Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) - Wikipedia


7 people in discussion

Article Images

The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
Before creating a new section, note:

Before commenting, note:

  • This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
  • Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

« Archives, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

In the spirit essays like WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! and WP:ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI and WP:UPPERCASE, I'm trying to do a lot more lowercase fullnaming when referencing policies like WP:OriginalResearch or wp:competenceisrequired. I've personally found this less likely to be cognitively associated with shouting or lawyering, more self-explanatory without needing a hover, and much easier on the eyes. Hopefully newer editors have felt the same.

Two things I'd like to address:

  1. Not all subpolicies have redirects in both lowercase and camelcase. I just want to make sure they can all be made without controversy.
  2. On the policy pages themselves, the shortcuts to subpolicies are always uppercase. So we have (in RS) both WP:UBO and USEBYOTHERS as shortcuts in the box, but as only UBO is an acronym, why can't we have the second shortcut suggestion be WP:UseByOthers? (Similar across the P&G.) It's just an indicator that other shortcuts besides UPPERCASE exist.

Relatively minor thing that won't change the actual functionality of anything. It just makes the replaces the suggested full-name spelling (not acronyms) of P&G shortcuts from uppercase to camelcase. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

To pre-empt the objection that editors should pipe plaintext to P&G as suggested in the essays I linked: I agree, that's great, if editors actually did it with any regularity. For my own part, piping is an extra bit of typing that may not be as clear that I'm referencing P&G in discussion in the first place, which is often important, since I've found people rarely click links anyway. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think you're likely to get any pushback on point 1. It has long been my practice to refer to such things in whichever case makes most sense in the sentence I am writing (usually lower case or with a capitalised first letter) and, if "show preview" shows it as a red link, create a redirect. I don't think I've ever had anyone revert this. I'll have to think a bit more about point 2 - there's a danger of bloat there. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
To be clear on #2: in the box in the P&G that gives the shortcuts in bold blue text: one is an acronym and one is the fullname, so in my linked example, the box says Shortcuts: WP:UBO WP:USEBYOTHERS. I suggest replacing the fullname shortcut in the P&G from allcaps to camelcase, so the box now says Shortcuts: WP:UBO WP:UseByOthers. I'm not sure where you're seeing bloat, as not a single byte is being added or subtracted, and functionally nothing is changed. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see one possible point of contention: in many skins including legacy vector, the search includes all redirects, and some might be annoyed to see a ton of redirects preemptively clog up the suggestions when they want to find something else after typing the first word. Personally, I like point 2-style redirects much better. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Legacy Vector search is case-sensitive? So if I start searching "mrna", it brings up a list including "Mrna", "mRna", "mRNA", all of which link to the same thing? If that's the case, and someone is still using such software, then the adding or removing of case-sensitive redirects has surely long since stopped being a cause of heartache for that person. SamuelRiv (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are a great many ways of searching Wikipedia, some of which are case-insensitive and display a list of possible results as you type. This includes the internal search engine, which is independent of which skin you use (you see the same results in vector, vector legacy, monobook, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the internal search engine brings up multiple results to the same page due to redirects. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That makes sense. Still, I like the CamelCase redirects better since it's very clear where the words separate. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You know what separates words more clearly than CamelCase? Anything spaces. "You're violating our policy about WP:BiographiesOfLivingPeople" vs. "You're violating our policy about WP:biographies of living people." Also easier to type; mostly doesn't need new redirects; and looks way less weird to everyone but programmers. (WP:biographiesoflivingpeople is even worse.) —Cryptic 12:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't advocate for redirects like that and merely repeat the title. The UseByOthers example goes to a section with a different name. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
As could WP:Use by others. —Cryptic 12:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
CamelCase is a tiny bit less effort to type and still indicates that the link is a shortcut. I think the reason everything caps is precisely to differentiate them as redirects, and some of that differentiation should be preserved. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Personally I don't feel that the visible link text should be differentiated as redirects. This primarily serves to codify a term (in allcaps or camel case) as jargon. There are times when this can lead to greater concision, but most of the time the gain is small, with a cost of greater confusion for those who don't already know the title of the destination and the corresponding text. For example, often non-neutral points of view get labelled as being WP:NPOV. I appreciate the point of view that learning a community's jargon is part of joining that community. I feel, though, that English Wikipedia has plenty of jargon already without every shortcut being used as jargon. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The reason I'd advocate camelcase as the second suggested redirect (in the little redirects box in the P&G sections), as opposed to spaced-out prose versions (which I'd also like to see used more by editors), is that camelcase is also at least a little suggestive that there is an acronym people use, or i.e. that a newbie following a discussion might more readily deduce 'WP:UseByOthers ↔ WP:UBO'. If everyone here would prefer listing 'WP:Use by others', that's fine by me; one could also put three shortcuts instead of just the two: 'WP:UBO WP:UseByOthers WP:Use by others'. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, spelling abbreviations out can at least give clue as to what the jargon means. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SamuelRiv, if you'd like this to be a bit easier, then try switching from 'Source' to 'Visual' in the Reply tool for a few days.
Use its Link tool for adding links. In the visual mode, just type [[ and it'll notice that you want to make a link and open the tool for you (alternatively, click the button in the toolbar or use the keyboard shortcut (=⌘K on a Mac). Type the shortcut (e.g., WP:CORP) into the link search box, and it will offer you a link to the full title (e.g., Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). For individual sections, open the page in a tab, and paste the whole URL into your comment. For example, I opened WP:SIRS in another tab, and pasting the whole URL gives me a nicely formatted link to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria.
I suggest trying this out for a few days and seeing whether you like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@WhatamIdoing The source mode's link tool in the toolbar does the same thing. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The [[ sequence only works in the visual mode. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but the link icon in the toolbar works the same. (Also, ConvenientDiscussions has an inline-typing linking-assisting pop-up that autocompletes, even though it doesn't automatically expand the redirect.) Aaron Liu (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Late response, but this is awkward in discussions. In practice, editors have wanted to have a shorthand way to both type out the policy they are referencing and also to read-and-refer to it. The problem is that anyone who hasn't been on discussion pages for years has no idea where to even begin understanding what they mean, so camelcase at least is a middle ground that mitigates two issues: shout-i-ness and un-parse-ability of alphabettispaghetti. The replacement in the side boxes is a completely passive notification to editors that camelcase is simply another option for typing the thing they always type, even though typing the whole policy out, or linking it into prose, would of course (usually) be preferable. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
If we are to proceed with advertising such shortcuts in {{sh}} boxes, I'm sure that's visible enough to necessitate an RfC, or at least {{centralized discussion}}. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Draftification has long been criticized as a backdoor to deletion. In New Pages Patrol (NPP), it is common to move new articles that are not ready for mainspace to draftspace. This way, articles that could potentially be suitable for Wikipedia, but are not yet, are preserved. The article creator then gets a chance to improve their article without NPPers breathing down their necks or having it taken to Articles for Deletion. If anyone, including the article creator, objects to draftification, the article should be moved back to mainspace (draftification should be reversed). This is explained by DRAFTNO #6 and #7. No reason is required for the objection.

Problem: However, we also have a rule that drafts that haven't been edited for six months get automatically deleted, under Criterion for Speedy Deletion G13. So, well-meaning New Page Patrollers will unilaterally draftify new articles that are not yet ready for the encyclopedia. The new editors who created the article may disagree with the move, without knowing that they can object. The new users can get discouraged and leave Wikipedia altogether, and after six months the draft is deleted under CSD G13. As this process happens without community discussions, it results in draftification being called a "backdoor to deletion".

Solution: This problem can be solved without changing policy or current practice. We just need to make it very obvious to new users that they can object to draftification. We can also make it easy to reverse the draftication (assuming the new user is autoconfirmed). I suggest we do this by adding a template to all draftified articles. The template would include a big blue button, similar to the "Submit the draft for review!" button at Template:AfC submission/draft, which says "Object to this move". Clicking this button either: 1. Leaves a message on the talk page of the editor who draftified, notifying them that there has been an objection to the move and requesting that it be immediately reversed. 2. Moves the page back to mainspace automatically, or if the editor's account is unable to perform this task, creates an entry at Requested moves/Technical moves to that effect. The latter is better, but also more technically complex. Adding a similar button to Template:Uw-articletodraft, the warning typically given upon draftification, would also be helpful.

Implementation: Once the new template is ready, it can be added to MPGuy's MoveToDraft userscript, which is the most common way for NPPers to draftify articles. It should be placed above the AfC template on all draftified articles.

