Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:PROPOSE" redirects here. For proposing article deletion, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion requests.
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts

The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.

Proposal for something

Original heading: "Good Night". ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could put a table of acknowledgments of edits also comparing with the page, would that be good? Exxxtrasmall (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what the page history is for? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't. I prefer to compare non-editor articles with this parameter and not users. Exxxtrasmall (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Exxxtrasmall, but I can't make sense of either your original post or the reply above. Could you elaborate a bit, or say what you want to say in your native language and let the reader translate? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prefiro a segunda opção como falante nativo de português. Exxxtrasmall (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much Portuguese (only a few words I have learnt from friends, mostly Brazilian), but I think that translates to "I prefer the second option as a native Portuguese speaker". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Podia criar uma tabela atualizada por um bot "ranqueando" (ranking) as 5000 páginas do domínio principal com mais "thanks log" (agradecimentos em português). Exxxtrasmall (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that you'd find it useful to have a way to see a compact list of distinct contributors to an article instead of combing through every one of the thousands of contributions from a few contributors in order to get their names? If you want to get a list of who's contributed to an article instead of a list of every contribution, that's not currently easy to do AFAIK.
Now I'm trying to think of what that might be used for. If I understand your message correctly, your use case is to thank everyone who contributed to an article? (Sorry, I don't speak Portuguese either; just attempting to understand based on French and Latin cognates.) -- Avocado (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When viewing an article click history, then page statistics, which brings you to something like this that lists contributors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TIL -- thank you! -- Avocado (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tipo, uma página assim ranqueando os artigos e não os usuários. Exxxtrasmall (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's there for articles, too. Use "View History" -> "Page Statistics". Here's an example: https://https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Portuguese_language#top-editors . And then a link at the bottom of that table to view "3,238 others". -- Avocado (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mas usando como eixo/vetor cartesiano da tabela principal os artigos do domínio principal, não do domínio usuário Exxxtrasmall (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translation: "But using articles from the main domain, not the user domain, as the Cartesian axis/vector of the main table". ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a "top contributors" section of the would be possible (omit reverted edits)? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mas não quero estatísticas de top- contribuintes e sim de top bibliografias citadas e/ou de top artigos com mais bibliografias. Calvice feminina (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I can't understand what you are saying(even with the help of google translate, because it is a bit confusing). May I ask if you could please use english instead? This is english wikipedia after all. there is portguese wikipedia in case you need it. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't want statistics on the top contributors, I want statistics on the top bibliographies cited and/or the top articles with the most bibliographies. Calvice feminina (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to know where the sources came from?
Simply scroll down to the references section, and you may see references that are used multiple times. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what others have said, if you're looking for the most used reference within a given article you can check the number of pointers used in the references section, though that can vary based on citation style. If instead you're curious about the most times a single reference is used in any one article, at present that would be Smith's sea fishes in List of marine bony fishes of South Africa. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Calvice feminina, are you looking for Wikipedia:Articles with the most references or https://diff.wikimedia.org/2018/04/05/ten-most-cited-sources-wikipedia/ ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or the number of times citation |title= links are followed? I doubt that would be technically possible, as Wikipedia software is not involved in the processing of clicks on links. I detect a bit of a language barrier, and Google isn't helping much. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We actually do have the answer to that, at the whole-site level. It's doi:10.1145/3366423.3380300. The answer is about once for every 300 page views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

