Is one closer sufficient? Yes. This discussion is not that complicated. If so, why hasn't the closure been done yet? First, there's a backlog and closers try to close older discussions first. Second, see WP:NORUSH. Third, see WP:VOLUNTEER. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
    Well, we'll agree to disagree then. From what I learned so far, having two or more closers is more efficient and quicker than waiting for just one who usually understands the policies very lot. Usually, a two-person closure is (unofficially) reserved mostly for more complex cases. Nonetheless, I think it would resolve backlogs. But your wishes and decision then. George Ho (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
    I close a lot of discussions. It is much faster to read a discussion and write a close than it is to work on a close, send it to another person for additions/edits, wait for them to send it back, ad nauseam. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
    For example, this discussion would probably take me about half an hour to an hour to read, then write a close I'm happy with. If I then had to have a back-and-forth with another editor until we were both happy with the close, things would take much longer. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
    Or, if we decided to write it together over google docs or something simultaneously, we'd both have to first read the discussion, schedule a time to chat or post messages back and forth on wiki to determine that we're on the same page (and if we're not, then neither of us should probably close it), and then actually write the close. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
    For better understanding, I found one example: this one from 2017, which I requested such closure... well, against initiator's wishes. But the closure was somewhat criticized: Sept 2018. Tried to find other discussions containing such criticisms, but just found 2017 post-RfC discussion and past user talk discussion for better understanding, hopefully. George Ho (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
    We only request two or three closers when:
    • the result is not obvious to everyone and
    • the result is going to make some (i.e., a lot of) people very unhappy.
    The idea with having multiple closers is that the larger number will silence some complaints (sure, you didn't get what you wanted, but multiple admins said you lost, so complaining's probably a waste of time) and spread out some of the others (each unhappy person yells at a different closer, instead of everyone yelling at a single person).
    If you are not expecting drama, you don't need multiple closers. In fact, if the answer is completely obvious, and even the people who are "losing" agree that the consensus is against them, then you don't need any uninvolved closers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
    we're at 11 supports, meaning my throwaway joke about waiting to close until there were 10 has been fulfilled. though i still disagree with how that's written, that's really the one worry i had about closing the discussion consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 10:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I take issue with the fundamental position some people are taking, above, that BLAR is some sort of loophole around the AFD process. It's the AFD process that is unusual - our normal way of handling disputed additions is covered by WP:BRD, WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. That is to say that if someone creates a new article, and I immediately BLAR it, the default if there is no consensus ought to be that remains a redirect. They boldly added new material, I removed it, now they must demonstrate consensus for it before restoring it. AFD inverts this for complicated reasons that are hard to change; but the idea that even edits that don't require actual AFDs ought to be required to go through that simply to... cause that inversion is absurd. If anything, I would take the opposite tack and forbid BLAR disputes from being sent to AFD. It's a normal content dispute, and should be handled in the normal way - which includes, crucially, the presumption that if there's no consensus for a recently-created article, it must remain a redirect. It's the person who attempts to send it to AFD who is abusing process to force through new material without consensus in violation of WP:ONUS / WP:BURDEN, not the person who objected and redirected it. --Aquillion (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
    By your logic, as an admin, I should be able to unilaterally delete a new page per ONUS/BURDEN even if it meets none of the CSD criteria and then insist that the editor who created the article satisfy me that it should be undeleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
    Also, what evidence do you have that XFD favors keeping pages. It's been my experience that redirects are often retained at AfD on contested BLARs, but both of our experiences are anecdotal and this is a factual question. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
    admittedly, i think an editor who blars something should have the burden of explanation as well, and the policy could try to cram that in somewhere. granted, it's a burden they can fulfill in edit summaries, talk pages, or, and hear me out because this is something that has never ever been said before ever by anyone ever[citation needed], rfd, so it's not a hard criterion to fill if it's done in good faith. then again, if an edit war happens over it, i do think a page should be restored to its pre-war diff (which might even not be a redirect), but that's probably besides the point since other policies have that covered consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 13:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Happy 22nd birthday (roughly), notability!

Further information: User:Uncle G/On notability § A tiny bit of history

It has been 22 years and 9 days since MartinHarper made an edit that quite a lot of people have missed since. I wrote Special:Diff/1278668922 on the 22nd anniversary, entirely coincidentally since someone was talking about the history and I thought that I should write it up. I didn't even spot the date when I was doing it.

(I'm not aware that this came up on the mailing list prior to that, although memory is hazy and I'd have to pore over the archives to refresh it. However, there is context in the form of m:What to do with entries related to September 11 casualties, which was a contemporary issue. c.f. Special:Diff/715056 on the policy talk page the day before.)

Uncle G (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this. It is sometimes difficult to trace the history of our rule and processes, but knowing the history can help understand why things developed the way they did. I hope that you left a note at Wikipedia talk:Notability about this as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for this explanation. I'm trying to wrap my head around notability, as my first article, Draft:Josephine Semmes, was rejected based on notability and is now again awaiting review. After reading your article, I'm still baffled, as Semmes's notability as a scientist seems to me to have been pretty well-established in the previous article drafts, per what you wrote about authors (also seen at WP:ACADEMICS). Aurodea108 (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Usually, WP:NPROF is looking for someone with a "named chair" – "The David Donor and Molly Millionaire Professor of Something Or Another". People who "only" discover useful things about the world don't necessarily qualify. If you haven't done so before, you might drop by Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) to ask for advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

We have thousands of links to Amazon via the {{ASIN}} template. This seems to me to be entirely inappropriate. There is a neutral and globally unique identifier (ISBN) which every book from a serious publisher carries. If you use the {{ISBN}} template, we will help the user find the book in their own region, from a library or a choice of bookstores. An ASIN is a link directly (and only) to the Amazon sales page. I strongly believe that we should not permit the use of a vendor-specific product SKU and sales link, through a template, in this way. And, as a matter of policy, I believe we should ban the use of sales links as references generally. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree. We should not be favoring a vendor in this way. Donald Albury 16:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
We are not limited to books from serious publishers. We conditionally accept self-published sources, particularly for autobiography and material from subject matter experts, which may be in niches that do not interest the "serious" publishers. Where you're most likely to have an ASIN without an ISBN available is when the book is published as a Kindle ebook only, no physical edition. (This does not mean that we should necessarily display the ASIN the way that we do an ISBN.)
An Amazon sales page provides more than just sales information on such an ebook; it provides a preview of the portion of the book, which may be useful in verification of content. A book that is released primarily as a Kindle ebook may have no other significant web presence such as a Worldcat page to point to. And while I understand the desire for Wikipedia not to be a pipeline to Amazon sales, I'm not sure there is a meaningful difference between pointing to an Amazon page for a work that is only available on Kindle and to pointing to other paywalled sources, such as places that will show you the summary of a journal article but sell you the whole thing for $65. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
ISBNs don't exist for some books, including anything printed before 1966 (when the "SBN" [ISBN's predecessor] was first invented) and quite a lot printed before about 1980.
ASINs also exist for sources that are not books (e.g., music, maps, pamphlets, instruction manuals). Clicking on ASIN B000003F6R will verify the fact that David Bowie really did narrate Peter and the Wolf. There is no ISBN for that recording.
Nat, thinking back to previous discussions, I think part of the problem is that it's Amazon. All the people who hated Walmart in the 1990s have turned to Amazon as the destroyer of working-class life now; we should try to hurt them or de-platform them whenever possible.
I agree with you that some of the objections amount to squeamishness about money. In this model, however, the cachet of an 🌟academic💫 journal offsets the vulgarity of money changing hands. An unabashedly commercial website has no such defense. I would expect "Don't use Amazon" – "No, don't use Barnes and Noble, either" – "No, you can't use the label's webpage" – "No, don't use the band's webpage either!" – and then we end up citing, e.g., a dust jacket cover, and what could previously be checked by anyone who clicked the ASIN link can now only be checked by people who can get their hands on a physical copy.
And some of it may be a game of WP:FETCH. I recall seeing an editor insist that iTunes and similar music services were unacceptable sources for track listing information. It turned out that what the editor actually meant was a lot closer to "I don't think we should have articles about this music genre" than to "I think this source has incorrect information".
I would, therefore, not recommend deleting the ASIN template. But I would recommend minimizing its use. In particular, if the ISBN works, then I'd be happy for the CS1 templates to automatically not display the ASIN. It IMO should be used when we need it, not just because it's an available parameter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
{{ASIN}} is what we call an identifier of last resort. Some things have no ISBNs, no OCLC numbers, no ISSNs, no DOIs, no PMIDs, etc... but will have an ASIN. It it then, and only then, that ASIN should be used. Take for example
  • Dyas, William J. (August 1889). "Necessity for Discretion". The Canadian Druggist. 1 (2): 30-38. ASIN B0DQPPGTXZ.
Does an DOI, OCLC or LCCN exist? Maybe. But in the meantime the ASIN is fine and very helpful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
"An identifier of last resort" is exactly my feeling. If that isn't already in the template's documentation, then I support adding it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
We should note that ASINs assigned to pre-ISBN work are slipshod. That's because it's generally used items being entered into Amazon's database by third parties. Sometimes the seller won't find/won't bother to find the previous listing which is there, giving the same publication multiple ASINs; sometimes they find the listing for a different edition (or even different work of a similar title) and assign their item to that, making the ASIN unreliable for what you get. The data that populates the page is not being provided by the publisher and is thus much less reliable. There is also some incentive for deliberate misinformation that allowed some things to show up higher in certain search results; Amazon seems to have reined in the used items that were supposedly being published in 2040, but that was a regular thing for a while. None of this is to say "no ASINs", but just putting a realistic cap on their usefulness on some fronts. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I vaguely remember having this discussion on here somewhere in about 2005, and I think I made more or less the same comments at the time as you do now, but sadly failed to get traction then. I'm weirdly reassured it's only now used about 5k times, to be honest! I expected it to be a lot more prolific.
I would strongly recommend that at the very least we consider migrating any ASIN starting with a digit - ie presumably a valid ISBN - to an ISBN field/template and remove the ASIN template as duplicative. I don't see any obvious reason for using those outside of the very rare circumstance in which we are somehow citing the Amazon page itself, and those could (should?) be using a direct URL instead. A search for these using {{ASIN}} - search Andrew Gray (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
That found 783 for me before it timed out. I checked one (Viv Richards) and was easily able to replace the ASIN with an ISBN (by clicking through to the Amazon page and copying the ISBN-13 listed there, but the ASIN was the same as the ISBN-10, which is also valid for us). Should we suggest this as a task at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I think assuming that the ASIN resolves to a valid ISBN-10, there would not be any particular problem replacing it with an ISBN. The ISBN-10 can be converted to an ISBN-13 if desired. This might be a little too complex for AWB however (it needs ISBN validation/conversion). Andrew Gray (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Allow for bots (e.g. Citation bot) to remove redundant URLs known to not host a full freely-accessible version.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear consensus to allow bots to remove links to PubMed and OCLC from the |url= parameter when |pmid= or |oclc=, respectively, are in the citation template. There was some support for treating these two separately (namely, allowing the PubMed changes but disallowing the OCLC), but they were clearly in the minority. I'd also like to highlight Headbomb's comment that this should not affect {{cite web}} where you are citing the particular webpage, not the work it corresponds to. (closure requested at CR) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Should bots like Citation bot be allowed to remove redundant 'raw' PubMed URLs, and raw OCLC URLs when pmid/oclc identifiers are present. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Details