I would appreciate comments from technically skilled editors, who could create this template (or tell me that it's impossible), from NPPers who draftify articles, and from uninvolved editors who have opinions on the draftification process. Toadspike [Talk] 10:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This idea isn't really my own, it was obviously sparked by the most recent RfA. A similar idea was previously discussed here, but that discussion proposed a requirement that all editors have to follow (policy), not a technical solution, and turned into a trainwreck. To prevent something similar, I ask all participants to please focus on improving the current situation instead of debating the morality of draftification as a whole. Toadspike [Talk] 11:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Notifying the users who commented most directly on this topic at the RfA: @Alalch E.@User:Onel5969@User:Hobit@User:Fangz@User:Nsk92. I have also notified the NPP Talk page and posted a message on Discord. I am not sure how to notifying all participants of the previous discussion (aside from doing it manually) and I am not sure that is productive considering how many people were involved and how offtopic it got, so I won't do that for now. Toadspike [Talk] 11:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure you want to make this an RfC? Is there a BEFORE somewhere? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good point, I am not sure if the RfC label applies, so I'll remove the templates. I was looking for ways to notify people and misread RFCBEFORE. Toadspike [Talk] 11:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose: The draftification message could be tweaked, but a big button to reverse the move will lead to more AfDs, higher strain on NPP, more BITEY behaviour, and worse editor retention. Draft space is incredibly valuable, and people have some incredibly warped views about the space. If we did something like this then we'd end up chasing away new editors because learning how to make your article meet our complicated guidelines in under 7 days (AfD tag) is not easy for a lot of folks. Draft space gives them the opportunity to work on the content, to receive advise, and to make articles that will actually survive at AfD and allow them to stick around. Really we need to draftify more, and I've taken it upon myself to begin to do so again and encourage others to do. I'm big on editor retention. This is not the way to do it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The problem with unilateral draftification is that it can also be incredibly bitey, especially when done for arbitrary reasons that have nothing to do with any of the reasons why something might be deleted at AfD (although this is less prevalent than the trivial reasons things are rejected at AfC). We should be draftifying fewer articles and not sending them to AfD either but rather leaving them in the mainspace (With appropriate tags where justified) so that they can be found and improved rather than pretending that they don't exist for six months and then deleting them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not really convinced draftification is any worse than the alternatives - tagging is *also* bitey as well, and one user tagging an article and leaving it in mainspace could lead to another user seeing it and deciding to AfD. Draftification could be a way to protect an article until it enters a better state. But I think the other part I have an issue with is the lack of clear guidelines. Clearly some people have an issue with draftification and others do not, and people have different ideas what it is for. That needs to be made more concrete. Otherwise just saying "we should use draftification less" isn't going to lead to any positive changes. Fangz (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with the general sentiment – arguing for more or less draftification does not solve the problem that new users basically can't object to it. Toadspike [Talk] 12:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I envision a template (possibly one specific for relatively new users?) being something like:
    1. Hi, this article has been moved to a draft form because another user thinks it has potential but is not ready for the encyclopedia just yet. REASON:
    2. You can continue to work on it while it's not published, though note that if not editted for 6 months it will be deleted. Here are some useful resources.
    3. When you think the article is ready you can submit the article to a review, which can give useful feedback. []
    4. Alternatively you may return the article to the main encyclopedia at any time and have it be editted while part of the main encyclopedia. See WP: Draft Object. Note however that if other users think there are unfixable issues with the article it may be put forward as a candidate for deletion. Fangz (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I like the idea for the user warning. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Tagging never leads to an article being automatically deleted. – Joe (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In my view draftified articles should (semi?) automatically return to the mainspace after timeout instead of be deleted. Or at least be re-evaluated for notability. I do not really see the reason for automatic speedy deletion, except as backdoor deletion. Fangz (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I like that idea. They don't, though, so it's a bit of a moot point in terms of current policy. – Joe (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Why can't they just improve it in mainspace, without the sting on of an initial rejection and a six month deletion countdown hanging over them? I don't get why you keep presenting this as a choice between draftspace and AfD. – Joe (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The reason is that "improving it in mainspace" has its own issues. An article in mainspace has to juggle being of service to the reader to being of service to the editor. This implies formal processes and wikijargon for consistency, unified templates for issues in the article, clear and ruthless labelling of problems and so on. There's a strong tendency for the first experience of an editor to be a very public and humiliating fight against established editors who have a better understanding of wikipedia processes, quickly driving the editor away or getting them blocked. It is also very difficult to improve on this experience as it would imply fundamental changes affecting all sorts of things. Meanwhile improving an article in draft mode allows for a more informal process of communication to shepherd an article towards an acceptable state. Fangz (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I did a little work on page view statistics recently. The median article gets about one page view per week. So if the new article is typical, then it doesn't have to "be of service to the reader", because there aren't really any readers. Editors (especially NPP and RecentChanges folks) may look at a brand-new article a few dozen times on the first day, but once the reviewers leave it alone, most articles just don't have much traffic.
    I think the reason we are unwilling to "improve it in mainspace" is because we're scared that we'll forget that it was there, and years later, someone will be embarrassed to discover that an WP:UGLY article has been neglected ever since. We are using draftification and other threats as a way to make other WP:VOLUNTEERS improve the article to our idea of acceptable quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don't know if we're looking at different draft namespaces, but an "informal process of communication to shepherd an article towards an acceptable state" sounds like the precise opposite of our current AfC process. – Joe (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't like the idea of a button but I do think the template should be changed. I think having a button suggests it's a default option, but I think a link is okay. Fangz (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • This is the idea lab so no bolded comment from me, but I have mixed feelings. I am in favour of softening the experience for newcomers, but I'm opposed to the concept of draftification being automatically reversible. If a new page patroller reviews a new article and moves it to draft because it's clearly unsuitable for mainspace, the creator should need to do more than just say "I object" in order to move their clearly unsuitable article back again. I've recently proposed that all of draftspace should be move-protected at the semi level (the proposal was not well received - fair enough). This is probably the rule I ignore more than any other on Wikipedia, mostly dealing with spam sockfarms that try to abuse the rule to promote their garbage. Besides, a new user whose submission is quarantined to draft space and they're left with instructions and a list of suggestions with helpful links is already getting better treatment than most editors ever have or will, and if their reaction to that is to rage-quit then they're probably not a good fit for the collaborative environment of Wikipedia anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Ivanvector, you know the joke about "If you ask three people, you'll get four opinions"? I wonder if we ask three NPPers what "ready for mainspace" means, if we'd get four opinions. AFAICT, "ready for mainspace" most often means "contains at least as many refs as the median article, but higher quality ones". All the children in Lake Wobegon are above average, and all the new Wikipedia articles must be, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I feel like I might vaguely recall a discussion on that topic sometime in the not too distant past. Folly Mox (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    176 comments from 22 editors, and I probably had 22 opinions all by myself. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    All pages are effectively move-protected at the semi level already. Moving requires an (auto)confirmed account. SilverLocust 💬 07:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • As far as I see it draftification should never be used for subjects which pass GNG, and it should only be standard for things like films/TV series/games which are in the works but have not yet begun production. Subjects with debatable notability should be sent to AFD to the issue can be resolved.★Trekker (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Subjects that pass WP:GNG should never be draftified at all, instead they should be tagged and dealt with using normal community procedures. I agree that films/TV series/games/political events probably best fit the bill for draftifications, but so do potentially notable but underdeveloped articles. Sohom (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This is out of step with the present form of Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY, and I don't think it makes sense anyway. Articles that fail GNG should not be draftified, they should be AfDed. Films etc that are in the works should not be draftified merely because they aren't in production, and it's not really a great use for draft space because there's no guarantee that there would be a change of situation to establish notability within 6 months. Articles should be draftified only if the reviewer believes the article can be editted into an acceptable state within the time window. This implies a pass of GNG - i.e. a belief that reliable sources are potentially out there. Remember that GNG is about the *subject*, not about the state of the article. Fangz (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In my view the correct use of draftification is sort of as an alternative version of the WIP template. An acknowledgement that the article is not ready and should be being worked on and will likely have multiple issues, but in a protected sandboxed environment to avoid overly zealous moderation and promotion of misunderstanding for casual readers, and without implying the original editor is the one working on it. For new users it should offer a less formal and jargony process to learning how to improve an article than tagging based methods, because the latter has to balance the need to inform *readers* as well as editors. Fangz (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If you evaluate that a article passes WP:GNG, then there is not point in draftifying it, you could just add a {{sources exist}} template, patrol and move on. Alternatively, if you evaluate that a article fails WP:GNG, there is no point in wasting the article creator's time and you should WP:AFD/PROD it.
    The only case where you would draftify a article is if you saw a article that a) had a credible claim to significance/notability b) does not meet/prove notability in it's current state c) has been created in the last week or so by a inexperienced article creator. Sohom (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Not sure if we're disagreeing or we're having some semantics thing about what "passes GNG" means.
    But anyway there's issues beyond notability, in my view that's probably more useful. Fangz (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If an article has a credible chance of being kept or merged at AfD then it should not be draftified.
    If an article would definitely fail AfD and there is no editing that can fix that it should be sent to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think then you're pretty much arguing that the draftification process should be removed entirely, and I don't agree with that. It has its advantages. It should not be made a mandatory process by any means but just as some users prefer to work on articles as a draft and then push to the public wiki, it can be a better resolution to certain issues than the alternatives. Fangz (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not sure that the Draft: namespace has any advantages over a user sandbox, and m:Research:Wikipedia article creation and m:Research:AfC processes and productivity says that the Draft: namespace is where articles go to die.
    I do think that we've fallen into a false binary here. The options are not "garbage in the mainspace" vs "auto-deleted as in the draftspace". There are other options (e.g., sticky prods for uncited articles, userification, bold stubbification, bold merging, developing a more consistent and predictable standard for evaluating articles, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think there is a argument to be made that this landscape might have changed a fair bit since this research was done. The latest data that these projects consider is from 2014-2017. WP:ACTRIAL happened after that research was done, and Wikipedia's policies have changed since those times. Sohom (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's possible that things have changed, and I'm never one to turn down a new research project if you happen to be volunteering to do it (I believe that all the necessary data is public), but looking at the overall deletion rate in that namespace, it seems unlikely that the result will be materially different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think then you're pretty much arguing that the draftification process should be removed entirely, and I don't agree with that. I'm sorry to pick on you but this is the clearest example yet of the circular reasoning that has got us into this mess: draftification must be good because we do it, so we must keep doing it because it's good. From literally the moment draftspace was created and people started doing this (before that, the equivalent process of userfication was expressly forbidden without prior discussion), others have been pointing out that the underlying logic makes no sense. Draftification is only for articles that shouldn't be deleted, but it's also only for articles that can't be in mainspace. But since fix good content in place is a part of the editing policy and almost all the community accepted reasons for deletion involve the potential of the article, not it's current state, the intersection of those two sets is functionally zero (apart from some consensus-established edge cases like paid creations or upcoming films).
    This is why attempts to clarify and improve policy around draftification—and I've been closely involved in many of them—keep failing. You try to find a solid basis for guidelines and there just isn't one. We really need to stop trying to square the circle of justifying draftification as it is practiced now, and start asking what we the community actually wants to achieve with it and whether what we're doing now fulfils that aim. So far it's not looking good for the send-them-all-to-draftspace-and-the-god-of-notability-will-recognise-his-own camp, because there's not a shred of evidence that it helps improve content, retain editors or manage the NPP workload, and as WAID says above the empirical studies we do have concluded the precise opposite. But that picture could change with more research – somebody just needs to step up and do it! – Joe (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Joe Roe Draftification is only for articles that shouldn't be deleted, but it's also only for articles that can't be in mainspace. That is the exact reason why draftspace exists in the first place. Imagine you see a article with the following content: Nicholas Carlini is an amazing researcher at Google working on adversarial machine learning. created in the last week or so and sourced to a person's personal web-page. On doing a quick google search, you see that the person exists and is a researcher at said company, however, due to your unfamiliarity with adversarial machine learning topic-area you are not able to immediately identify the person's impact on the field. Do you 1) WP:BITEly nominate the article for deletion 2) leave the content up for somebody to deal with it (and hope that the other somebody will not choose option 1) or 3) draftify the article with a note that more sources are required to prove notability? Sohom (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Sohom Datta None of them. What you do is add a template to the article noting the lack of sources, leave a friendly message on the creator's talk page explaining the issues in plain English, and leave a note about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Depending on what your research found you could add more information, add some sources that might or might not demonstrate notability, remove the peacock terms, etc. Yes, this is more effort than blinding draftifying or AfDing but it is far more important that things get done well than things get done quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Sohom Datta, thanks for creating Nicholas Carlini, whose first version does not contain the hypothetical sentence you gave in your comment above. In your example above, why can't that stay in the mainspace? I frankly don't love it, and I'd immediately pull the word "amazing" out, but what's the policy basis for saying "that article truly can't be in mainspace"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Fangz I'm not arguing for the elimination of draftspace, it has it's uses as an optional space where articles can be developed over time so they don't have to meet all the relevant content policies from the very first edit. I'm also not arguing for the elimination of all draftifcation, just the majority of unilateral draftification because, as Joe has put better than I can, it is not a net benefit to the project as currently practised. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There's a middle ground between meets-GNG-mark-as-reviewed and fails-GNG-send-to-AfD: recently created articles where the sources in the article do not validate GNG, but where the new page reviewer hasn't done a BEFORE search. I think it's perfectly fair (and permissioned within the current draftification process) to say "this recently created article doesn't demonstrate GNG yet, but I'll kick it back to the creator in draft form to put in some more sources." Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Punting it to draftspace without doing a BEFORE is definitely not something we should be tolerating. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This would mean we're either leaving these articles unpatrolled (which is obviously undesirable), or giving new page patrollers the job of finding sources on every article where the original author hasn't, which would be ideal in, well, ideal conditions, but puts the burden of actually sourcing the encyclopedia on a very small group of editors. In my opinion, there should be a way to ask the original author to add sources to show it meets GNG, beyond just putting a "notability" tag and being done with it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with Chaotic Enby. Drafification is a good solution because it strongly encourages the author to improve the article, and, most importantly, gets it out of mainspace so that it isn't a problem for innocent readers – without forcing NPPers to clean up other peoples' messes. Cremastra (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Drafticiation [...] strongly encourages the author to improve the article. That's the theory but the evidence is that in practice it very rarely does this. There is also little to no evidence that most pages moved to draftspace are actually a problem for innocent readers rather than being a problem for those who want immediate perfection. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    About wanting to ask the original author to add sources to show it meets GNG, beyond just putting a "notability" tag and being done with it, I wonder if it's actually possible to do this in a non-coercive way. The options right now are:
    • Just ask (what the {{notability}} tag does).
    • Ask under threat of deletion (WP:BLPPROD and WP:PROD).
    • Move article to Draft: space (essentially holding the article hostage, to be deleted if you give up or can't figure out how to do it).
    • Send to AFD today.