There could be a table of articles with more bibliographies; collecting data from ISSN, ISBN, ASIN and others for example. Exxxtrasmall (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This could be an intriguing idea, but you will have to give a little more context and explain what you're talking about. What is meant by "more" bibliographies?, and are you referring to Bibliography sections in articles or list articles like this one? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like this one, but per books. Exxxtrasmall (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there are articles like that in Wikipedia, but I am not convinced that they belong. I feel that they fall afoul of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Donald Albury 13:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wholly agree. I once nominated a Bibliography article for deletion, with a similar rationale, not knowing that it was actually a type of article. Needless to say, it was kept, but I'm still not convinced they're encylcopedic. Cremastra (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do also agree, although I believe bibliographies can be useful – just not necessarily as article themselves. It is true that we do have non-articles in the article namespace: lists, disambiguation pages, etc. However, bibliographies can be a bit more problematic as they may easily fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Some other Wikipedia editions have a separate "Annex" namespace from which we might take inspiration, so these bibliographies can still be used as resources without necessarily being under the same status as mainspace. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a cool idea. (Maybe WP:RA should also be in Annex?) Cremastra (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citizendium has a Bibliography sub-page for articles that includes all sources used in the article and Further reading. Personally, I want to keep cited sources in the article, but a Bibliography sub-page would be nice for an expanded Further reading section. Donald Albury 22:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with that! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Standalone lists are technically a kind of article, but your point still stands with disambiguation pages. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I previously proposed to Wikimedia the creation of a new page titled "Library" to be placed alongside the talk page. This page would serve as a dedicated space for listing the essential bibliographies. Given the impracticality of including an extensive list of references in a single article. Riad Salih (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea, and could be an implementation of the "Annex" namespace I suggested earlier! Looking at other Wikipedia editions, Spanish Wikipedia has a very broad view of what goes in annexes, including a lot of list material which we would most likely prefer to keep in mainspace (Portuguese Wikipedia also used to have it, although it has been deprecated due to its subjectivity/vagueness in scope). On the opposite side, French Wikipedia has a Reference namespace, which only stores different editions of a single work.
I do believe that a middle ground aiming at covering bibliographies and lists of reference materials (including "Further reading" sections and {{refideas}}) could be a helpful namespace to have. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I have little time, a lot of burnout and the chance of the WP:RA formatting going wrong is immense, could someone use a bot or help me in some way with this? WP:RA formatting going wrong is immense, could someone use a bot or help me in some way with this? Calvice feminina (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Help were, @Xavier1824, Rodrigo Padula, RodRabelo7, and Jvbignacio9:. Calvice feminina (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Captions

Hi, I started a discussion about some texts I found unclear, at least for me, regarding when we don't have to add captions. Those who are interested, please share your opinion here. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in coverage of Jeffrey Epstein ties

I had brought up this issue in individual discussion pages, but the argument generally ran afoul of WP:OSE, so I was advised to take the issue up to a community level. I hope this is an appropriate venue for it.

Currently, the articles for Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Peter Mandelson, Lawrence Krauss, Nathan Myhrvold, Steven Hoffenberg and Jes Staley have detailed sections accounting their relationships with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The article on Donald Trump, who also had a well-documented relationship with Epstein, has no such section. This strikes me as a clear double standard. I had suggested adding an equivalent section to Trump's article, but got shot down on the grounds of it lending undue weight to the matter and assigning guilt by association to Trump.

That may be, but if that is the case, the sections in the other articles I mentioned shouldn't have such a section either. There simply is no valid reason to treat the Epstein connection as worth reporting on for all these other people, but not in Donald Trump's article. Either an equivalent section should be added, or the sections should be removed from the other articles where it's not essential.