Following the last, extremely frustrating discussion about the behaviour of bots wrt to links, the consensus that 'emerged' from it was that Citation bot was to leave urls alone, unless it was replacing them with a free alternative (e.g. |url=https://paywall.com → |doi=10.1234/654321 + |doi-access=free or |url=https://paywall.com → |url=https://freetoread.com).

However, there are two corner case I would like to establish consensus for the removal of a link.

The reason is that those links will never contain free versions of articles, they will link to either the PubMed database, which only contain abstracts (free versions would be hosted at PubMed Central instead), or the OCLC database, which formerly held google book previews (then deemed useful), but no longer does.

This means that these urls make it look like a free version is accessible, when really none are, making readers click through links that lead them to nowhere useful. Note that this isn't a proposal to removal any URL covered by an identifier (e.g. |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/123456 → |jstor=123456) that may or may not be free, only these two, known to never host free versions.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (bot removal of redundant URLs)

  • Number of articles with PubMed links: 7.6k
  • Number of articles with OCLC links: 32.6k
Nobody (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

!Vote (bot removal of redundant URLs)

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

Proposal: Mandatory Guideline Reading for New Users Before Article Creation

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

Many new users create articles that fail Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality standards, often due to ignorance rather than malice. This leads to frequent deletions, wasted editor effort, and unnecessary disputes. To address this, Wikipedia should implement a mandatory tutorial that all new users must complete before they can create a new article. Problem Currently, Wikipedia allows new users to create articles without requiring them to read or understand basic policies. This results in: 

✔ Promotional or non-notable articles (e.g., local businesses, places, personal pages).
✔ Inappropriate content that requires admin intervention and speedy deletions.
✔ Time wasted by editors and admins who must review, warn, and delete these articles.

While Wikipedia provides guidelines (e.g., WP:NPOV, WP:Notability), new users are not forced to read them before creating pages. Many users skip policies or are unaware of them, leading to repeated mistakes. Proposed Solution Wikipedia should require all new users (those with fewer than 10 edits) to complete a short interactive tutorial before creating an article. This tutorial should include: 

✅ What makes a topic notable (e.g., independent sources, significant coverage).
✅ Why Wikipedia is not a promotional platform (e.g., no self-promotion, local business pages).
✅ Basic policies like Neutrality (NPOV) and Reliable Sources (WP:RS).

🔹 Implementation Ideas: Interactive pop-up quiz before article creation (e.g., “Does your topic have independent coverage?”). Minimum 10 constructive edits before gaining article creation rights. A required short reading with a "Confirm Understanding" button. Expected Benefits ✔ Fewer promotional articles → Less admin workload on deletions. 

✔ Better new user experience → Newcomers won’t waste time on non-notable pages.
✔ More encyclopedic content → Articles will be higher quality from the start.

This proposal does not block new users but ensures they understand Wikipedia’s purpose before contributing. Request for Feedback 🔹 Should Wikipedia require mandatory policy reading before allowing new users to create articles? 

🔹 What is the best way to implement this without discouraging new contributors?