    AFAICT a method for "force another WP:VOLUNTEER to improve the article to my standards" option has proven pretty elusive. But if you want to reach that point, I suggest that you take a baby step towards it in the form of getting a policy (any policy, really) to actually, directly, unambiguously say that every article must cite at least one source. Until the community agrees that this actually is a requirement, then we have no hope of getting them to increase the requirement all the way up to "show it meets GNG". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
If a new editor thinks their article is ready for mainspace, they will put it there. They will also happily revert the move. If a new editor is unsure, they will probably ask for help first or use draftspace. Cremastra (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the concern expressed by Joe and others who support the "backdoor" theory is that new users do not know how to revert the move to draftspace. Do you disagree with that assumption? Toadspike [Talk] 19:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think most users do not know how to revert the move, yes. I also think we shouldn't hand it to them on a silver platter, because that likely largely annuls the whole point of draftification. What is the solution to this? I couldn't tell you. Cremastra (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is "the whole point of draftification" to make my view of the subject's value more powerful than the newbies' view? Security through obscurity kind of works for that, but not reliably. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
They don't know how, maybe, but more importantly that they don't know that they're allowed to. We have to remember how very unusual our collaborative process is. If an inexperienced editor contributes an article to Wikipedia and then it is swiftly unpublished with a message that there's something wrong with it, they won't think, hmm, I'm not sure if I agree with that, I'm going to revert and/or discuss this with my peer-editors to find a consensus. They'll think that with someone the authority to decide what happens to articles has rejected my contribution, and I'm a mere newbie. At that point they will either give up (the majority) or they'll persevere and get into cycle of trying to satisfy first the NPP reviewer and then a succession of AfC reviewers until they finally give up or manage to write a GA, which seems to be roughly the standard AfC is applying these days Even very experience editors fall into this trap because even though the templated messages try to communicate the full range of options the user has (now at least, after I and others have spent several years fighting for it), it's really hard to communicate that we're all equal and all have a say here within a draft–review structure that implicitly elevates the opinions of reviewers over others. – Joe (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've pulled the most recent 10 articles moved to mainspace with the AFCH script. They are:
That's an average of 372.5 words and 12.6 refs. The median article has 338 words and 4 refs. Compared to existing articles, 53% of our existing articles have fewer than 372.5 words, and 83% have fewer fewer than 12.6 refs. One in six articles has fewer words than the shortest in this list. One of three articles is shorter than the second-shortest in this list.
I think it is clear from these numbers that AFC is expecting more refs than existing community practice, and that they are trying to accept only articles that are already as long as ones that editors have been working on in the mainspace for years.
BTW, during the same span of time, more than 100 pages were deleted from the Draft: namespace. You shouldn't assume this means that more than 90% of drafts get deleted, because deletions are bursty and this is a relatively small sample size, but that's about what I expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • A Conclusion: I am sadly not surprised at the current state of this discussion. Some of the heated off-topic arguments verge on NOTHERE behavior. I am very disappointed to see this from experienced editors. To those of you who simply commented on the proposal: I appreciate you a lot.
Since the default NPP draft template was changed to Template:Draft article a day before this discussion began, I think my proposal is moot. I don't see how we could improve that template much, but I may raise some minor wording changes on the Template Talk. If someone wants to close this discussion, that's fine; if others wish to continue discussing other things here, I wish you the all best. Toadspike [Talk] 21:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Worth also talking about the usertalk notification MTD leaves, which only provides one option: submit for review. Agree in principle we shouldn't trick people into thinking draftification/AfC is mandatory for a typical article creator. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong Oppose All it will do is destroy the draft system as it stands and eventualy destroy Wikipedia. This almost happened between 2008 and 2012, before the draft process was available, when Wikipedia was flooded with paid/coi editors and there was no effective system to deal with them. Do folk not understand what draftification is. Every publisher has draft process. It is NOT a route to deletion. That is what the detractors of the system say, many of them who are paid to oppose it and destroy it. It is the one of the core safeguards we have against the complete destruction of Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 11:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That comment is almost entirely evidence free assumptions of bad faith. Please try engaging with the discussion rather than just knee-jerking oppose to changing the status quo because it would change the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Its not evidence free and I resent the fact that you have said my comment bad faith. Why would I make the comment if I didn't know what I was talking about. I've worked in NPP/AFC since it was created and was involved in some of the early discussions. I now how exactly how UPE/paid editors behave. It would lead to an exodus of editors after the place gets flooded with adverts. It would be free-for-all. The reality is that the editor who posted hasn't thought it through and hasn't looked in the archives to see what the situation was like then. scope_creepTalk 16:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "Trust me, I was there" is not evidence. Your comment assumes bad faith from those disagreeing with you, and of everybody submitting new articles. Not every editor is paid (and disclosed paid editing is explicitly allowed), not every paid edit (disclosed or otherwise) is bad, not every paid editor (disclosed or otherwise) is attempting to harm the encyclopaedia, not every paid edit (even undisclosed ones) does harm the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That is true to certain extent, but the majority of editors who create modern biographical, organisational and product articles which make up the majority are undeclared paid editors. They do not have our best interests at heart and never have done. scope_creepTalk 16:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Even if that is true (and you haven't provided any evidence, of either your assertion or the implications of it that these articles harm Wikipedia and/or that draftification as currently implemented and practice prevents that harm), that doesn't mean that draftification as implemented currently can't be improved and that any changes to the status quo will mean the death of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Scope creep, what percentage of articles in the draft space do you think get deleted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If drafts get deleted, that's because their creators have abandoned them. That's what G13 is. Perhaps more effort should be spent encouraging article writers to improve their articles after they got moved to draft (where they can be improved without interference), but draftification is not deliberate, malicious backdoor deletion, and I resent it being characterized as such. Cremastra (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Is this a Double-barreled question? The comment you're replying to said only "route to deletion", and you've turned it into four separate parts:
    • deliberate
    • malicious
    • backdoor
    • deletion.
    I wouldn't personally characterize any of them as malicious, but I think a fraction of them are deliberate. IMO claiming that nobody ever sent a borderline subject to AFC instead of AFD (which has lower standards in practice) would be rather extraordinary. I frankly don't think we're all so stupid that we can't figure out which route is most likely to end up with the result we prefer.
    If we characterize AFD as the "front door" for deletion, then it seems fair to describe letting articles expire in the Draft: space as the "back door".
    But the original comment is merely that it's not a route to deletion. But if 90–95% all of the articles put on that path actually do end up getting deleted, then is it not basically fair to say that it is one of our routes to deletion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. The current verbiage of the tag makes it clear to anyone with a lick of common sense, that the article has potential, but in its current form it is not ready for mainspace. Some of the comments here from folks clearly indicate a lack of understanding of what the draftification process is for. If an article, in its current form, passes GNG, then there are only certain circumstances where it should be draftified (e.g. paid editing), but if an article probably would pass GNG, but does not in its current form (e.g. there are not enough in-depth sources from independent, reliable sources to meet the standard), than that is a poster child for draftification. When I was more active in reviewing articles, I created several custom responses, which took the standard message and massaged it a bit depending on the reason for draftification (e.g. UPE, lack of GNG) or a specific topic (e.g. NFOOTY, Populated places). In some instances those messages contained an offer to ping me directly when they felt the article was ready for mainspace. I am all for article creation, but I also care about the quality and reputation of Wikipedia, which is often seen as the punchline for jokes regarding garbage information on the internet. And I would completely disagree with those who say that draftification is not a net benefit. In fact, I think it is one of the most useful tools to helping improve the quality on WP. Is it always used correctly? No. But that's an education problem with individual users, not an overriding issue with the process itself.Onel5969 TT me 14:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with Onel5969. (But also remember to not leave !votes as this is the idea lab, not a formal proposal). Cremastra (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Apologies, Cremastra. Onel5969 TT me 19:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That might be fine in theory, but it doesn't match the what is happening in practice. Especially given that articles are being moved to draftspace for not being of sufficient quality that are C or even B class. If an article is neutrally written and meets the GNG then there is no justification for moving it to draftspace just because someone might (or might not) have been paid to edit it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Thryduulf: Do you have a specific example in mind when you mention C or B class articles? scope_creepTalk 16:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    See @WhatamIdoing's comment in this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This list is the state of articles when they come out of the Draft: space. For articles going in to the Draft: space, here's a current list:
    I have skipped redirects, some round-robin page swaps, and a couple of editors moving AFC submissions from User: space to the Draft: space, and tried to include only articles being moved from the mainspace to the Draft: space. I can't get the ORES ratings for these articles, but at a glance, I think that Start and C-class is not an unreasonable description. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    First, thanks for providing the list. The issue is, in reviewing those drafts, most are solid drafts, and not " Especially given that articles are being moved to draftspace for not being of sufficient quality that are C or even B class." Although I think a more careful explanation could have been made. For example, the first one would have been better with a "more in-depth references from independent, reliable sources" needed, rather than simply saying "more sources needed", as there isn't a single, in-depth reference from an independent, reliable source in the draft. The second and third examples are the exact same issue. The 4th and 5th examples are properly labeled as covert advertising (both editors have been blocked for it - in addition, the 4th one didn't have a single in-depth reference from an independent source, either). The 6th example, while having 3 sources, none are in-depth, and while it might be a spelling difference on the translations of the 2nd and 3rd refs, it does not appear that the article's subject is mentioned in any of them. The 7th article is not a true example of draftification, as it was moved by the author. The 8th and 9th article have zero independent reliable sources (for the 9th, the newspaper referenced does not have a page number, and the link does not appear to bring up anything in depth about the hack lab). Not sure about the 10th, for the history is a bit wacky, but again, does not look like an example of draftification.
I think this illustrates some of the misunderstanding that folks who don't like draftification make. You look at the list provided, and you go, wow, lots of references, most not stubs or micro-stubs, why in the hell were they draftified? Hell, I did that myself, wondering if all 10 were done by a single editor, who perhaps did not have a firm grasp of draftification. But then you dive into the merits of the sourcing, or the upe issues, and it appears all 8 of the draftifications appear justified.Onel5969 TT me 20:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Onel5969, I wonder if you could explain "the newspaper" in the 9th article a little better. You say that the article has "zero independent reliable sources", but traditional print newspapers are independent reliable sources. Then you say it doesn't have a page number, but the link takes you directly to a scanned copy of the correct page; the cited article [title given in the citation] is in the last two columns. None of that makes the newspaper less independent. Is your concern that the article appears to predate the use of the name in the article title ("De Zanbak" means "The Sandbox")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Could be the translation, but there does not appear to be anything connecting the group mentioned in that article, with De Zanbak. But even if there is, agf, that still is the only in-depth independent source. Onel5969 TT me 01:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad we agree that a newspaper is an independent source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
If a new editor includes 5 sources in their submission and it gets moved to [somewhere I didn't put it] because "more sources needed" or "no sources" how many of them are going to take the time to learn that the experienced editor actually meant none of these sources contain what I think is significant, in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources and then have the confidence to say "actually, this experienced person with the power to remove my article from Wikipedia is wrong and I'm right, I'll learn how to challenge them and how and where to express my view in a way that the powerful people will listen to me" rather than just give up at some point along that path? And before anyone says it, no, just because a few bad faith editors might be among the dissuaded does not justify the loss of good faith editors. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I guess that's the difference between editors who care about quality on WP, and those who care about quantity. But that's why I said that the rationale given could have been better. Onel5969 TT me 01:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is it really a quality vs quantity question?
Or is this the difference between editors who would rather see a page run through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers instead of being unilaterally hidden until it gets deleted without the level of community oversight that we expect from AFD? For example, I'm not convinced that "De Zanbak" is a viable subject for an article, but I think there are several ways that we could address that concern, and I don't see the Draft: space helping. In fact, the only thing that moving that page to the Draft: space does that's different from moving that page to the User: space is: It's far more likely to get deleted during the next year if it's in Draft: space than if it's in User: space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, since draftification isn't a "backdoor to deletion", nor is it "hiding an article", it's definitely a question of quality vs. quantity. Draftification, in short, is a quality control measure. These are articles that might be notable enough for mainspace, but simply aren't in good enough shape to be there. But, like other vehicles in WP, good faith editors might disagree on an article's notability, so for example in the De Zandbak articlem, Jay8g (who tagged it for notability), and Jonathan Deamer (who draftified it) might deem it potentially notable, while you, WhatamIdoing, might have simply sent it to AfD, because you do not feel it notable. But that doesn't mean the system isn't working. Perhaps we can tweak the current verbiage in the template to include where resources about where an editor can reach out for help might be added (e.g. AFC or Teahouse)?Onel5969 TT me 09:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, since draftification isn't a "backdoor to deletion", nor is it "hiding an article", you say that as if there is no possible way good faith editors could disagree, but that simply isn't true. Whether either of those things is true is a matter of opinion (and, in my opinion, one that is consistent with the evidence presented). Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi. No, editors can certainly have different interpretations and disagree on issues. However, in this instance, it is not a matter of disagreement. In order to hold those views indicates a lack of understanding of what the draftification process is. That's not what draftification is, it is, as I've said, simply a quality control measure. It would be like saying, it's a matter of opinion whether or not this person wrote an article about themselves, that can be interpreted as not being COI editing. Of if a an article simply cut and paste the info from Encyclopedia Brittanica, you cannot say it's your opinion that that isn't a copyvio. I mean, I have the utmost respect for you, Thryduulf, and you do a great job on WP. There are things on WP which are subjective (e.g. exactly what constitutes SIGCOV), while others are objective, (e.g. UPE/COI editing, copyvio). What draftification is falls into the latter category. All that being said, we can disagree on whether or not an individual article should or should not have been draftified. You say the evidence presented shows that it was not warranted that those articles be sent to draft. Going through the sources, however, it looks like draftification was justified. That is a difference of opinion. Onel5969 TT me 14:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's your opinion that moving an article to the Draft: space is simply a quality control measure.
It's my opinion that moving an article to the Draft: space is also simply a quality control measure that, compared to the available alternatives of leaving it in the mainspace, sending it to AFD, or moving it to User: space, substantially decreases the likelihood of the quality being improved and substantially increases the likelihood of the article being deleted.
Oh, right: Those last two points ("substantially decreases the likelihood of the quality being improved" and "substantially increases the likelihood of the article being deleted") aren't "opinions". They're objective facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Rhodesia Railways 19th class is not a list; it's a train that was in operation for multiple ranges of time. Even if it were a list, the empty headings and only content being a table is nowhere near start-class, maybe even substub. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The existing content in the article is an infobox and a table. Tables are the format preferred by Wikipedia:Featured lists. Empty sections aren't banned, and ratings are based on what is already there. I'd rate it as |class=List today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
only content being a table have you actually read the page? That infobox is full of content, there are two apparently reliable sources and the table itself has about 20 rows of content. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, yes the infobox as well. I still wouldn't call it a start, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is just an idea, and I want to workshop this a bit more, but I think it would be helpful to have pending changes at the extended confirmed level. This could be called "PC2" again (not to be confused with the original PC2) or "PCECP". The idea would be to help enforce WP:ARBECR and similar restrictions where non-extended confirmed users are prohibited from certain topic areas. Under this level, edits by non-extended-confirmed editors would be held for review, while extended confirmed users can approve these edits and thus take responsibility under WP:PROXYING.