The double standard seems especially galling due to the inclusion of Epstein info in Clinton and Gates' articles. By mentioning the matter in their pages, but omitting in in Trump's article, Wikipedia seems to be replicating Trumpian propaganda where the Epstein associations are treated as being of huge importance for Trump's political foes, but are minimized and treated as unimportant for Trump himself. I see this as an effective breach of Wikipedia's neutrality rules, and one that needs to be corrected. TKSnaevarr (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to bring it to community level, the appropriate venue is probably an RFC, I think -- the Trump article has a lot of those -- unless you're proposing something more general than just for Trump's article, which is probably unnecessary. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Mrgoogles. WP:OCON. Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, then, since I'm the one who sent the OP in this direction. But I think an RfC should be here, not at the Trump article, since it will potentially impact at least three articles (Trump, Clinton, Gates). Pardon my pesky, obsessive need for organization. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible location to discuss it is WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN (but it should be in one location, not several.) That said, my experience is that weighing articles directly against each other rarely goes anywhere constructive - even aside from WP:OCON, there's too many individual differences, both in the articles and their subjects. A more useful discussion might be to take a step back and ask what the general threshold should be for including Epstein file stuff on BLPs, at various levels of granularity (no mention / brief sentence / paragraph / subsection / full section, hopefully based on coverage levels) Making the discussion general and limiting specific focus on individuals (although some will obviously come up as examples) is more likely to produce useful results. Then, once those guidelines have been hammered out, you can turn around, figure out which articles are out of line with them, and raise that issue on their talk pages. --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really anything to discuss at a general level other than "follow WP:DUE" and assess whether content at issue complies with the policy? signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is - we could establish clear guidelines on what the threshold ought to be for each. For example, a devoted section could require WP:SUSTAINED coverage (eg. over the course of several months) in high-quality sources devoted solely to the subject's connection to Epstein (as opposed to just sources that mention them in passing as one of many people connected to them), or actual legal processes that sources treat as placing them in genuine jeopardy, or dedicated high-quality sourcing outside of the news media, or something of that nature. If there's sparse coverage dedicated to the figure specifically but none of the other things, it might get a paragraph rather than a section. If no coverage is dedicated to the figure specifically, and they're just mentioned in passing in larger articles, they might get a sentence or nothing. Part of the issue is that the conspiratorial thinking surrounding Epstein and many related figures makes it hard to judge due weight objectively; it also attracts many editors who are inexperienced with our processes and who therefore may feel that the simple fact that coverage exists makes a section due. Having guidelines we can point to saying "roughly this threshold" will make it easier to either decrease excessive weight where it doesn't belong, or increase it where we need more focus. And it'll give us at least something vaguely objective to use as a yardstick - otherwise WP:DUE can become highly subjective, which is a problem when dealing with so many highly controversial political figures. If you look at the figures mentioned here - Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Peter Mandelson, Lawrence Krauss, Nathan Myhrvold, Steven Hoffenberg, Jes Staley, Donald Trump, etc - they differ wildly in how much weight the article gives them, for reasons that are simply unclear; establishing guidelines would avoid that problem. --Aquillion (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the question, for all the Myhrholds there may be, and however responses would be phrased, would come down to Donald Trump, as if often does, whether there should be such a section on his page. Thus, my view is having another discussion elsewhere, when the Trump talk page has extensively discussed this matter, would be WP:FORUMSHOP.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is certainly an outlier, but the point is partially to avoid getting bogged down in people's opinions on highly-divisive individuals like that, and partially to escalate to a broader consensus on how to handle Epstein-related stuff about individuals due to concerns about inconsistency - it is not forum-shopping to escalate a potential problem that affects multiple articles to seek a broader consensus, which would (obviously) override any local consensuses on the affected articles per WP:CONLOCAL, and which is therefore clearly not duplicitive. That said, depending on where we set the threshold, it could just eg. result in less coverage on other articles (or more). If the problem is that we're doing it inconsistently, though (and I think there's a fair case for it), talking about broad guidelines might make people approach it more objectively and produce more constructive discussions. (Truthfully, my honest expectation is that the main thing such a review would discover is that we're probably significantly over-emphasizing Epstein stuff on a wide range of articles - for many of the listed articles it's just really hard to justify the level we have with the sources that are present. But that's an easier argument to make if we can determine rough guidelines first.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding WP:OCON, it's often cited without reading it; While consistency with other pages is not a good argument by itself, comparisons between pages are often made in order to illustrate a more substantial argument; as such, comparative statements should not be dismissed out of hand unless they lack any deeper reasoning. While relying on comparisons to other articles is generally unconvincing, articles that have been through some form of quality review—such as featured articles, good articles, or articles that have achieved a WikiProject A-class rating—are often the way they are for good reasons informed by site policy. If such articles have remained current with policy since their promotion, they are often more compelling examples to illustrate arguments. Many of the articles in question have undergone feature review, and a lot of the discussion has emphasized commonalities in sourcing that are not accurately reflected in our level of coverage, so there's an obvious deeper reasoning here. This shows that, yes, there is probably an underlying problem, which is best resolved by the sort of centralized discussion I outlined above that at least attempts to avoid getting bogged down in people's opinions about individual article subjects and instead tries to determine rough guidelines that can be used to then look back at the list of articles and confirm in a more systematic way whether WP:DUE is being properly applied. --Aquillion (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that our article on Prince Andrew also has such a section. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems more clearly pertinent in his case, since he faced pretty substantial consequences over his Epstein accusations and was personally accused by one of Epstein's victims of complicity, which is why I didn't include his article when I wrote the OP. TKSnaevarr (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will an infobox have ... a collapse button?

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

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

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

Doesn't seem unreasonable, and it would solve the headache of editing in V10 and having everything look nice and then looking at your article in V22 and being horrified. Of course, this could also be remedied by the WMF not dictatorially insisting on V22 here and on more and more other projects, but we all know that isn't going to happen.
I don't know about "will", but this is certainly a "could", maybe even a "should" – and should be relatively easy to implement, given some changes to the meta-template {{infobox}}. Cremastra talk 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather say now, that "all infobox should have a collapse button". I would rather hear more opinions from the others. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on immigration terminology in Wikipedia articles

RCraig09 has begun an RFC about which of the terms "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented immigrant" should be used in Wikipedia articles. Please comment at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States#Terminology: "Illegal" immigrant vs "Undocumented" immigrant in article mainspace. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Show total amount of bytes added on contributions page