Let’s discuss! 🚀 Sys64wiki (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you write this or did ChatGPT? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Explain me? Does it matter or you are thinking yourself too smart? Sys64wiki (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Many users, including myself, find undisclosed communication using generative AI offensive. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Personal preferences aside, Wikipedia decisions should be based on policy and reasoned discussion. If you have a counterpoint regarding the proposal’s merits, feel free to present it. Sys64wiki (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Whether or not to use LLM is not a "personal preference". Wikipedia (and many places) discourage using LLMs due to serious issues (see WP:LLM). This particular message, being entirely AI-generated without any updates to follow Wikipedia norms, also shows a lack of knowledge about how Wikipedia works. This is particularly concerning given that you are proposing changes to how we handle new articles, a discussion that occurs regularly among seasoned editors, such as those with AFC and NPP. I am further concerned about you raising this, given your recent BITEY behaviour toward new editors (e.g., [1]). You are certainly welcome on Wikipedia, and we appreciate input from new users such as yourself. However, it may be worthwhile familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia culture and behind-the-scenes work. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Also this was genuine thought came to me while discussing speedy deletion of a garbage article. Sys64wiki (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Whether it was written with AI assistance or not shouldn’t really matter—what matters is the content and whether it aligns with Wikipedia’s policies. If there’s an issue with the proposal itself, let’s discuss that.
Dismissing something just because AI was involved doesn’t address the actual topic. AI is just a tool, like a spell checker or a research assistant. If we start rejecting proposals just because they were refined with AI, we’re shifting the discussion away from what’s actually important.
So, if anyone has policy-based objections, I’m happy to hear them. Otherwise, let’s stay on topic. Sys64wiki (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
You lost me the moment you pasted prompt-generated text here. Not interested. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Funny, you actually wrote "I like the idea" before you reverted due to another person's interaction changed your view. Maybe at first you focused on proposal which itself is important but then you become 'a nerd meme guy'. If you are not interested, there is nobody forcing you to join but I will advise you to put suggestions for greater good of Wikipedia. Sys64wiki (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Again, not interested in sorting through AI slop. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
We already limit article creation to at least 10 edits. As for the rest, it's complicated and likely ineffective. CMD (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
If the concern is that enforcing guideline reading before article creation would be complicated and ineffective, that depends on how it’s implemented.
A simple 10-edit requirement doesn’t ensure users actually understand Wikipedia’s policies—many just make random edits to bypass it. If we want to improve article quality, simply displaying guidelines won’t help, because most users will click through without reading.
However, an interactive approach, like a short quiz on core policies (NPOV, verifiability, and notability), could be more effective. It wouldn’t need to be complicated—just a few key questions to confirm that new users grasp the basics before creating articles.
So, instead of dismissing the idea as ineffective, we should consider better ways to implement it rather than assuming it won’t work at all. Sys64wiki (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
No, the llm doesn't grasp that you can click through a quiz fine. Nor does the llm understand that we do want new users, or that promotional editors often aren't trying to meet quality standards. Most crucially, the llm doesn't understand the existing systems we have in place around article creation, such as but not limited to the existing 10 edit threshold. CMD (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Its funny you are using 'LLM' to show that this is a chatbot comment, actually this is going over the discussion.
However, for the discussion, it is incorrect to say that "good faith editors (or new users)" always act as promotional editors. In fact, many new users struggle with Wikipedia’s complex policies simply because they are introduced to a trial-and-error system rather than a structured "learn and write" approach. I personally went through this phase for months, so I understand the issue firsthand.
My proposal is not about changing the existing system but improving how new users understand their expected behavior on Wikipedia—similar to how a school teaches rules and structure. This is not about blocking participation but guiding it.
For your LLM problem, i think i used the proposal draft and that was the end of using LLM. Sys64wiki (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Please don't make up quotes I didn't say. As for the rest, we do not ask new users to learn and write. We have help areas they are directed to, mentorship systems, and have already gamified onboarding at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. CMD (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps we should actually discuss the proposal, rather than than how it was written. BD2412 T 03:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
That's an odd thing to a reply to a comment which was all about the proposal and said nothing about how the proposal was written? CMD (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
CMD, You can actually leave discussion {just an advice} if you have personal issues with AIs. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I will point out a second time that nothing in the 03:07, 21 March 2025 comment above is about AIs. CMD (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
The we are two of us and ready to discuss real material. Actually i deleted those messages (and this will also be deleted) to remove garbage riots from a sincere topic. Sys64wiki (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
And I undeleted the material, as your deleting people who did not support you because you didn't like what they were criticizing was inappropriate. (You are free to strike through - but not delete - your own comments in those sections.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
okay. Sys64wiki (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
The mentoring system actually focus on trial and error and many are forceful. Such as many experienced editor uses their position as 'dictator' rather than cooperators, as I have said i have gone through this, like reverting edits without explaining or helping inexperienced about the things that are appropriate in wikipedia. Also it would be complicated for a beginner to go through mentoring system rather than a system that is available in his own homepage and wherever he visit within wikipedia {such as while making edit, creating article or influencing other people articles}. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
We already have a newcomer homepage. See Wikipedia:Growth Team features. CMD (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
The Topic was about......actually, read downside discussions to understand what i am saying because this is a biographical bulk which almost all newcomer will reject to read. Sys64wiki (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Are you referring to our actual mentorship program (WP:MENTOR) or just the general introduction most people have, where editors are collaborating on articles? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm referring to the general introduction that most people have, which often lacks a structured way to learn. While the mentorship program (WP:MENTOR) exists, it isn't something every new editor engages with, and it doesn't fully address the issue of onboarding.
Instead of relying on either mentorship (which is limited in availability) or just expecting new users to figure things out through trial and error, Wikipedia could benefit from a more interactive step-by-step tutorial system. This would guide new users through essential Wikipedia skills by providing structured tasks, real-time feedback, and simulated editing exercises before they start making real changes.
For example, a new editor could go through a guided process where they practice adding citations, making minor edits, and understanding policies in a controlled environment. This would help reduce mistakes, make the learning process clearer, and create a smoother experience for both newcomers and experienced editors. Sys64wiki (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I believe that was the goal of releasing the Wikipedia Adventure, though I have my own critiques about that. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree, the Wikipedia Adventure had good intentions but ultimately failed due to its flawed design. It was a standalone module rather than an integrated guidance system, making it feel disconnected from real editing. Instead of helping new editors navigate actual challenges, it provided general trivia and surface-level interactions. A better approach would be a front-mode HUD or real-time interactive assistance within the editing interface. New users need practical, in-context guidance—not just theoretical lessons—so they can confidently contribute without getting lost in complex policies. Sys64wiki (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
HUD (Heads-up display) is actually a step-by-step guide we see in video games, just for context. Sys64wiki (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
That would likely be far too technically challenging to implement. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Glad you took interest. The problem should not be how challenging but how we can implement because i am always ready to help AS MUCH AS possible. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Raising article creation to 1,000 edits would help prevent a lot of garbage articles. Masterhatch (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
That seems highly impractical. Setting such a high edit threshold would discourage new contributors and create unnecessary barriers rather than improving article quality. Sys64wiki (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I was being hyperbolic. But in reality, a new user should have been around for a spell and have gotten his hands dirty. 10 edits does not do that. Not even close. Masterhatch (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
It varies so much on the individual, though. Someone who's vaguely competent, cautious, and reads instructions can do fine writing an article after their first ten edits, especially if it isn't an especially tricky subject like a BLP, and especially if they have a little bit of help. Adding more hoops to jump through, on the other hand, isn't going to stop the POV-pushers, COI editors, and dumb people from writing bad articles sooner or later, but will dissuade the competent editors we need from jumping in. Cremastra (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
I am intrigued by the notion of a required tutorial before writing a first article. I have worked at several institutions that require all employees to take, for example, mandatory IT training to avoid phishing attacks, and these are structured much like the proposal, usually doable in a few minutes. BD2412 T 03:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure was mentioned by CMD. I don't know if it proved effective, or what it might have been effective at (something could be effective at teaching wikitext but not at teaching notability, and vice versa), but it didn't take a huge amount of time, and people were generally successful at getting to the end of it (or as much as they wanted to do).
"Read the policies", suggested above, is an impossible request. Even if we assume a reading speed of 300 words per minute (on the high side), it would take about half an hour to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not – and that's just one of the policies. Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline, takes 15 minutes to read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I propose quiz and summarised way to propose WK:What Wikipedia is not rather than just approving a complete biography. It is actually overwhelming to read guidelines, I can assure, but would you agree that there is not any better way to work on wiki without guidelines? The quick boxes, prompts, quizzes and etc would make it much easier to understand wiki policy and we should also make a "child" article about these bulky policies for nerds.
And thanks for considering my application rather than what was going on for decades. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes BD, I am student and I too have to face this everywhere. This ensures that you are ready to deal with things rather than coming without any prior info and making 100 mistakes. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I think an overarching issue is that we don't intend for new editors to create articles. On the list of tasks, article creation is recommended for advanced editors--not even intermediate editors. However, many new editors want to create articles right away and then are frustrated that they run into barriers. Conversations about fixing this issue have been happening for over a decade with back-and-forth between the WMF and experienced editors who work behind-the-scenes, including those who regularly help new editors. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I disagree with this perspective because it contradicts Wikipedia’s collaborative nature. If Wikipedia truly did not want new editors to create articles, then why is article creation an option for them at all? Instead of discouraging new contributors, the focus should be on providing a structured pathway for them to improve their skills before they attempt article creation. If this issue has been debated for over a decade, doesn’t that suggest it’s time for a more effective solution rather than maintaining the status quo? Sys64wiki (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Much has happened in the past decade to improve the new user experience. I have not personally been involved in conversations about improving the experience (in part because I haven't been around nearly that long), so I cannot speak to how the conversation goes. However, from the people I have spoken with about such issues, there is back-and-forth with the Wikimedia Foundation, as well as between editors, given that large changes cannot occur without community support. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I can't think of any better way of discouraging people from being involved in Wikipedia at all than by making required classes and quizzes. We've somehow managed to get millions of articles created without those impediments. The suggestion seems unlikely to discourage people who come here with the goal of creating the sort of article that we find problematic any more than it will those who have more appropriate intents and just need a bit of practice. Plus, with the new temporary accounts coming to replace IPs, it would effectively mean that every time someone who was not a registered user wanted to create an article, they'd have to go through all that again, even if they had ample experience. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Gertler, I don’t see a strong basis for your argument. While classes and quizzes might seem unnecessary to experienced users, they can be incredibly useful for newcomers. How exactly does gaining structured knowledge discourage participation? If anything, these tools would help new users understand how Wikipedia functions more effectively. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Putting barriers between people and the thing they want to do is a discouragement, and there are few people who say "yippee, a quiz!". Tools for learning are already available for those who want them. Making things mandatory is a discouragement for those who don't. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
No, you are not actually right. Since doing things in right way is a mandatory issue in Wikipedia it is also necessary to implement these things with care and in sense of learning program rather than a rule of concentration camp. I think I didn't proposed quiz as priority of this method but a kind of HUD, as we see in video games, but with such options that guide you with Wikipedia rules. This is Mandatory to guide editors to work within rules that Wikipedia allows because that will implement quick adaptations and less mess. I think this is a very simple things but misunderstood by many, what my proposal was about. Sys64wiki (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
As for tool for learning, their are huge thousand of words of guidelines that of course no beginner wants to read same as you decline to read any app's user agreement policy even though they contains potential informations. If you meant tool such as article wizard, they are tools to create article rather than any kind of rule that tells how Wikipedia works. Sys64wiki (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I mean tools such as the page Help:Your first article, a friendly page designed with the key information on the sort of things you seem concerned about, and that we already point every person creating an article to. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
  1. Please don't use AI. I ran this through an AI checker, and it claims it was fully generated by AI
  2. I overall agree with the idea that we need mandatory reading for every person's first new article. This helps us distinguish good and bad faith edits, and as someone who helps out creators of potential new articles on WP:AFCHELP, this will help prevent tonnes of time wasted on both ends.
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
@Sys64wiki Even if this was a pop up that you had to click out of, most new Wikipedians will likely just ignore it. The only real way for them to learn is to go in, find out what they are doing is wrong, fix their mistake (or get blocked). Also new users get an introduction that details all of the policies, noticeboards, etc. DotesConks (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Gotta be honest, I ignored most of the introductions outside of the teahouse (and ones I knew previously as an IP editor), which is probably why my first several contributions were not that great, which is why I believe mandatory reading would be much better than simply "hey, you may want to read these documents". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Would you please edit your proposal to be in your own voice? On the merits, it’s not a terrible idea to have a new role (like EC) that can be attained via reading and attesting to having read, notability, etc. I’m not optimistic that it would reduce the reviewer burden though. Dw31415 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
OP blocked by Cullen328 btw, the reason including the use of AI. Tarlby (t) (c) 22:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