I think it would be helpful for pages where (1) parts of the article intersect with a contentious topic, or (2) the article in its entirety intersects with a contentious topic, but not edited frequently. Awesome Aasim 16:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This seems like it could be useful. It would have to be restricted to infrequently edited pages (likely excluding all current events articles) so as not to overwhelm Pending Changes every time Reuters publishes a new story or an edit war erupts. The big question is: what problem are you trying to solve? Toadspike [Talk] 20:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are some contentious topics designated either by ArbCom or the community where only extended confirmed users are allowed to participate. However, admins refuse to protect pages where there isn't enough disruption to justify protection. Although, it should be considered that the XCON restriction applies regardless of whether a page is protected or not.
What PCECP would do is essentially remove fears that there "isn't enough disruption to justify protection" while buffering all non-extended-confirmed contributions so they have to be approved, in line with "non-extended-confirmed can only make edit requests". Templates that are specifically for this case like {{edit protected}} break when the page is not protected. Awesome Aasim 22:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem with that is that the 500/30 rule is specifically designed to keep newer editors out due to extreme amounts of disruption as a rule. There's a good reason why both of the world's main hot wars (the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Russo-Ukrainian war) are under 500/30. And, as has been brought up repeatedly and bears repeating again, high volumes of edits on a given article contraindicate CRASHlock.
But the biggest stumbling block here is that no consensus exists yet for an extended-confirmed CRASHlock. The last discussion about expanding CRASHlock to higher protection levels predates XCP entirely. There would need to be a formal RfC for this, not VP spitballing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
XCON protection makes sense for high traffic articles, but low traffic articles? If the edit is minor such as fixing spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, there should be no problem. Fixing spelling and grammar is generally outside of contentious topic areas anyway. From WP:ARBECR: On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including ... the use of pending changes.
I probably would set up abuse filters as well to see if a page is in a category that primarily deals with a contentious topic, and then warn and tag the edit in question. Awesome Aasim 16:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most low-traffic CT articles don't have any protection since they never saw amounts of vandalism necessitating protection. Protection requests that solely rely on arb enforcement and little to no evidence of vandalism get declined. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I see that, but the problem is that a non-XCON edit will get approved on pages that not many people are watching. Pending changes still allows non-XCON users to make these edits, but their edits will need to be approved and they can be reverted if in violation of WP:ARBECR. This is also in line with how pending changes is used on low-traffic articles to monitor (not prevent) disruption. Awesome Aasim 18:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Aaron Liu Most low-traffic CT articles don't have any protection since they never saw amounts of vandalism necessitating protection. Protection requests that solely rely on arb enforcement and little to no evidence of vandalism get declined. Untrue, articles in ECR topics can and are pre-emptively locked. What actually happens is that articles with minimal disruption are usually not brought to WP:RFPP or noticed by a wayward admin. Mach61 19:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Untrue, articles in ECR topics can and are pre-emptively locked.