In the article history tab, the amount of bytes is shown(and the amount of bytes a contribution added/removed is also shown, own both the history). I propose that we show the total amount of bytes added from a user to their contributions page, as currently it own shows the total amount of contributions. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They bytes change is listed on every line of user contributions already, see Special:Contributions/Thehistorianisaac. — xaosflux Talk 09:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do know that, but i am proposing that it show the total amount, not just the byte change every contribution, like how there is a total contribution count Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not something that we can configure here on the English Wikipedia, however you could file a feature request for that to be added to the software. — xaosflux Talk 09:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This feature could incentivize the wrong behaviours by gamifying byte collection. At the same time, a byte difference does not display total changes, but the net of addition/deletion. So if I replace 1000 bytes with 1,001 bytes, it will show an addition of one byte instead of 2,001 different bytes. Counter-vandal editors and bots might find it useful for detecting unusual editing, but in of itself, the byte differences don't say much and if we were to make MediaWiki edits, it should be to hide this altogether. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the use of this number? A good editor may do more for the quality of an article by removing over-verbosity someone else added, or by reverting long vandal screeds. So what, other than a new kind of Wikipedia:Editcountitis, would benefit from this? Anomie⚔ 11:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One can see this per page via Xtools. This is accessible by clicking Page information under Tools, and then selecting Revision history statistics. Note however that it only tallies positive contributions.  novov talk edits 12:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New modified version:
Show bytes removed plus bytes added. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac for small edits this would be helpful. No matter what two-bytes are changed, I know I can quickly review that. Whereas if a change has 5,000 bytes, it could be a false positive (indenting is an example) or could be genuinely larger change. It would still be questionable, but certainly more useful. See mw:Edit Review Improvements pinging @Pppery@Trizek (WMF) who may know of relevant discussions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing * Pppery * it has begun... 00:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

What about starting with low-number metals, like scandium, and then continuing? I like the idea of climbing the elemental chain element by element, but I think we should start with the lowest-number transition metal and then continue. Then there would be more novelty to having high-number elements. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it depends on the number of likely discoveries in the next few decades. I'll concede that Scandium as a start point would work for the next few decades. But then so would the half life option. ϢereSpielChequers 00:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bot that corrects date formats

Would it make sense to have a bot that corrects date formats outside of links, images/other files, templates, and references? Such a bot would probably need to be semi-automated (to reduce the number of false positives) and would change an mdy date to dmy on an article with {{Use dmy dates}} (or vice versa).

I've already made some code for this at User:PharyngealImplosive7/Date-checker.py, though it doesn't completely work yet.

I would like to get others' opinion on such an idea before any bot is actually accepted. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources already render according to {{Use dmy dates}} no matter what the format is (Day Month YYYY, YYYY-MM-DD or Month, Day YYYY). Why can't we implement this logic in the body? It would spend less time editing source code and more time on rendering the output consistently. Editors who add YYYY-MM-DD would be confident their date is correct/useful regardless. The downside I can imagine of course is variation/ambiguity when it's just DD-MM or MM-DD but contextually relevant within larger paragraph. Lastly, if we are to encourage editing, this would be a beginner task for WP:Suggested edits, where if editors make mistakes it would be acceptable generally (if solely switching order of dates). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess such a method would probably require the creation of a new template that automatically formats all dates based on whether the article has {{Use dmy dates}} or {{Use mdy dates}} (since most dates in articles are just free text, not in any template). Then, a bot would have to add such a template to every date on the encyclopedia, and these templates could misformat dates in quotes, links, and templates incorrectly. Like you said, ambiguity is also a problem. As a result, I think that a supervised bot is a better idea since it requires much less work. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't immediately find where, but automatic formatting of dates (either in software or by unsupervised bot) has been rejected at least a couple of times before, largely for the reasons PI7 gives around context (especially regarding quotes) and ambiguity of things that look like dates but aren't (software version numbers and phone numbers come to mind as examples). There are also places where it is desirable or even necessary to have inconsistency (e.g. when discussing different date formats). I don't recall seeing a discussion about a supervised bot previously but as long as articles without any date format tag are left unchanged the only issue I can think of is whether just changing the date format would be regarded as a cosmetic edit. I don't think I would classify it as such, but I can see why some people might so definitely best to get multiple opinions on this. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dabomb87:There is a summary of some of the discussions at User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs. That was a little different because they tried to show different date formats according to the readers' preferences, which was a huge failure. But many of the pitfalls of attempting an automated change apply to this proposal. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is the height of frustration when spreadsheet programs decide to turn what you've written into dates and then decide to reformat your input. Importing such automatic 'help' into Wikipedia sounds like a nightmare. CMD (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've seen some of the failed proposals before, which is why I made the decision to make any implementation of such a bot supervised and excluding a wide variety of things (after all, false negatives are better than false positives here). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1283368861"