While I don't think the questionnaire idea is going to fly, we can ask whether we can do better than now. When someone starts a new article, what they see is

This is out of date and can be improved. (1) There is no mention of notability. (2) There is no mention of draft space. (3) We usually do not want new users creating their articles in main space or moving their articles to main space by themselves. What the template should do is to direct them to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, where their new article will be in draft space and subject to approval by someone else. (As an aside, I wonder if the techs can display one template for new users and a different one for experienced users.) Zerotalk 06:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Is Draft space a better target than userspace (Special:Mypage/WhateverTheNameIs)? They achieve similar purposes, so we should probably have one or the other to keep instructions simple. The other suggestions seem sound. CMD (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
The Draft: namespace is where articles go to die: m:Research:Wikipedia article creation and m:Research:AfC processes and productivity. There are no easy answers here. Every approach has advantages and disadvantages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Eh, there are lots of reasons for this. I create all my articles in draft space. I often get started, thinking something is notable, then realize it's probably not or at least not yet -- or perhaps I lose interest. That doesn't mean that draftspace was the problem. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Your approach to the draftspace is distinctly uncommon.
The usual approach is: Create article. It's WP:UGLY but possibly notable, so someone moves it to the draft space. Very little happens after that, and then it gets semi-automatically deleted.
The more effective approach is: Create article. It's ugly but possibly notable. Leave it in the mainspace, where other/experienced editors will improve it (or they will take it to AFD to get a notability determination). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
I've used draft space as Significa liberdade has. Draft:Rennie Garden will probably self-destruct in a few months. I don't think deliberately adding to AfD work is a collaborative default. CMD (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Different people work in different ways. The proposal would suit someone (like me, and, I presume, the OP) who likes to read "the rules" before doing anything, but would discriminate against those who prefer to learn by doing. We shouldn't try to force people into one way of doing things. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Well, this is what the discussion is about trying to reach newcomers through prompts and messages rather than telling him to read guidelines only after they make mistakes. Sys64wiki (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but many people prefer to learn by making mistakes. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
^ This. "Learning by doing" is how most Wikipedia editors learn to contribute. That process entails making mistakes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
It is worth considering that expecting people to "learn by doing" and not having a clear way for someone to avoid mistakes is probably intimidating to many potential contributors. At least that's what I've heard from many people as to why they haven't edited ("don't want to mess something up"). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
The main issue is that Wikipedia lacks clear, structured guidance for new contributors. Experienced editors and long-time article creators are already familiar with policies and workflows, so they don’t require tutorials. However, newcomers—especially those with little prior experience—find Wikipedia overwhelming due to its complexity. I don’t mean to undermine experienced editors, but their perspective often doesn’t align with that of new users. You’re absolutely right that many people hesitate to contribute because they don’t know where to start. Instead of intuitive onboarding, they’re faced with extensive guidelines that can feel more like an academic textbook than practical instructions Sys64wiki (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Elli, I agree that the "learn by doing" system deters some potential contributors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Any one way is going to lose people. Folks learn in different ways, and even if there was a normal one that worked for most human beings, I don't think we can count on Wikipedia editors as being in the center of that bell curve. So we should be making multiple ways of learning available, but forcing none. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I prefer to learn first and do later, but I have always been told that most people learn better by doing. I'm not too sure about Wikipedia editors though, particularly ones who hang out at noticeboards. Maybe we are not representative of the general population? Anyway, there is a significant number of people that "learning by doing" does not suit. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
I was a "learning by doing" editor
First few edits were not that good, slowly learnt more and more policies
Only really fully understood wikipedia policy after idk, my 1000th edit Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
@Thehistorianisaac Same here! DotesConks (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Although I think I understood the spirit of policy and guidelines early on, I'm still ocassionally surprised by the details after 63,000 edits. Donald Albury 16:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
YFA and the Article Wizard both discuss notability and draftspace. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
This proposal will just drive good faith editors away - you are forcing volunteers to jump through hoops to add content. It won't discourage spammers as there is the expectation that there employers will pay them.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
+1 Dw31415 (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent deaths.

Recent deaths often omits celebrities who have recently reported died even those who have a Wikipedia page. How recently is recent? 2A0C:4F41:1C13:6800:10A1:649C:E601:63CD (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Recent deaths are nominated at WP:ITNC where they are reviewed for quality purposes, and if they don't reach sufficient quality in 7 days, the nomination fails. Most celebrities (particularly actors and musicans) do not have quality articles due to unsourced filmography or discography tables, nor get improved, so many of these are not posted. — Masem (t) 17:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  • It also sometimes happens that people are not nominated, although this is uncommon with people likely to be described as a celebrity. Unsourced or partially sourced filmographies and discographies is by the most common reason but the whole article needs to be fully cited and free of orange maintenance tags and other significant issues. By far the best thing to do if there is someone you really think should be featured is to make sure their article is of good quality - and you don't need to wait until they die to start doing this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a news site. The idea of this section is to show what encyclopedic content we have about the person who has died, not to report that fact. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Clicking on the "Recent deaths" link leads to Deaths in 2025, which is more comprehensive.—Bagumba (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Deaths in 2025 indicates that about 20 deaths/day are recorded on Wikipedia. ITN's RD section only seems to do about 4/day on average. The selection of this fraction seems quite arbitrary. For instance, the current selection is:
  1. Kitty Dukakis – American author (1936–2025)
  2. Eddie James – American murderer and sex offender (1961–2025)
  3. Munir Shakir – Founder of Islamic group Lashkar-e-Islam (1969–2025)
  4. Dik Wolfson – Dutch economist and politician (1933–2025)
  5. Eddie Jordan – Irish motorsport executive and broadcaster (1948–2025)
  6. Aaron Gunches – American murderer
The most prominent celebrity death currently is George Foreman – American boxer (1949–2025) but that article has not been posted yet. It still got millions of readers so ITN's failure doesn't much matter – most readers access such articles using search engines, not the main page. (see What's known about how readers navigate Wikipedia)
Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Electoral Results and local governance divisions

Hi. I recently took to AFD three articles Chalkwell (Southend-on-Sea ward), Westborough (ward) and Milton (Southend-on-Sea ward). All three pages, in my belief, did not meet WP:NPLACE and as per discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. In addition, these articles are just results of the ward elections which dont meet WP:NOTSTATS. All three were kept, 2 as keep and one as no concensus, even though I pointed out in one discussion that ward results were already recorded on Southend-on-Sea City Council elections page.