Could you add an example? There is a long list of declined RFPP requests for arbitration enforcement. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
See this exchange between an admin who refused to protect based on ECR due to a lack of disruption and a (former) admin who explained to them otherwise. Mach61 19:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I get the "can" now. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seems reasonable. I've always wondered why pending changes isn't deployed more often. It seems a useful tool, and there are lots of pending changes reviewers so very little backlog Cremastra (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because there are enough people who dislike or distrust pending changes that it's hard to get a consensus to use it. See, for example, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 183#RFC: Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article. Anomie⚔ 14:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, gee, I fucking wonder why? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would you care to elaborate on your point? I'm not seeing it. Anomie⚔ 17:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Anomie: Read the "Proposal" section on the linked page. The fact that RfC even exists should give you a clue as to why CRASHlock is so mistrusted by a significant minority of editors. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Still not seeing it. People supposedly mistrust it because there was a trial 14 years ago and enwiki admins didn't immediately stop using it after the trial period pending a consensus on the future of the feature? Anomie⚔ 18:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You familiar with the idiom of the Camel's nose? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The TL;DR I'm taking away from this discussion is that you're still butthurt over consensus not going your way 12 or 13 years ago, and assuming that anyone opposed to PC shares that reason and no other. I think it's unlikely continuing this conversation is going to go anywhere useful. Anomie⚔ 18:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That isn't how consensus works, either. Consensus can be determined by an RfC, yes. But it can also develop just by the way that things are done already, regardless of whether it has formally discussed.
I think about the example given by Technology Connections about "the danger of but sometimes". The LED traffic light is superior in energy savings and much more, but sometimes snow and ice builds up on them, so they are bad. Likewise, XCON pending changes will help with enforcement of WP:ARBECR but sometimes admins might apply this to pages out of policy, so it shouldn't be used again. The correct response would be to place in policy guardrails so that admins don't do that. Awesome Aasim 19:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
How is an RfC from over 13 years ago still reflective of consensus today? I am pretty certain that while some opinions might not have changed, others definitely will have. No one is saying there should be full pending changes. Awesome Aasim 18:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Awesome Aasim: The RfC was linked specifically to point out one of the reasons for the mistrust in the PC system. The most recent RfC on CRASHlock, as I said, predates XCP as a concept. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, please explain what you mean by "crashlock". I cannot find any discussion or glossary entry on "crashlock". Awesome Aasim 18:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Awesome Aasim: It should be VERY obvious from context. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I guess you might be the only one using this terminology; as it is not in WP:GLOSSARY or anywhere else.
Nonetheless, this is the Idea Lab; it is the place to develop ideas, not to show stark opposition to ideas. That is what the other discussion boards are for; consensus polling. It should be noted that WP:ECP was created originally for the purpose of enforcing arbitration decisions and community sanctions. It was never intended for anything else; it just got used for other stuff de facto. Awesome Aasim 18:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) All these things you think are obvious really are not. You should try explaining yourself better instead of emphatically waving your hands at something random. Anomie⚔ 18:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Obvious perhaps, but it still doesn't make much sense. I'm not sure how using your own special terms of unclear implications to disparage things you dislike is helping communication or community understanding here. Cremastra (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand. People mistrust PC because of a bureaucratic misimplementation of an experiment over 10 years ago? (In a noncentralized bureaucracy where dumb shit happens all the time?) The RfC is explicit that it makes no normative judgement on PC, and it seems the !voters are not doing so either. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's one reason, and probably the biggest for some (who viewed the trial's mishandling as trying to force CRASHlock/FlaggedRevisions down our throats). Another reason is that, from 2010 to 2014, CRASHlock RfCs were called at least once a year, with most of them being written by pro-CRASHlock editors. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok for those not into WP politics, there's an overview opinion piece from the August 2011 WSP that seems to capture the attitude and aftermath. It appears the closure results of the RfCs left admins in an indeterminate state as to whether PC can ever be applied or removed. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
as to whether PC can ever be applied or removed True in 2011 when that was written, but later RFCs resolved that. Anomie⚔ 19:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Could you link to said RfCs? All else that's linked previously regards the main page. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 established basic consensus to use PC, with Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 2 and Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 3 clearing up some details. PC level 2, on the other hand, never got consensus for use and eventually in 2017 there was consensus to remove it from the configuration. Template:Pending changes discussions has a lot of links. Anomie⚔ 22:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's worth noting that the 2017 RfC is the last one about any aspect of CRASHlock, to my knowledge. As I said above, there would need to be a new RfC in order to get consensus for extended-confirmed CRASHlock, as PC2 was originally full-protection level and no ECP!CRASHlock question was asked in the 2016 RfCs, none of which were particularly comprehensive. (The last comprehensive RfC was the 2014 clusterfuck.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the main reasons editors don't want to expand the use of pending changes are practical: no technical support for fixes (or additional feature development) is on the horizon, in spite of documented bugs; and uncertainty in the community's ability to manage expanded use. There are certainly vocal editors who are wary due to past history, but this has already been a factor in other decisions, and they have accordingly been influenced to be more definitive about how any trials will proceed. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe what is needed is this...