My question is this, do we or should we have a policy on electoral results? We state that wikipedia is not a Gazetter but has elements of a Gazetter, so should we have lists of results? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't look to create a new policy over a few AfDs with the same participants. Lots of AfD outcomes do somewhat contradict policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Special permission to create an article

WRONG VENUE
This isn't the place to request an appeal to a topic ban. Also to note, the t-ban is not appealable until six months after its enactment, which would be May. Aydoh8[contribs] 14:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Hi. I'm Pek and I'm not allowed to create new articles. However, I would like to ask for special permission to create article about web browser that doesn't yet have an article on Wikipedia. Could I just create this one article? (Please, I'm begging on my knees.) Instabridge Browser needs it's own article. There is currently no article that I could edit to add content about Instabridge Browser. I found some sources too: #1, #2 & #3. --Pek (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Those sources appear to be about an e-sim provider, not a web browser. CMD (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Pek - looking at your profile, you have been editing for over 10 years… why are you “not allowed to create new articles”? Were your privileges removed? Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
This is not where you would file an appeal to your ban on article creation. And that ban, from November 2024, makes it clear that you are not allowed to appeal for six months, and those six months have not yet passed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Ah… looked further… Nat is correct… this isn’t how you appeal a ban, Pek. We can’t help, and you shouldn’t have asked. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
And, as CMD said, the browser is not mentioned or only mentioned in passing in those sources. I can't help wondering what is so important about that browser that it has to have an article before Instabridge itself does. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviewing the use of "indefinite" page protection beyond semi-protection level, and prohibiting it for all TALK pages

Kenfree has been indef'd at ANI. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Understanding the need for page protection of some sort in identified controversial areas, it seems that in attempting to overcome the mayhem of more heat than light that many editors have overcorrected with very liberal use of "indefinite E-C protection" and admin protection. The due process involved in these decisions seems opaque, at least to this user. The ability to appeal such peremptory decisions is unduly cumbersome and a very uphill climb. The very idea of indefinitely protecting an article's TALK page practically excludes most Wikipedia editors from any participation whatsoever from influencing content, flying directly in the face of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit." Therefore, the notion of "indefinite" restrictions above semi-protected level should be reconsidered in general, in favor of a sunset provision (say, six months) on articles, and absolutely forbidden on an article's TALK page. Also, 500 edits seems a rather arbitrary and for newbies unreachable level of edits. Why not 200? Just asking... Kenfree (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you give some examples where this has caused a problem? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Happy to, Phil. I have mede several edit requests at the E-C protected page WP:Alison_Weir_(activist) page, the oldest of which is dated 11 January, and they are still languishing in the backlog as I write this reply. Efforts to interst E-C editors at WP:Teahouse have been unavailing. Surely Wikioedia users are not well served in such a case. Kenfree (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
A WP:RFC is a somewhat formal procedure, lots of rules/details. For example, "Include an initial brief, neutral statement or question about the issue in the talk page section..." You missed this part and went straight into arguing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
This is merely a personal matter for User:Kenfree and doesn't require any large scale community discussion to solve it. They've been been editing en.wiki since 2011 (and still don't have 500 edits, yet). Over time they have demonstrated why they are here through their actions. In their sixth edit (2011), they characterize another wikipedian thusly: It is very difficult to accept that the editor who chose the single excerpt from the Green Book did so in good faith. In their ninth edit (2011) they complain a whole slew of late Cold Warriors are making a very unfair characterization of RT. In 2014 they edit warred on RT (TV network) and got blocked for it. On May 25, 2024 at 12:59, User:Kenfree returned after seven years to make their last mainspace edit. Since that time, they've stayed strictly on talk pages and noticeboards, usually discussing their inability to edit EC restricted topics. They turned their attention to Talk:Alison Weir (activist). They've tried to make their case (on the merits) at Help desk, an EC-protected edit request on 03:45, 11 January 2025, again at help desk on January 20, then on Teahouse to fret about how much time it was taking for an EC request to be processed. They filed another help desk request on January 27, canvassed an editor to help them on February 4, accused another of edit warring, pinged the help desk again on February 9, once again on Feb 25, and finally talked directly to an admin on March 8. Over and over it's been explained to them that if they were to put in the minimum effort (they are currently 92 edits short of 500), this wouldn't be an issue for them. They are quite interested in arguing about extended-confirmed permissions on a few contentious topics and not anything else. I'm wondering when assuming good faith for a low edit-count but longtime editor becomes merely facilitating a bad actor. All this help desk and EC banter seems to be covering up a perverse form of WP:PGAME. In any event, their desire for permissions doesn't extend far enough as to actually make effort to earn them. BusterD (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I've chosen to post this to ANI. BusterD (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
It is just because of such lengthy ad hominems by such editors that I sometimes question the good faith of such. In all these wasted words not a single one is addressed to the concern I have raised, just one long diatribe attacking me personally, cherry picking as he goes. Disgusting! Kenfree (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
By posting at ANI, I have intentionally made all my own behaviors here a valid subject for conversation. Swing away! BusterD (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
If you're going to dispute MY BEHAVIOR, you'll have to do it on ANI... BusterD (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
the issue here is your behavior, which is relevant to a thread you've started. i have to agree with buster that your lack of attempts to be productive and wanting to skip straight to an ec-protected page (as straight as something can be when you've been around since 2011, anyway) and then to attempting to rework how ec protection works can very easily come off as gaming the system, regardless of whether or not it actually is an attempt to do so
the important part aside, i don't think this needs reworking. there are several valid reasons to protect an article (persistent vandalism, disruptive editing, edit warring, technical stuff...), and most of them can just as easily apply to a talk page (or even the teahouse lmao). in such cases, it can then be deduced that certain types of editors are generally not trusted to handle delicate topics with the level of care that's necessary of it, and thus discussion is locked to editors who have proven that they're here to be productive (and me for some reason), be it by being autoconfirmed (at least 10 edits across at least 4 days) or extended confirmed (at least 500 edits across at least 30 days). if you really want something unprotected, you can just request it here. if the reason is deemed good enough (at least more than just "i want to edit it", for starters) and made in good faith, an admin can then unprotect it. this request, for example, is one i believe didn't meet either criterion, especially after the ensuing complaints over it being declined, and considering why it was protected in the first place. while i would discuss the exceedingly simple solution to this whole issue (that is, you editing more stuff), the current direction of the ani thread seems to suggest that i'm a little late for that consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 16:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
If I wanted the page to be unprotected, I would have said so. I do not. What I want is some guarantee that protecting a page does not throw it into pemanent stasis. Fully or e-c protecting a page (and especially a TALK page) "indefinitely" is tantamount to locking it uo and throwing away the key...thus, my appeal for a sunset parameter on all such protections. Kenfree (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
it's tantamount to locking it up if you make no effort at reaching the criteria to be able to edit it. this is more like a doorknob you're just not tall enough to open yet consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 18:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
If you (or anybody else) feels that a page no longer needs to be protected then you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. As with all things on Wikipedia, indefinite does not mean permanent. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Ok, if indefinite does not mean permanent, then what is its endpoint? This is the whole concern I am raising: once a page is protected "indefinitely" there is no automatic review parameter, and it goes into limbo. I am arguing for the institution of such a parameter to replace the literally indefinite "indefinitely." I have suggested six months as a reasonable outside parameter on when a review should be imposed, a review open to all interested editors, not simply those already allowed to edit on the restricted page. What I am striving for here is a return to the democratic ideal that once characterized Wikipedia in its salad days: "An encyclopedia anyone can edit." Not a very limited group of editors with 500+ edits to their credit.
As I peruse the various responses here, it seems that a kind of nascent elitism is expressing itself as disdain for those editors who are not "everyday" editors. Well I am not one of those and don't expect to be...I have too many other demands on my time. I am a casual editor, and I think the record shows that from time to time, when I am using Wikipedia for research, I will make a correction or correct a typo here and there to improve readability. These good faith efforts on my part are disparaged by some commenters as "cosmetic." To each his own. If someone can point to a Wikipedia policy that privileges or shows preference for everyday editors over casual editors, please indicate here...otherwise this is a useless distinction IMHO.Kenfree (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
The end point is when protection is not required. As noted, a review can be initiated by anybody at any time by simply asking for one. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Some after endpoint at Template:Contentious_topics/list#Previously_authorised. Of course, they might start up again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
No, the issue here is NOT my behavior, the issue is whether the current tendency to, in my opinion, overprotect some Wikipedia pages (especially article TALK pages) serves the inclusivity mission of Wikipedia. You keep TRYING to make it about my behavior, but it's a red herring, and the way you have characterized my behavior, which I won't dignify with a refutation, as a strawman. Kenfree (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
i wouldn't agree that it's a red herring. as detailed by cullen in ani, you specifically bringing up this specific issue in this specific way with your specific edits under your belt (that is, the edits at alison weir, and other articles related to the israel-palestine war) implies shenanigans might be at hand (that is, promotional editing, if not outright a conflict of interest), which if proven true, would damage your credibility in this discussion. it absolutely is something worth looking into
and in the specific context of this war, i'm also 99.69% sure that going lighter on protection in pages related to it would invite some absolutely hilarious comedians (vandals) in the mood to enact their endlessly funny jokes (the exact same boring memes over and over), people seeking to right great wrongs, and general bad-faith editors to disrupt said pages even harder than usual, so that's even more of a reason to oppose it. there's also the issue of 500 not actually being all that many edits once you get the hang of things, i guess
should also note that i wasn't implying that you were a vandal with that second paragraph, i just named vandals as an example of people who should probably be kept out of there consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 19:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
As this discussion was never an WP:RFC (which requires listing the discussion in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All), I've removed the potentially confusing "RFC" claim from the section heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, @WhatamIdoing! I had no idea that a Request for Comment was anything other than what it implies. My bad... Kenfree (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Ridiculous suggestion. Three years ago, I lost access to this account (trashing three computers and a spell in hospital were involved). So, until I worked out how to recover my passwords, I set up an alternate account. It took me (checks notes) four days making small constructive edits to get it EC. It could have been only one day, but my stamina is not what it was. Narky Blert (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