edit

A multi-part RfC asking how ECR should be enforced for existing pages, including based on activity. High traffic pages will need extended protection retroactively as those tend to get the most disruption from ECR violations. Low-traffic pages, not so much, but we can use abuse filters and workshop ECP pending changes for this. Spelling and grammar fixes as far as I am aware are excluded from WP:ARBECR. Awesome Aasim 19:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I view the ECR in the PIA area to be absolute (no editing full stop by those who do not meet 500/30), so CRASHlock would be off the table there in any event. I'm not sure if this also applies to WP:GS/RUSUKR (which falls into the EE area). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should articles about years in topics be linked in articles? For example, The Little Girl Lost's first link is to 1794 in poetry. The link feels like a Wikipedia:OLINK violation, but isn't specifically stated. Links to just years are already gone, but why aren't the ones about topics actively being removed? Roasted (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Everything started in some year, and linking that year to an article about a bunch of irrelevant info is not helpful. But in an article about a poem written in 1794, it is quite reasonable to link to an article about other very related stuff in that year. That is not a rule but is a defensible view, particularly for poems from 230 years ago where it is a bit of a miracle that we have any record of the poem. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it's a defensible view, specifically for subjects that are discussed/linked in the article. It's similar to our WP:BIDIRECTIONAL principle for navboxes: if you can get from 1794 in poetry to The Little Girl Lost, then it would be ideal if you could get back.
I think it is more defensible for shorter/narrower subjects than for sprawling pages. 1794 in poetry is fine. 2023 in film might not be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
List of German films of 2023, from which you can rightly get to 2023 in film, could be a different story though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd leave that one up to editors' judgment, and I wouldn't object whatever they decided.
Another thing to consider is the formatting. Compare these sentences:
For the first, the link label is "1794 poem", and if you are surprised that clicking on "1794 poem" takes you to 1794 in poetry, then perhaps you weren't paying attention to what you were clicking on.
In the second, the link label is "2023", and you might expect 2023 instead of 2023 films. I would suggest changing that link so that it includes the words "in 2023" instead of the year alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
My 2¢: remove direct links, but put the "YEAR in TOPIC" articles in the "see also" section. This removes any MOS:EGG issues and is if anything more consistent with an analogy to bidirectional navboxes Mach61 03:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I like this.(Man, I wish navboxes were in that section. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that short URLs are undesirable. However, wouldn't it be better if a bot auto-expanded those URLs instead of them being blacklisted? For example youtu.be into youtube.com/watch?v= , tinyurl.com/example into example.com (that is its actual target). Elominius (criticize | contributions) 09:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The reason they're blacklisted is not because they're "undesirable", it's because they can be (and have been) used to get around the spam blacklist and other anti-spam measures. If the link is legitimate, there's no reason the user trying to add it can't expand it. Anomie⚔ 11:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Anomie: there's no reason the user trying to add it can't expand it The reason is that the enduser does not know that they have to do that, and the message does not explain that that is what should be done (or how). And several sites use shorter URLs when you use the Share button, which is a type of URL shortener that only goes to one domain, like a domain alias and therefore cannot be abused for malicious purposes. Polygnotus (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can certainly see a justification for treating shorteners linked to a single domain (like youtu.be) differently to generic ones like tinyurl. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Thryduulf: See meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#youtu.be. Polygnotus (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
For that case, as I had written in VPT, the bot could do blacklist checking and reversion if the expanded link hits the blacklist; or we just integrate the automatic expansion mechanism into MediaWiki. MilkyDefer 08:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I propose to create a template called Template:Wikidata Infobox that creates an infobox from information exists on Wikidata. The same idea is implemented in WikiCommons. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Quantum_computing and section infobox which uses {{Wikidata Infobox}}. Cheers. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Using Wikidata for infoboxes has been discussed many times here and is surprisingly (to me) controversial. Some specific infoboxes do incorporate information from Wikidata (iirc Mike Peel has done some work on this), but I don't think a single generic infobox, whether pulling information from Wikidata or otherwise, will gain consensus. I'll leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikidata. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah… a LOT of resistance to importing data from Wikidata into our infoboxes. The two main concerns are Verifiability/reliability (although WD has improved on this front, they still are not in line with our policies) and ease of editing (having to go to WD to edit information appearing on WP can be confusing).
I’ll share a personal experience of confusion… the data focused structure of WD is often incomprehensible to me as a text focused editor here at WP. When I try to fix errors on WD, I have extreme difficulty doing so. simply locating the information I need to edit is hard. The way WD pages are organized and structured is alien gobbledygook to me. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikidata is a good idea in want of a usable interface. It's use would be massively helped if you could edit data here and it was back flushed to Wikidata. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's how most of the Wikivoyages are set up. It's not automagic (except possibly at German), so you have complete control over which bits you import locally and which bits of your content you push back to Wikidata. The control is important because some content is different. For example, Wikivoyage usually wants to put the lat/long location at the entrance to an location, and Wikidata usually wants the center. There's no need to override each other's locations if these happen to be significantly different (e.g., entrance to Disney World vs center of Disney World). When they're the same, then you can share them back and forth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Commons only has one kind of infobox. We have a lot of them that have very different data displayed. Personally, I'd love to incorporate wikidata into nearly all infoboxes, but one generic infobox is impossible to suit our needs. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I really think that this type of infobox (maybe in collapse form) is the best replacement for infobox of articles that we cannot create any infobox for them like Quantum computing. These data includes links to WikiQuote and its library id etc., which makes them accessible and at hand. I propose to use this kind of infobox in other sections like "See also" section, instead of top, replacing many existing templates like {{Commons category}}. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Um, what value could be derived from using d:Q17995793 to populate an infobox for the article Quantum computing? Do we really need an infobox for that article to clarify that the subject is an instance of "academic discipline", subclass of "computation", and is the study of "quantum computer" and/or "quantum supremacy"? This is an excellent example of an article that has no need for an infobox. Folly Mox (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh I see you want to use the infobox at the bottom of an article like a navbox? That's less objectionable, and also a different kind of box in our jargon. Folly Mox (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Hooman Mallahzadeh, not every article benefits from an infobox. In my opinion, Quantum computing is one of those. Remsense ‥ 论 06:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Remsense There are good links to WikiQuote, Wikiversity, Wikidata, WikiCommons, Library of Congress authority ID, that is attached to the main article by simply transcluding this template. This is a big benefit for Wikidata-Infobox of Quantum computing. But collapsing this Wikidata Infobox by default seems reasonable. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
We can already do that by linking to the ones that are important at the bottom—this is extremely common, and is already done on that article! That brings up a key point of resistance to this, though. We don't want to outsource much to Wikidata because we can't as easily decide what not to show, lest we pollute articles with metadata that may be useful in a database but is functionally useless garbage in an encyclopedia article. Fundamentally, we shouldn't ever expect editors to have to use Wikidata also.Remsense ‥ 论 06:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This method is a little hard, ⁣inserting cumulative links «by one template» seems more reasonable to me. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, because the decision whether it's worth linking to Wikiquote on a given article should be up to the editors for that article. Remsense ‥ 论 06:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. According to Zeigarnik effect, placing a Wikiquote link that is empty right now, motivates users to complete that page and put some quote about that concept. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not our job to build Wikiquote, but it is our job not to indiscriminately clutter our encyclopedia articles with useless garbage. Your position would be resented by almost any editor who cares about how the articles they write look and what exactly they present to readers. Remsense ‥ 论 06:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most readers don't care about those. The small bit that care are satisfied by it being at the bottom. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hooman Mallahzadeh, your idea of a single general use template to build sister project links from the associated Wikidata item for use in the ==External links== section does actually sound like a good idea, but people in this subthread have been confused by your use of the term infobox (which live at the top of the article). However, this sounds identical to the existing template {{Sister project auto}}. How does your idea differ? Folly Mox (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
If the notion is to show some source information, it may also be similar in concept to the wider-used template {{Authority control}}. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Right, {{authority control}} is already ubiquitous (~2,131,000 transclusions out of 6,893,729 articles including redirects), is even included in the default output of Wikipedia:ArticleWizard, and {{authority control}} already pulls from Wikidata. Folly Mox (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
So all that considered, @Hooman Mallahzadeh, I'd suggest just making/forking a template along those lines (or editing the existing template in its sandbox), as this basic concept would be uncontroversial. The rest of the discussion here is hypothetical clutter until people see precisely what you have in mind that may be radically different from what is already being used in these templates above. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Something like Category:Earth shows how hard it is to get an automatic, good infobox and not a load of weird entries. "Instance of: "inner planet of the Solar System (Mars, Venus)" And Mercury? if you for some reason list the others here, list them all... "Named after: *soil (Earth) *land (1, 地, 地球) *ball (2, 球, 地球) " Er, what? No idea why the Japanese is shown here. "Inception: 4,541st millennium BC (lead-lead dating, age of the Earth, Young Earth creationism)" Yeah, we sure want a link to Young Earth creationism here... "Dissolved, abolished or demolished date: unknown value (future of Earth)" Not even a link, just the text, as if this is in any way useful. And this is hardly some obscure example. Fram (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
{{Infobox person/Wikidata}}, anyone? — Qwerfjkltalk 18:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
What a great way to introduce unverified intormation (errors) and nonsense into Wikipedia articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unverified information and incorrect information (what I presume you mean by "errors") are not synonyms. Not everything in WikiData is any of unverified, incorrect or nonsense. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ssilvers There's an easy parameter to only include information with references. Bad references exist and can be easily fixed using the same methods on both sites. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikidata has different sourcing standards than enwiki - sites that are considered unreliable by enwiki consensus are considered quite fine at Wikidata. Wikidata entries are also left out of existing enwiki cleanup mechanisms. So it's not quite as simple as you're suggesting to apply the same methods to both sites - the two sites have neither the same methods nor a shared understanding of what a "bad reference" even is. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is anyone trying to develop a shared understanding, or does everyone think that it's just OK that the site are disconnected like that, even thought they could help each other much more? If you have links to discussions, I'd be happy to read them. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
My perception is it's mutual apathy in both userbases: people who write an encyclopedia aren't coterminous with people who want to build a universal database. While the results are unfortunate, it really would be unreasonable to expect one group of volunteers to operate according to the standards of the other. Remsense ‥ 论 06:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then we should make it known to Wikidata why and which sources are bad and often false. I don't see any source that is considered very valid on Wikidata and removed-on-sight on Wikipedia. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
[1]. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Nikkimaria, was this a reply to me? Just one comment from one person? Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was not a reply to you. This one would be a better place to start for your question, though that perspective is also relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, point taken. In that case, we do need to have parameter-specific overrides at least. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Curiously, one of the arguments in that RfC is "FInd a Grave is sourced from gravestones". Wouldn't citing the gravestone be better in that case instead? Veering off-topic here, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The claim that Wikidata is wrong is just a claim. It's a wiki, it is closely integrated with Wikipedia, and it can be as right or as wrong as Wikipedia itself. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, we know Wikipedia is flawed… Which is why we DON’T consider Wikipedia a reliable source, and DON’T use one part of Wikipedia to verify other parts of Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
But what's wrong with that if we can machine-verify that the reused part has a source? This isn't about sourcing to Wikidata, it's about reusing sourced content from wikidata, for all the reasons {{excerpt}} is good. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is anyone suggesting to use Wikidata to verify things on Wikipedia? I don't think so. I certainly don't.
People are suggesting to insert things that are written on Wikidata into the English Wikipedia in some cases when it's more efficient to do it. They can be verified just like Wikipedia itself. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think Wikipedia should prioritise efficiency. We should prioritise care. If people want to reuse sourced content from Wikidata, they can add the content and add the source. We shouldn't just invite it in uncurated. Folly Mox (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
To paraphrase Shrek: But it is curated. What's the difference if it's curated by a Wikipedia editor or by a Wikidata editor? Wikidata it not a completely separate site. The two sites have always been closely related in terms of both community and technology, and with the same ultimate goal of free knowledge edited as a wiki. If there are differences between them in verifiability policy, I'd think about trying to bridge them instead of dismissing the idea of collaboration outright. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
We shouldn't leave curation of content that is included in articles to people who generally aren't looking at or directly editing said articles. This seems very straightforwardly obvious to me. Remsense ‥ 论 13:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
But why do you think that they aren't looking at the articles? I very often edit things on Wikidata because I notice that they appeared incorrectly on Wikipedia, and then I check that the information was updated correctly on both Wikidata and Wikipedia. (It happens more in other languages, such as Hebrew, Spanish, or Russian, because the English Wikipedia uses Wikidata less.)
And what's the difference between changing a thing on Wikidata that will be included in a Wikipedia article and changing a template within Wikipedia that will be included in other pages? (Other than the different URL.) Or changing an image on Commons and Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The curation processes between the two sites are entirely different. en.wiki is primarily curated at the individual page level, wikidata seems to be primarily curated at cross-sections where lots of pages intersect. (Also worth considering how much of Wikidata is created by bots pulling from other wikis.) CMD (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because they're editing a database! They might not even speak English, never mind take into account the nuances of how the English Wikipedia (or any other project, to be clear) may be affected by what they are directly doing. Whether you think they aren't totally different websites, they are different websites. I really don't think I have to get sociological to discuss a set of social facts here that are fairly obvious to everyone who contributes to a Wikimedia project. "Wikipedia is one site, Wikidata is another" should also answer your second question: if someone breaks a template, it is not a paradigm shift for me to fix it or ask someone else to, because that occurs on the same website. You're a free spirit and that's fine; any design decision that assumes this quality of contributors in general would be a terrible one. Remsense ‥ 论 14:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Another way to think of it is that they are the same website with different URLs.
And I'm not sure what are you referring to by "quality of contributors" and "free spirit" towards the end. In my understanding, a free spirit in a free encyclopedia is a good thing, but I suspect that you mean something different. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikidata is definitely quite a different site, ubiquitous in its low standards for inclusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That, by itself, is not a problem. You can include some things from it on Wikipedia, and exclude others. That's more or less what happens on the English Wikipedia already, but it happens more in some other languages, and it works there fairly well. I don't understand the resistance that some English Wikipedians have to include anything from Wikidata. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it is not a problem. I disagree with what you said about them being the same site and closely related. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
They:
  • Are maintained by the same organization.
  • Are built from the outset to be connected, similarly to Commons.
  • Share user accounts.
  • Share a large part of the editing community. I don't have precise numbers, and of course there are some Wikipedia editors who don't do anything on Wikidata and vice versa, but there is a lot of overlap.
So what makes you think that they are not closely related? Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Closely related in terms of underlying infrastructure and overlapping goals doesn't equate to being the same website with different URLs. By design, each Wikimedia wiki has its own community, with its own culture, that defines its own guidance and operating procedures. isaacl (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
All I'm trying to say is that it's not very different from Commons. It's separate in some ways and the same in some others. Some data from Commons and Wikidata is useful in the English Wikipedia, some isn't. Emphasizing only the differences, as some English Wikipedians do, is neither correct nor useful. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
All en.wiki takes from Commons is essentially file urls. It's a very different place to en.wiki with very different norms. CMD (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
And, um, the files, not just the URLs, right?
Whatever internal norms Commons has, the English Wikipedia takes a lot of files from it. And it can be the same with Wikidata. The English Wikipedia already takes some data from it, and it can take more.
I'm actually not specifically supporting using the generic Wikidata infobox in the English Wikipedia. I'm just trying to understand the resistance that some English Wikipedia editors have to including anything at all from Wikidata. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Key elements of the resistance have been explained elsewhere in this thread. They relate to a lower quality of sourcing, higher vulnerability to vandalism, and difficulty in editing Wikidata. Sourcing issues do not apply to commons, and file modifications there are restricted to those with advanced permissions. En.wiki does not import files from Commons, although it does host files separately when they are ineligible for inclusion on Commons. CMD (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Commons benefits from the shared requirements set by the Wikimedia Foundation on media usage, so files are readily usable on any Wikimedia wiki. (Of course, media that embeds information, such as annual stats, suffer from similar problems as Wikidata: its accuracy is dependent on the uploader.) For those concerned about the verification standards on Wikidata, unfortunately I don't really have a good suggestion on creating better processes to validate edits while keeping the "anyone-can-edit, everyone verifies" approach. By its nature, the data is very dense, so I think trying to double check all incoming edits is a more tedious and onerous job than can be expected of volunteers to do. isaacl (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
However, the Wikidata editors do not curate content in articles: editors at wikis that use the wiki-data do. Wikidata is the sourced information, and editors decide which ones to include. That is also why I think templates should include per-parameter overrides before switching to wiki-data by default. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know, per-parameter overrides is what is done in Wikipedia in all the languages in which templates pull information from Wikidata, and it makes perfect sense. If this is not the situation anywhere, I'd be very surprised. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Wikidata Infobox on Commons came out of initial work that I was doing here on enwiki - it's the same codebase as {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} and the like, but evolved a lot more due to a lot of constructive input on Commons. It has two views - one for people, one for everything else, and that's been shown to work very well overall, and is a lot more scalable and maintainable than thousands of more specialised templates. Technically, Wikidata infoboxes are quite mature now - and similar ones to this are used a lot on different language Wikipedias. Wikidata is also quite well integrated into different workflows across Wikimedia nowadays (including here with WiR redlists). The main question is a social one: whether the enwp community is interested in pursuing Wikidata infoboxes, and spending the time and energy to constructively contribute to improving data and refining template logic, as the Commons community and other language Wikipedia communities have. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think that, at this point, we still have too much fear of the unknown and Not invented here syndrome to accept much help from Wikidata. Other wikis will (and do) benefit from it, but we will have to nibble around the edges for another decade.
It's possible that we should be exploring something closer to the bi-directional but manual syncing that the Wikivoyages use (e.g., for official websites and the latitude/longitude of notable locations). If you haven't seen that, then go to your favorite vacation destination at voy: (e.g., voy:en:Paris/7th_arrondissement#See) and scroll down until you find a section that has [add listing] next to the usual section editing buttons. Click that and you'll get a big dialog box. On the right, find the blank for Wikidata and put in a famous landmark (e.g., "Eiffel Tower"; it won't save the edit until you manually tell it to). Click on "quick fetch" to see what Wikidata offers (and then "Cancel" all the way out, so you don't make any changes to the article or to Wikidata). There's also a dialog that lets you choose individual bits (e.g., I want my URL but Wikidata's latitude/longitude, or to remotely replace old information in Wikidata with newer information). Something like this could be done, and could even be set to require sources. Adding sources to Wikidata is usually quite easy, as you just choose the type (e.g., ISBN, DOI, URL...) and add the raw id number/URL directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
While agree with your assessment of WP decision processes, and I really do think we should ideally be doing more with WD structured data here, WD does not make anything easy (echoing Blueboar above), and frankly (from my attempts to raise this issue with them) does not seem to have any concern with the concept of UX at all. The Commons interface works well, but as soon as it migrates you over to edit Wikidata fields directly, you are forced into their bafflingly perplexing interface, where something that should be as basic as the difference between a "property" and a "reference" (and where to add a citation, which is recommended -- but which is not a "reference") is beneath several minutes of documentation. (The weirdest thing about all of this is that on the WD Discord it seems that people misplacing or not adding data is their #1 maintenance task.)
The project (in its current state) is usable if we can limit as much user interaction as possible to our end, but even Commons has not able been to do this fully. (Note: I feel free to complain about some WD editorship here because I've raised these same issues to WD editors directly many times already, often with poor responses.) SamuelRiv (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The main things I would want to have in place before I could support deeper integration of Wikidata into Wikipedia articles are:
  1. an obvious marker in the wikicode for where a parameter is being pulled from Wikidata (like |parameter=:wd or something), with the ability to overwrite it locally just by overwriting it or clearing it
  2. clearer error messages that make it obvious to people with no experience in Wikidata which datum the template is missing or unable to understand, which links directly to the property on the Wikidata item that is causing the problem, or if it's not present, one link to the property description and one link to the source item
I've run into a few template errors where the error arose at Wikidata, and in no case was I ever able to resolve these myself. If pro-Wikidata–integration editors here are willing to put in the work to make their templates friendly to Wikipedia editors with moderate and below technical aptitude, then I might consider getting on board, but at present they act like inscrutable black boxes, and their effect in practice is to disempower a large subset of editors in this community. Folly Mox (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with this. I remember the fiascos when {{start date and age}} would scream when improper wiki-data returned multiple dates for just one selector. There should be a way for these templates to error themselves without having the error overwritten by outer, wrapper templates. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Adding sources to Wikidata is usually quite easy, as you just choose the type (e.g., ISBN, DOI, URL...) and add the raw id number/URL directly. "