EC requires 500 edits + 30 days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should WP:Demonstrate good faith include mention of AI-generated comments?

The Village pump is overflowing again. Please continue this conversation at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Good faith and AI-generated comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Using AI to write your comments in a discussion makes it difficult for others to assume that you are discussing in good faith, rather than trying to use AI to argue someone into exhaustion (see example of someone using AI in their replies "Because I don't have time to argue with, in my humble opinion, stupid PHOQUING people"). More fundamentally, WP:AGF can't apply to the AI itself as AI lacks intentionality, and it is difficult for editors to assess how much of an AI-generated comment reflects the training of the AI vs. the actual thoughts of the editor.

Should WP:DGF be addended to include that using AI to generate your replies in a discussion runs counter to demonstrating good faith? Photos of Japan (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Should we use the term "committed suicide"?

The village pump is overflowing again. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/The term committed suicide instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Many times this has been brought up, but no consensus has been found. Even in a Wikipedia article, it has been acknowledged that the term "committed suicide" can stigmatizing and offensive (and outdated). Related: MOS:SUICIDE, MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2018, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, CAT 2019, VPPOL 2021, VPPOL 2023. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 19:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Testing the waters: Overturning USPLACE

Yes, I know this is at perennial proposals, which is why I'm not jumping straight ahead to an RFC, but WP:USPLACE, the guideline that determines the titles of settlements in the United States, is fundamentally at loggerheads with the five criteria:

  • Recognizability: Large cities that are not usually associated with their state may astonish readers who see the page name connected to the state (for instance, when I hear Louisville, I don't think of it being in Kentucky). Yes, this is a double-edged sword, as people with no knowledge of the city might not know of it, but this can easily be solved with textual disambiguation. For instance, 2022 Ürümqi fire says in its lead sentence: On 24 November 2022, a fire broke out... in Ürümqi, Xinjiang, China, because the average reader will not recognize Ürümqi as being in Xinjiang or China, yet no disambiguation is present in the Ürümqi article. We could easily use this in the lead sentences of articles concerning these cities. Also, the short descriptions and previews of the articles with USPLACE disambiguation, which include the state, are redundant to the disambiguation in the title.
  • Naturalness: Readers are likely to search Louisville instead of Louisville, Kentucky just because of typing efficiency, and in articles, the short form is usually linked to (example: in Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport). This satisfies both subcriteria in the Naturalness section.
  • Precision: In cases where there is a primary redirect, such redirect is unambiguous if a hatnote is added, as is present on Boston, Cleveland, and most of the other 26 undisambiguated city articles. If the title was ambiguous in any way, there would be no primary redirect.
  • Concision: Raleigh, North Carolina is almost three times longer than just plain old Raleigh, which redirects there already, so moving the much longer name to the shorter name breaks nothing and makes Wikipedia more efficient.
  • Consistency: Another double-edged sword. The argument for consistency is clear: not a single other country uses USPLACE. Yes, consistency has been used by supporters of USPLACE to argue that it goes against consistency to have some articles using commas while others don't. However, we don't worry about that in any other country: we have Valence, Drôme but Biarritz not Biarritz, Pyrénées-Atlantiques. There's no reason we need to treat the US different from literally every other country.

The argument is that appending the state is part of American English. That is not even remotely true. No source describes American English as such (see American English, which does not mention the comma convention at all) and other articles that use American English, such as Agua Prieta, whose article uses American English and with the town just across the border, even so, the article is not titled Agua Prieta, Sonora, which would be the title if the comma convention were part of American English. Yes, the AP Stylebook recommends the comma convention. But if we followed the AP stylebook, then we'd be ending quotes with ." instead of "., our article on the Salem witch trials would have to be moved to Salem Witch Trials, and our article on Gulf of Mexico would have to be moved to Gulf of Mexico/Gulf of America. Simply put, USPLACE violates our guidelines on article titles.

Furthermore, many editors oppose USPLACE, as can be shown by the three RMs opened in the last month, all of which unfortunately failed, on removing the state name from Brownsville, Lubbock, and Redmond. Even some of the oppose !votes in those RMs and others expressed dissatisfaction with USPLACE, with one editor calling it peculiar and another saying they were personally opposed to it. Consensus can change, especially when consensus is determined to be in conflict with policy. Thank you for considering my request.

—🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 19:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't see what the arguement is. We gave naming conventions for most of the world. In the case of Brownsville there us clearly two places on wikipedia with that name, so we need to distinquish them and the US has a lot of places with the same name. If we didn't have these conventions, based upon some of the arguments raised, Boston, Lincolnshire should be just plain Boston as it is the original - which is just silly. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but that's true of lots of topics. Having the larger area name is something we do for disambiguation, and like anything that we disambiguate, there can be a primary name. We even do that geographically; we have an article on Paris and don't feel the need to specify it's the one in France and not Paris, Texas. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
But we should not have "Primary pages", as how can we determine what is primary? Boston, Lincolnshire or Boston, Massachusetts, or the 16 places in the US or the 34 other places around the world? Paris should be Paris, France. Even Britannica has it as Paris (national capital, France) so we are following normal conventions. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Interesting viewpoint, however, it is not the consensus of Wikipedians, who believe that it is much more convenient to have a primary topic, with such a high consensus that it became one of our policies and guidelines. Feel free to open an RM at Paris asking to have it moved to Paris, France, however, in accordance with the primary topic guideline, it will likely fail. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Concensus? In Bios it isn't. Take John Smith, there is no primary article. What is the primary article is conjecture, which leads to edit wars. Clearly making something clear and simple is easy, and falls in line with what Encyclopedias have done for years. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Not everything has a primary topic. John Smith is such a vague, common name, that of course there isn't one. But Boston, Mass., not Boston, Lincolnshire, is clearly the primary topic and thus does not need a disambiguator. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
So how is Boston MA the primary? The tea party may have taken place their, but that is a page on its own? Boston, Lincolnshire has a history of over 1000 years, while Boston MA is named after the UK town by settlers from their? I would say neither are primary, as they are amongst how over 40 world wide. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I'd say that having 15 times as many residents in the city and 70 times as many in the surrounding area is good evidence towards being primary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
We do it all the time in bios, when there's a clear "primary" topic -- i.e., the one that most of the people entering the name are looking for. Consider, say, Robin Williams, which takes you right to the comedian, even though Robin Williams (disambiguation) shows you eleven other Robins Williams. Over 13,000 page views a day for the comedian's page, and less than a quarter of one percent of those end up on the disambiguation page looking for the other Robin Williams they were looking for. See WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY for how we judge this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not going to go into why Boston is the primary topic, but you can read WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY and then do the analyses between the former and the latter. In any event, Boston isn't a great example since we have an exception for major US cities that don't require disambiguation. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I think Zzyzx11 has the right idea Czarking0 (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You might want to first look at all the archived discussions and proposals listed near the top of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). I count almost 30 dating back to May 2004 discussion, with the last one in February 2023. Even getting the AP Stylebook exception for the 28 or so for the larger cities seemed to be a hassle. I think it had gotten to the point in that last discussion, with over 20 years and 30 discussions with this disputed issue, that the titles are "stable" now and it would be more of a disruption for a massive change rather than keep retaining this existing style. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Admin recall was soundly rejected for two decades before passing in 2024. Consensus can change, and it does. To Davidstewartharvey, the proposal is only for articles such as Louisville, Kentucky, to which Louisville redirects. If this proposal were to pass, Louisville, Kentucky would be moved to Louisville. And once again, no evidence that this is the style in American English. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Well thats just plain wrong! Louisville should redirect to Louisville (disambiguation) as there is more than Louisville in the US - 8 in the US alone plus 1 in Belize! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh and I forgot to say, what do American reality programs for food and property do when they go anywhere? They normally flash the name up in the convention i.e. Boston, MA, which is just an abbreviation of what USPLACE is doing so it is used in American English Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
It's not plain wrong. That is not how we deal with ambiguous names. If something is the primary topic (that is, it is either the most likely reference of that topic that someone is looking for or "itt has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term"), then the article is placed at that page, and a hatnote to a disambiguation page is provided. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
That would make the disambiguation page malplaced. If you think this primary redirect is incorrect, you can request that Louisville (disambiguation) be moved to Louisville. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
If Americans want to be excpetional then let's let them do it somewhere relatively harmless, like this. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Chicdat, WP:ADMINRECALL finally passed in 2024 partly because it was initially identified as part of the larger urgent need to reform RFA. I did not see that sense of urgency in that last 2023 USPLACE discussion -- everybody basically repeats all the same arguments as in the previous discussions, and it ends with no consensus. I do not think you bring anything significantly new to the table that has not already been discussed repeatedly. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Fully concur with User:Zzyzx11's assessment. Also keep in mind that for many American attorneys and other legal professionals, the first Louisville they think of when they hear Louisville is Louisville, Colorado, because that is where the National Institute for Trial Advocacy is currently based. Most people who have heard of Louisville, Kentucky think of it only because they are fast food fans, and of course, all true fast food fans around the world love Yum! Brands. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Which is my point about Primary that I raised, you dont instantly think Louisville, Kentucky but one of the others! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I had no idea NITA was based in Louisville or Colorado. We also don't base a primary topic or decision to disambiguate on whether a small population of people associate something with a place. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that last point. There are over 1.3 million lawyers in the United States, and that's not counting allied legal professionals like paralegals, assistants, and secretaries, many of whom have also heard of NITA because the lawyer they work for ran off to attend a NITA learning-by-doing program. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I would definitely be in favor of allowing more specific exceptions to USPLACE, for additional large or particularly famous cities, and for unambiguously named state capitols. BD2412 T 03:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I'd go for this too, but wouldn't want to overturn USPLACE entirely. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Reminder that someone should post an announcement at WP:USCITY too, because this topic affect far more editors than just those who watch the WP:USPLACE article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). jlwoodwa (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability has an RfC

Wikipedia:Notability has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Talk:Notability (music) has an RfC

Wikipedia Talk:Notability (music) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Note: The RFC pertains to an interpretive issue with regards to WP:NSONG relative to WP:GNG. The former has an absolute prohibition on album reviews as a source of song notability, because they do not cover the song individually. However, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG explicitly allow for "significant" coverage as a grounds for notability, even if it is not the sole or main focus of the source. I would appreciate the feedback of anyone who is very familiar with WP:NSONG FlipandFlopped ツ 18:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s Content Integrity in the Age of AI-Dominated Search

The AI Spotlight is being beamed at us from inside the village pump. Boldly hatting, as I see no way this mode of inquiry will end up being productive. Remsense ‥ 论 05:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Lately, it’s kinda hard not to notice that Wikipedia just doesn’t pop up in search results the way it used to. Instead, more and more, we’re seeing these AI-generated summaries—like the ones from Search Labs or AI Overview—taking the spotlight. That might seem like just another tech trend, but honestly, it could spell trouble for Wikipedia’s future. If people—especially younger folks—aren’t getting directed to the site, it’s gonna get harder and harder for the project to stay relevant or even be seen by the people who’ve always relied on it. Sure, some of this shift is just how search engines are changing. But it also feels like there’s stuff going on inside Wikipedia that’s not helping either. There’s been more talk lately about bias in some articles, and the way certain topics get edited and re-edited can come off as messy or kinda one-sided. It’s not always easy to tell what’s really neutral anymore, and when trust starts slipping, it’s no wonder people look elsewhere. That’s why I think it’s time to double down on keeping things fair and balanced. Nothing too crazy—just some tighter moderation, especially on the kinds of pages that always seem to spark drama. Not to shut anyone up, but to make sure the info stays accurate and doesn't lean too hard in any one direction. Maybe having more experienced editors or small review teams checking in on hot-topic pages could help smooth things out too. Also, if we wanna keep Wikipedia alive for the next gen, we’ve gotta start meeting them where they are. They're growing up with AI and TikTok, not long-form articles. So finding ways to make Wikipedia more approachable—or at least more visible—should be part of the plan too. At the end of the day, Wikipedia's special because it's open, collaborative, and built on trust. If we can keep that spirit alive while adapting just enough to stay in the game, I think it still has a strong future. But if we let it fade out of sight, it’s only gonna get harder to bring it back. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm from India. In a recent reddit post, I found that Wikipedia is no longer in top 10, whereas ChatGPT is at 7th. I have also noticed that Wikipedia is no longer among the top search results as Google and Bing rush to promote their own AI summaries at the top. It would be good if something could be done about it. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
It depends on what you google, doesn't it? At least for me in the USA, the top two search results for any actor are their Wikipedia article and their IMDB page; an "AI Overview" doesn't pop up. If you google questions like "what is the net worth of selena gomez", then an AI Overview pops up as the first result (Wikipedia doesn't appear on the first page, but it does appear when you click the small icon after the AI-generated answer). Some1 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
An "AI overview" is not actually part of the search results. It is something that the search engine offers you as an alternative to the search results that you actually asked for. Essentially, it is spam. It's annoying that idiot search companies are wasting huge amounts of carbon footprint on AI output that nobody even asked for but there's nothing we, as Wikipedia, can do about it. Sanity will prevail at some point but, until then, all I can say is that some search engines let you turn it off and I'd recommend using one of those over the ones too arrogant to allow the user to decide what they get. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
If they are as useless as you say, I imagine it will quickly vanish. If they remain, though, I suspect that they will improve with time. Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Appreciate everyone’s views here. The landscape is changing quite fast, but the value of what we do here on Wikipedia hasn’t changing a bit. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Please don't start a discussion with a blatantly AI-generated message. It wastes everybody's time. JayCubby 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Fully concur with User:JayCubby's analysis of the situation. A quick comparison of the message above with any three or four of that editor's posts (for what appears to be a WP:SPA) reveals glaring discrepancies in style and tone. Enough said. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I must say it's not the classic GPT spam, it has been prompted to act more natural, which is why I think more people haven't noticed. @Xhivetozaragrivropa, is this correct? JayCubby 02:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Well thats incorrect. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
@Xhivetozaragrivropa Do explain, then, why it reads (and GPTZero detects as) it's been generated by a large language model. JayCubby 13:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Have you read the disclaimers on those tools? A while ago, I ran some of my own writing (mainspace contributions) through one, and it was 50–50 whether it would tell me that it was written by an LLM. These are things I know I wrote myself; some of them are even things I wrote before LLMs were generally available to the public.
I hope the detection tools are getting more accurate, but do please remember that it's difficult to guess someone's ordinary style from a mere 26 edits (most of which aren't discussion comments, and one comment just says "ok thanks"), and that LLM detector tools are not necessarily any more reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Point of order This page is for proposals about policies and guidelines. The initial post does not have any actional proposal; it is just a long cry of a despaired soul. Not that I do not share the expressed concerns, but I expect that lacking focus, the section will degenerate into an idle chat (or sizzle). Therefore I suggest to close it. If somebody can filter out some potentially actionable items, it is better to have each of them in a separate focused section. --Altenmann >talk 01:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Actionable points
1. Revoke exclusive human administrator control over high conflict or contentious topics and enforce ai driven moderation systems to deliver consistent, impartial, and real-time oversight addressing the persistent shortcomings of manual governance. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
The link between your introduction and this points of action is not apparent. How do search engines rank Wikipedia in their results have to do with content moderation on wiki? – robertsky (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me-- GreenC 05:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

OP seems to have an axe to grind with CTOP, but as their AI appears to be the one actually speaking to us—if indirectly, filtered through prompts—I see literally no way for this line of inquiry to be productive. OP, if you want to discuss some aspect of site policy (whatever it is) please be more considerate to those reading your messages going forward, and try using your own words if you can. Trying to decode posts like these is a heretofore-unprecedented level of futile and alienating. We can't be expected to do it. Remsense ‥ 论 05:42, 9 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)

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)

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)

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 [2]. 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 [3]. There's something we can fix to make it more clear As a tertiary source, encyclopedias provide sources to further information [4]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)

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)

free-to-use/CC content (AI) released onto Commons, content a valid ref(?)

I put the licensing to the content generated by AI on commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CC-License.png#%7B%7Bint%3Afiledesc%7D%7D (might be red link) (sourced from CopilotAI chat)

This is for the content at Simple Wiki: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catcus_DeMeowwy/CopilotAI_(Microsoft), not a Wikipedia page - it was made by (the) AI. I think this makes the content (AI generated), which (for the record) I understand is free to use, as information, can be used as a source to be referenced when talking about input from Copilot when talking about Copilot.

If the content/information (from Simple Wiki) is used as a source - if it can be with the ref on commons - then it can act as a reference for Wikipedia articles if you would like. That is why I have posted it as well as to [discuss] Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Catcus DeMeowwy, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to convey, but text generated by large language models/AI chats is not a reliable source, and should not be used as sources of information. CMD (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
With references to the information, the information can be used as page with the citation on it (as the info + reference of source) in that (or meaning that) it is referenced to have that bit of verified information. You are right about the source reliability. I admit that I should not be going towards using the article as a source. Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
@Catcus DeMeowwy Copyright is not a problem here, but what you're trying to do is. No, you should not be using AI as a source, even when it's talking about itself, as at simple:User:Catcus_DeMeowwy/CopilotAI_(Microsoft). Cremastra talk 23:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
The article is not on the main site - it is a userpage (for his own research). References will be collected for the article (to verify facts and info) so that it is well-cited as well as being vetted by human(s). Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Can you then clarify what the end goal of this project is, then? Why do you need AI? Will this ever be published in mainspace? And why are you asking here as opposed to at the Simple Wikipedia? Cremastra talk 13:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • No, it will never go to mainspace
  • Asked here because en. Wiki is more active but I love them
  • I needed AI to create this page because the page has been created to need AI; the article is written by Copilot, not to generate Wiki content or take shortcuts, but to have spent an afternoon talking to it, getting content to store, for others to read. I hope that the content is an enjoyable tidbit of Wiki. It is more fun to read than a human article (even if it wouldn't be where you go to get the more reliable article) and is an article about AI written by AI, and, moreover it is something that is unique to the wiki (userpage) in the concept even if you disregard the material
    • it is a "pretty cool" store of information on the Wikipedia, and we have to store the data
    • I would hope that eventually - with sources/references, again from AI however - even if it is only for tagging things to the Wikidata project (to Simple) - it can be used as a source. But that dream is dead. I am still going to stress that it would be a good - valid - source to reference (referencing the Wiki text, then including the source (the link on the Wiki, and the Wiki article). I just want to close this by saying that I am saying this (what I believe) to push and challenge from an academic or philosophical/Wiki point-of-view to change your scholars' minds and the main target is the use of a Wiki (mainspace even) article for reference and the interesting bit about Wikidata
  • This is a random reply that is not meant to go anywhere. Like I said I have given up
It was a fun afternoon and I will do it again sometime. It's a shame that editors in the present are so against this, I feel as though if I tried to change the status-quo I will get bitten, and it's best to leave it. I expect no give or leeway and you don't even have to reply to me, if you don't want to. But also don't think that I took so long to write this, in the time between your message and mine. I also didn't use AI. If you do want to reply then can I also ask for feedback on my messages and how I approached the situation? Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) 17:40, 27 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)
Not disagreeing with you but (only for my curiosity in law), what defense are you using to say that? That's all. But just a note, I do remember there being a problem that courts had with illegal content on some website (maybe it was MEGA) just because it was linked - and not hosted - on the website, so they did not have any copyright material because of that Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
As I understand it, the reason we don't link to copyright violations is because we choose not to endorse/facilitate copyright violations rather than because it would be illegal to do so. On the other hand I believe it would be illegal for us to knowingly link to content like child pornography. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
As WP:LINKVIO describes, linking to copyvios can be a form of contributory copyright infringement. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:13, 28 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)
Aye. For those with a long wiki-memory, there was the time that it was decided that Gropecunt Lane should be Today's Featured Article. Should that article exist? Of course it should, and it's a great article - go and read it now if you haven't seen it before! But regardless of the arguments about whether it should have been a TFA in the first place (there was clearly a lot of juvenile sniggering that we'd placed it there), there was a further problem that cunt itself was linked in the blurb. This had the effect of wiping out Wikipedia's front page for every education establishment that had a content filter (which, by law is every single one in the UK with students under 18, and I'm sure the same thing was true in other countries). The actual name of the article wasn't an issue, because content filters have to cope with the Scunthorpe problem and would allow the title. However, when I tried to persuade people "Could we just not change the blurb so that the secondary link isn't there?" we immediately got lots of people jumping up and down yelling NOTCENSORED! NOTCENSORED! and so it remained for the rest of the day. It was not a great day in Wikipedia history, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Sounds more like a black day in UK government history to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
literally 1984(?) Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
No, July 9, 2009. Anomie⚔ 21:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
1839 Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
duel 1971 vroom vroom consarn (duel 1971 vroom vroom) 18:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
while i think an argument should first be made about what counts as dangerous... yeah, avoiding links that seem dangerous sounds good to me. regardless of whether or not i wake up the next day with a craving for a career in pipe bomb production, i kinda don't wanna turn my pc on the next day to see a command prompt window opening and closing within 5 frames. thus, if something like this is enforced a little harder, i'd apply it to malware (duh), and to stuff that could teach and/or actively encourage dangerous stuff (like making electric chairs or buying brazilian anti-kaiju rifles (whatever a brazil is)), unless absolutely necessary for the context of an article and reliable in said context, and with preference towards sources about them (regardless of whether or not they provide direct access to it). in some cases, this could be left to burgerland law, but i think editor discretion should be enough
for the case in pipe bomb, i ironically don't think the average reader needs to know how to make one, but links showing how to at least not fuck up the process should be "less not fine". as in still better discussed first, but if it comes from a reliable source, there could be a discussion on whether or to include it consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 19:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

BLP1E is split into two pages

WP:BLP1E links to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons where it gives us standards for people only known for one event. WP:1E links to Wikipedia:Notability (people) where it also gives us standards for people only known for one event. We might consider revisiting this guideline to make it clearer and easier to evaluate, especially since it's one of the more commonly-invoked SNG rules. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

They're the same concept but they are different still, because BLP1E applies to living persons (and the very recently deceased), requiring far more care for inclusion that goes beyond mere notability, whereas 1E is a bit more flexible for handle long-since-dead individuals. Masem (t) 12:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
If this is how the community wants it kept, or if this is the least bad option, then so be it. But I don't think this is the most efficient way to go about it. BLP1E is almost entirely a duplication of the ideas at 1E, the only meaningful difference being that it introduces the concept of a "low-profile individual". And low-profile individuals are introduced a few sections above BLP1E in WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. The other side of things is that it might be a community norm issue. In my experience, BLP1E is often cited when people really mean 1E or NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
If the person is living, there are much stricter rules than what's applied to long dead people. Its a far more restrictive policy compared to the guideline that 1E is within. Yes, they overlap greatly, and BLP1E could be seen as a specialized form of 1E, but there's plenty of issues that they need to be discussed separately. Ideally, we should be narratively linking them so users know they are closely connected, but they still are distinct parts of P&G. Masem (t) 18:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
But that's my point. BLP1E doesn't impose much stricter rules. Besides a brief mention of low-profile individuals, the rules at BLP1E are a condensed, smaller-scale version of 1E. If there are issues that need to be discussed separately, then that discussion is not taking place at BLP1E. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
BLP1E and 1E are inherently very different. BLP1E isn't about notability; it's a courtesy to BLP subjects. 1E is about notability. They end up being similar in implementation but they come from very different places and should not be conflated. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_201&oldid=1290049913"