Random item [2], first unsourced entry: "taxon". "Add reference" opens field "property", which gives a dropdown with 5 possibilities. I want to use a book, so I guess "stated in" would be the right choice. A new dropdown opens, with endless choices, starting with "human"???, "human settlement"???, painting, village, family name... What the bleep is this about??? Perhaps I need to enter "book" and I can continue? Oh, no, it just stops there. Wikidata is extremely non-intuitive and random. Fram (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I want to use a book, so I guess "stated in" would be the right choice.

Yeah, so just enter the name of the book... Expecting that it can guess what book you want to cite is quite unreasonable.
You can also just choose "ISBN-13" instead of "stated in". Aaron Liu (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just like MediaWiki's own "non-intuitive and random" syntax for putting in a reference, Wikidata also has help pages like wikidata:Help:Sources that explain this exact thing to you. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Even if it is possible to learn by reading the manual (I would hope so!) I think their challenge to the characterization of it as simply "easy" was fair enough. Remsense ‥ 论 11:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's at least as easy to add a reference in Wikidata as it is in Wikipedia. That the methods are not the same does not change this. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do not dispute this. Remsense ‥ 论 11:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do. Fram (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
One difference worth noting is that on en.wiki someone can search Help:Citation and find something, while in Wikidata most Help: pages are Wikidata items. There is a guide at Wikidata:Help:Sources, but it only guides towards sources that are either Wikidata items or urls. CMD (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good point on the borked searching, but there is a "Help" button in the main menu.
You seem to have missed the "Different types of sources" section. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not sure how you come to that odd conclusion. The different types of sources section is a guide to creating Wikidata items, not to sourcing them. CMD (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It guides you on how you can cite a database with an item ID (the database is indeed a Wikidata item, but usually, the item for the database you use has already been created), a headstone, Wikisource, and archive records. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This threaded conversation is about the assertion of whether adding a Wikidata reference is "usually quite easy", in the context of comparisons to en.wiki. If I stated it was easy to reference something in en.wiki, you just have to create a new article for it, I suspect people would not find that a convincing argument or helpful contribution. CMD (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
New items on Wikidata are not articles. Their difficulty is far from that of new articles. That said, auto-generated reference items from e.g. a URL would help a lot. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think you underestimate the difficulty people may have in creating Wikidata items. CMD (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's genuinely easy. While the "Create a new item" button in the main menu isn't that noticeable, the steps from there are nearly as easy as filling out {{cite book}}. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Having created items it is not quite as easy as the nice en.wiki citation creator, but aside from that I don't see what the value is in ignoring the multiple people who have stated they find it difficult to parse Wikidata. CMD (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Auto-generated reference items from URLs are planned for Wikidata, and since Citoid will be used to generate them, they'll be just as erroneous and silly as they are here. Folly Mox (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
And that would mean wiki-data included on Wikipedia would be at the same level of quality as the wiki. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That doesn't follow at all. Wikidata with a reference generated by the tool would have similar references as those generated by that tool if the editors involved are the same, and if the scrutiny afterwards is the same. But since Wikidata has for example poor bots creating articles or adding problematic references, and doesn't have the same level of vandalism control as Wikipedia (even though here as well too much slips through the cracks), the end result is that Wikidata quality is too often way below Wikipedia quality. Fram (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Items included on wikis will be scrutinized as well as the main wiki is, and I'm not sure what problematic bot contributions you're referring to. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
As an example, CJMbot[3]. Latest edits include creating an item on a very obscure 17th c. author[4], and then a week later readding the same items and references to it. Another bot then comes along and removes the duplicate items, but adds the duplicate references to the earlier items. Good going... I noticed this bot because at John Cage it added a second date of birth[5] sourced to Museum Dhondt-Dhaenens. Completely unverifiable, the museum exists but what is meant? Some database, a catalogue, information inside the museum? The result is that e.g. the infobox at Commons now since nearly two years shows the correct and an incorrect birthdate. Fram (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It looks as if that bot has wrecked countless Wikidata items, many subtly, some extremely blatant. Some concerns were raiesd on its talk page, but despite reassurances that the bot owner would look into it, nothing was done apparently, and no one noticed the massive amount of disruption. Which yet again illustrates to me that we should use Wikidata as sparsely as possible, and not trust it to be good enough to add content to enwiki. See [6], a chemical compound that thanks to this bot is also a human with a birth date and so on. Not a one-off, see [7][8][9][10]... Fram (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, that is problematic. Looking at its request for bot permissions, it takes CSV databases submitted by museums and attempts to match them for people, hence the comments on "this was indeed a problem in the data". There hasn't been any discussions on the bot linking people to chemical compounds yet, somehow. Hopefully this time I start a discussion at a talk page, someone will notice.
However, when such data is included on Wikipedia, I'm sure people will notice whatever incorrect data there is like you did and fix it. The Recent Changes also has a lot of edits that are shown as manually patrolled, so it's not like their vandalism control is that low. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to disappoint you, but yes, their vandalism control really is way, waaaay too low. I'm still waiting for someone to revert even one of the 5 vandal edits I bookmarked more than 2 days ago, and today it took nearly 4 hours for someone to realise that "Succcca ahahhaha " (English description: "TUA MADRE STR")[11] is not the correct English label of The Lord of the Rings. If even such high profile articles and such blatant vandalism take this long to be reverted... (And yes, this means that the Commons infobox showed this for 4 hours as well). Fram (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Have you considered that everybody who saw that is doing the same as you and timing how long it takes for someone else to fix it? Has it occurred to you to fix things rather than passively disrupting the wiki to make a point? 15:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it's lacking. I'm saying that it's not too low. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Yeah, so just enter the name of the book": where? after the "stated in" box? "Stated in" comes with a lengthy explanation, which even on my widescreen ends with "in which a claim is ma..." without any possibility of accessing the remainder of that text. What's the point of the dropdown after you pick "stated in" if none of these make any sense here. But okay, I add a book title after "stated in". Oops, I want to include a book which doesn't have a Wikidata entry: impossible (or what else does the pinkish-red box mean?). Oh right, according to your help page, if you want to use a reference which doesn't already exist as an item on Wikidata, you first have to create an item for it. So easy! If you are truly out of luck, it is a reference with different editions, and then you have to create two new Wikidata items before you can use it as a source. Want to use a newspaper article as a reference? First create a Wikidata itam for the newspaper article. On Wikipedia, I take the dropdown for the type of reference I want to add (only showing things I can actually use, not "human"), it shows me what the standard fields are, and I don't need to create other stuff only to be able to source something. Trying to edit Wikidata is just an endless source of frustration which I happily avoid and don't want to inflict on others at all. Still, it is nice to see how the number of human edits at Wikidata is constantly artificially inflated by e.g. claiming that I have made 951 edits at Wikidata instead of a dozen or so. Oh well, I have bookmarked 5 bits of Wikidata vandalism to see how fast they get reverted, has that visit to Wikidata given me some fun after all. Fram (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

where? after the "stated in" box?

Yeah, there's a reason the param is called "stated in". That's more intuitive than the book icon in the source editor's toolbar.

which even on my widescreen ends with "in which a claim is ma..." without any possibility of accessing the remainder of that text

It displays completely on my standard 1080p.

What's the point of the dropdown after you pick "stated in" if none of these make any sense here.

That's just like how for the "author-link" parameter, TemplateWizard—the visual way of inserting templates—automatically suggests every article that begins with whatever you typed. However, I do agree that just like the TemplateWizard, Wikidata should not be automatically suggesting things when you haven't typed anything.

you first have to create an item for it. So easy!

It's genuinely easy. While the "Create a new item" button in the main menu isn't that noticeable, the steps from there are as easy as filling out {{cite book}}.
Fair point on having to fill it in twice for the edition item.

it shows me what the standard fields are

Wikidata also does. Every class of objects (denoted by whatever you put in for "instance of") has a recommended set of statements that you should fill in; these will be automatically suggested when you click on the "add statement" button. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You must be looking at a completely different Wikidata (and Wikipedia) than I am than. If Visual Editor is as bad as Wikidata, then that's another good reason not to use it. I don't get a "book" icon, I get a nice textual dropdown with "cite book", "cite web", "cite news" and so on. Standard fields: you claim "Wikidata also does.". No, it doesn't. After I have added a book title after "stated in", nothing happens. I don't get e.g. the pages parameter, or "chapter", or anything. I just have to know which ones are expected. Fram (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
If learning how to edit Wikipedia can be a bit steep learning how to use Wikidata is like walking into a brick wall. Especially on mobile I find it simply unusable. I genuinely feel it would be easy to use if you had to write SQL commands. That's not an attack on the concept of Wikidata, rather a criticism of its implementation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can basically SQL CMD (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
But not exactly user friendly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
These are pretty good points. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe the Drag'n'drop gadget is default-on, and this 22-second-long video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP-qJIkjPf0 shows that it takes only a couple of seconds to import a source directly from Wikipedia into the ref field in Wikidata.
Manually adding a ref such as the one I added here takes very few steps:
  1. Click the 'edit' button for that item (if you're not already editing the item).
  2. Click '+ add reference'.
  3. Choose a reference type from the dropdown list. This may require a little advance knowledge (equivalent to knowing which of the many citation templates to use), but it usually suggests something sensible, like "reference URL".
  4. Paste the URL (or other ref information) into the box.
  5. Click 'publish'.
I'm certain that every person in this discussion is capable of learning how to do this, and I'm pretty sure that most of us would find that it takes mere seconds after we have learned the simple steps in the process. This takes, at the most, four clicks, pasting the source, plus sometimes typing the name of a suitable reference type (if the type you want isn't already showing in the list).
The drag-n-drop approach doesn't even require that much effort. Just scroll to the list of Wikipedias at the end of the Wikidata item and click [ref] for the language you want to copy the ref from. A copy of the Wikipedia article will open. Find the ref you want to re-use, and drag it over. Script-assisted copying and pasting does not sound like a difficult task to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
So I first add the source to Wikipedia, and then copy it to Wikidata to be able to, er, use it on Wikipedia? How does this make life easier? The video uses Mabery Gelvin Botanical Garden[12] and adds a second ref to the state it is in, Illinois. So if we had an infobox generated from Wikidata, it would have shows that it was located in Illinois, just like it does now. Apart from the fact that the state is no longer mentioned at Wikidata for some reason... It was added in 2016 (with a retrieval date of 2012, not good) and removed more than a year ago. Good thing we don't rely on that site. Considering that none of the 5 examples of vandalism I yesterday recorded have been reverted, it seems vandal fighting on Wikidata is still problematic anyway. Fram (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The tool is for easily importing existing citations. A tool to help create new citations still needs to be made.
Also, the Wikidata item was changed to be in Champaign county, which seems correct. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
As said by Chipmunkdavis below, the tool isn't even visible to mere mortals, is it a toggle in the preferences? And I didn't claim that Champaign county is incorrect, but that if the infobox was Wikidata-filled, it would have changed from "Illinois" (good, informative for most people, wanted) to "Champaign county" (not informative for most people, certainly without "Illinois"). Or, to be even more exact, it would have removed "Illinois" from the infobox but not even added "Champaign county" in its place, as on Wikidata, Champaign county is not even referenced... USA wouldn't be shown either, as that is "referenced" to enwiki. The only references in the article are 404 errors. It's not an example I deliberately picked, it's one given by WhatamIdoing (though involuntarily I guess), but it is typical of Wikidata, even after 10+ years. Even when one goes to a basic article, say Illinois[13], it has hardly any reliable sources. Fram (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the gadget is not enabled by default and needs to be toggled.
Naming locations as within their provinces is a style convention independent of data. Infoboxes could easily make two calls to Wikidata for the location. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Doesn't seem to be the default. My Wikidata interface (including for Mabery Gelvin Botanical Garden (Q5477670)) has the various wiki links at the bottom of the page, and without [ref] icons. CMD (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Another key difference (in my experience) between WP and WD: on WP it is acknowledged that there is a learning curve and entry barriers to editing, and in virtually every VP conversation the notion of how to mitigate this is brought up; on WD the conversations I've had seem indicative that editors believe that it is completely intuitive at its core -- either they don't believe they can make it any easier for users, or that users' difficulties are their own fault (this is just the impression I've had from conversations -- admittedly I'm very direct about reporting interface problems). Additionally, when asked, WD editors did not seem interested in running user interaction experiments or examining existing UX data.
Again, this is not to dogpile on WD for no reason. I believe in the project's core purpose, but I feel at this point like I gotta yell at any direction to get them to wake up. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This problem definitely exists on Wikidata, but it exists on Wikipedia, too. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the work required to update Wikidata: when I last made a change, which was admittedly a long time ago, I had to go down a long rabbit hole creating Wikidata items for each property value I was added to the citation that didn't already exist, which cascaded to creating more Wikidata items for the property values of the initially created items, and so forth. If this is still the case, then I would be a lot more inclined to update Wikidata if there were a tool to help generate the entire tree of cascaded Wikidata items for me to approve for submission. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

While the initial premise of this thread is challenging. I think it's worth regrouping to deliberate specifically on some other concepts and potentialities vis à vis Wikidata integration others have brought up so far. In particular, I think it's generally agreed that a range of features are potentially viable as long as they're bidirectionally transparent—i.e. Wikipedia users do not have to learn how to use Wikidata or leave Wikipedia in order to pull or update information. We're fairly familiar with this partially being the way short descriptions work, I think? Remsense ‥ 论 03:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe Wikidata pull en.wiki short descriptions (and other languages?) for its relevant field only when there is no existing one on Wikidata, and similarly en.wiki only shows Wikidata if there is no en.wiki short description (unless that has already been disabled?). Wikidata will also pull coordinates and other items, but I don't know if much of this comes bidirectionally back to en.wiki. CMD (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can find more about usage of Wikidata on English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Wikidata. Over 100 Infoboxes make use of Wikidata in some fashion. See Category:Infobox templates using Wikidata.
The other dimension this conversation neglects, is that English Wikipedia editors would have chance to support other language editions, if we maintain interoperability between Wikidata and Wikipedia; with all other language editions of Wikipedia. There are legitimate concerns about interface complexity (for all Wiki projects) and sourcing standards, but let's tackle them instead of carte-blanche rejecting any synergies. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm familiar with our infoboxes using Wikidata. The uses I'm aware of though aren't bidirectionally transparent in the way Remsense mentions, as you very much do have to go into Wikidata to edit them. CMD (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll probably again be accused of "passively disrupting the wiki to make a point"[14], but for anyone who believes that Wikidata has a well-functioning vandal patrol system, here are the 5 random bits of vandalism I bookmarked last week, surprise, none of them have been corrected. They are a varied bunch, from someone creating an unsourced BLP violating article on a non-notable person[15] to someone randomly vandalising some labels[16] (which also affects e.g. Commons), from the obscure but obvious[17] to an editor vandalizing 4 different articles without any problems[18], and ending with a Wikipedia editor with an enwiki article, who died fighting for Ukraine against Russia, being blatantly vandalized and insulted[19]. Fram (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

To sneak in a very brief aside I meant to post before this spawned a subthread, I do think passive disruption is a bit of a tough sell. Folly Mox (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Putting aside the specifics, would semi-protecting all items used on enwp sufficiently assuage vandalism fears? It would've prevented all of those examples above. It's already the case that high-use items are semi-protected, but I don't really know the culture of semi-protection on Wikidata to predict whether a lower threshold is realistic. Seems worth acknowledging as a possible support condition amid the years-long "it's garbage" vs. "it's useful" debates here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
If we transcluded such content onto Wikidata, the selections of content we actually use would be put under the same, quality countervandal lens that has worked for years. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do you mean "from" Wikidata? Otherwise I don't really understand your comment. And no, in the current system this wouldn't work, vandalism on Wikidata that has an impact here is not detected as quickly as vandalism here (in general, we have vandalism that remains for months or years as well). We can include Wikidata changes in e.g. "recent changes", but then we get things like this included (as "Dm Antón Losada Diéguez (Q3393880); 12:37 . . Estevoaei (talk | contribs) (‎Created claim: Property:P1344: Q12390563)", which has no bearing on Enwiki at all. Which is typical, most of the Wikidata changes we see are either interwiki links, English descriptions (which we don't display anyway), or things like this which will never be shown here. Fram (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I meant from, sorry. You indeed don't get RC patrolling, but I think the biggest reason WD vandalism doesn't get detected is that it's not prominently displayed. Any vandalism that escapes initial RC patrolling would have little chance of detection unless the vandal has hubris (c.f. anyone who has nuked someone's contributions) or people actually read the article, which they do, and so they fix. If we increase the prominence of such data by actually using it, we will also substantially increase the countervandalism. I hardly see any vandalism on wiki-data we already include on articles. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
At least some of the examples I gave already impacted e.g. Commons, and no one detected it from there either. When the Wikidata descriptions were displayed on enwiki, vandalism of these descriptions was not significantly or rapidly detected on enwiki and reverted on Wikidata. This RfC discussion from 2017 gives many examples of what goes wrong when enwiki relies on Wikidata for its data, and also gives (near the bottom) examples of prominent Wikidata vandalism lasting for hours and impacting a number of enwiki articles, from during that RfC. It happens all the time. Fram (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Commons isn't very prominent.

lasting for hours

So? That's not abnormal for vandalism, even on Wikipedia. The amount of edits nuking reverts means many cases of vandalism probably are still extant. There's this famous boxer I forgot the name of who had his infobox blatantly vandalized with the nickname changed to something like "imbecile"; it only got reverted after four days. Look at special:Diff/1241738467, which shut off the feedback request service for months. Disregarding the easy protection fix, does that mean all RfCs should be run manually? No. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have started a new essay, User:Cambalachero/Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, listing cases of stuff that should not be used in Wikipedia, even if we have references for it. Do you have other ideas, or better ways to explain the current ones? Cambalachero (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You might consider adding something about "in popular culture" content, as addressed at WP:IPC. Specifically, it generally isn't appropriate for inclusion without a secondary source. DonIago (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm guessing you're aware of WP:Onus and are just writing an explanatory essay for it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that section says very little. It says that sometimes content may not be added even if verifiable, but does not explain when. And I have often seen "it's verifiable!" or "it's in the sources!" as a catch-on defense for several other contents that are questionable for other reasons. Cambalachero (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
How does this differ from WP:NOT? Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Something about celebrity gossip (and even non-celebrity gossip!), may also be appropriate. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:RECENTISM, and WP:10YEARTEST in particular, might have some inspiration. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This follows from our first pillar that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and its corollary that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've been trying to find articles which need creating and from which the topic is important for months, but it seems nowhere to be seen. So, I'm planning to create the project. I just want to pitch the idea here and see if you can think of improvements. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles and/or Wikipedia:Requested articles are probably what you're looking for. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe Wikipedia:Broad-concept article? Vital articles tend to be on rather broad subjects, like "Law" or "Animal". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Might also be Special:WantedPages, although it would be nice to filter that by namespace. Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles hasn't been updated in a year and a half, and includes only #–A as initial title character, and doesn't filter links from template transclusions. Would be pretty cool if someone could do a new query for that page with those two issues fixed. Folly Mox (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This idea interests me, but I suspect it would either become a duplicate of requested articles, or it would be a machine to churn out stubs without actually giving them the attention we're trying to bring. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then maybe I can expand the Tambayan Philippines de-stubbing force to a Wikipedia-wide project. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
How about a weekly list of 20 articles which are important in this order:
  • Agriculture:
  • Food
  • Art and language:
  • Architecture
  • Paintings
  • Literature
  • Engineering, technology, and mathematics
  • Engineering
  • Technology
  • Mathematics
  • History
  • Historical events and figures
  • Media and drama
  • Films and movies
  • Videos
  • Pictures
  • Music
  • Albums
  • Songs
  • Artists
  • Science
  • Earthquakes and storms
  • Animals
  • Scientists
  • Philosophy
  • Religion
  • Social Sciences
  • Trends
  • Sports
  • Activities
  • Sports teams and events
  • Video games and warfare
  • Wars
  • Video games
Any objection? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
How are you identifying these? Pulling from the relevant Wikiprojects? CMD (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean by that? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
How would a list of 20 vital redlinks of such a diverse scope be identified? How would redlinks be found in the first place? CMD (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
By pulling from the relevant WikiProjects like you asked. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Already created a draft: User:TheNuggeteer/sandbox2 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is your project, so I'm trying to withhold judgement on your proposed topic taxonomy, but I am a bit mystified by the choices. I'm wondering how Video games and warfare form a logical pair, and I'm thinking there might be more to Science than Earthquakes and storms, Animals, and Scientists. Historical events and figures might be a more populated subcategory than you seem to be bargaining for, and I'm curious as to why Pictures and Trends each warrant a weekly redlink for creation, when topics such as Medicine, Politics, and Geography are wholly absent.You might be interested in overviewing the WMF's topic taxonomy at :mw:ORES/Articletopic § Taxonomy, although if your source for wanted redlinks is WikiProjects, probably the easiest and most effective taxonomic scheme will just involve pulling one redlink from the twenty most active WikiProjects. Folly Mox (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The archive URL comes in this format: www.web.achive.org/web/yyyymmdd/https:www.placeholder.com

The date can be automatically entered when the URL is given, instead of having to add the date. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 05:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know that is true of the Internet Archive, but I seem to remember that other archiving services have different URL formats. Alt.Donald Albury (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe we can detect the link (starting with web.archive.org), and if it is the internet archive, then the format can be used. The other archives are not used significantly, so this will not impact the process much. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 12:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is an excellent idea. Archive.org does not use yyyymmdd but, for example, 20031224105129. I manually have to insert dashes at the appropriate points 2003-12-24105129 and remove the timestamp so I end up with 2003-12-24. It seems very very likely that a bot is already doing this task, but to be sure you can ask over at Meta or WP:VPT. Polygnotus (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok, so only the archive URL is needed to fill the citation template. The date can just be filled in automatically
Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 02:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Pinging @GreenC for archive.org's date format WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I would like to propose a project regarding photos on infoboxes on articles pertaining to executives and other public figures. I believe there is too much inconsistency on Wikipedia, with photos ranging from official, professional portraits to photos taken of them out in the wild, such as on a stage or during a live stream. To maintain consistency and make Wikipedia articles look more presentable, I would like us to move towards having portraits of said individuals whenever possible to avoid copyright infringement. Most articles of politicians follow this trend; and so, I'd like to broaden this to all public figures, especially those who hold or have held C-level positions. I look forward to everyone's thoughts and please let me know if this type of discussion should be moved elsewhere. MikeM2011 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what you want to do that hasn't already been done. The reason there's so much inconsistency in portraits is that we just don't have enough photographers to take pictures of subjects in public places (or get consent to take pictures of subjects in private places). Aaron Liu (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are many professional portraits available online we could use. I'm not sure why we can't utilize these with proper citations under the fair use agreement. MikeM2011 (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can't because anyone should be able to take a free image of them in a public location, and we can't afford to allow mass uploads and then get sued a ton. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, the rules over non-free content do not allow to use fair use claims on photos of living people, and that policy is way too strong to even consider changing it (I'm not even sure if we can, or if it was decided by the Wikimedia Foundation). That means that, on a lot of things related to images, we don't use or do what we would want, but only what we can with the limited images available to us. I suspect that by "articles of politicians" you mean US politicians, and we have plenty of good images and even portraits because many official sites release their contents under free licenses. But try to write about politicians from elsewhere, and you'll likely have to deal with the same scarcity of good photos of many other topics. Cambalachero (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portals (such as the physics portal) show good articles, so why not on the main page? Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We do. New good articles are eligible to be nominated for DYK. Portals aren't really a design pattern worth comparing to given their lack of popularity, and most good articles frankly aren't worth showcasing more than we already do via DYK. Remsense ‥ 论 09:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

PROPOSAL: the titles of entries at Wikipedias, to be spelt exactly as they are written in their languages. With lowercase or uppercase initials.
This is a proposal for all wikipedias. Every some years, I revisit the subject.
Why here: because this is the largest and most infulential wikipedia. The opinion of the most experienced editors could make possible a global change from forced uppercase/capitals as initials at every single entry to the true and correct spelling in its own language.
Would en.wikipedia editors please consider:

  • No switch to uppercase/capital initial letter without grammatical reason. No violation of the true spelling of words.
  • If not case sensitive (in unison with the Wiktionaries of the same language), at least case tolerant.
    For any spelling at SearchBox both initials (uppercase/capitals and lowercase) would lead to an entry, written correctly:
    e.g. brown (color), Brown (surname), brown (disambiguation) hypothetical examples: BROWN (company), Brown (novel)

I know how difficult this project would be:
technically (cf WP:Naming conventions#Lowercase first letter, Template:lowercase and many discussions)
but mainly, psychologically.
I think, that choosing uppercase/capitals for all entries, at the first days of the design of wikipedias, was a huge mistake. Now, very difficult to correct. But it is never too late to do the correct thing.
Thank you for listening, a wiktionarian (inevitably case-sensitive), Sarri.greek (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

but don't you say "Lithuanian" with a capital L and thus "Wiktionarian" with a capital W? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Of course, M @Aaron Liu:, please excuse my ignorance of English grammar and any misspellings. In my personal writing i tend to use lowercase Sarri.greek (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • @Sarri.greek: assuming you mean changing the behaviour of page titles so that they become case sensitive, making e.g. Brown and brown different pages, then I'm not understanding what the benefits of this will be? What has changed now that makes you think the consensuses arrived at in the many previous discussions will be different this time? Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    M @Thryduulf: At the moment, the page for the colour is entitled Brown. Inexplicable capital initial. I think it should be brown with lowercase or, brown (color) [the full title]. Thank you for your attention. Sarri.greek (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Sarri.greek: That would be because of technical limitations - article titles that start with a letter must start with it capitalised. {{lowercase title}} can be used to force the first letter of an article title to render lowercase (as at iPhone), but this does not change the actual title of the page in software (IPhone). You cannot be seriously suggesting spamming that template across what is certain to be in the low seven-figures of articles, right? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    M @Jéské Couriano: >>must start with capitalised<< Why? Was that a WMF decision? An English Wikipedia decision? Sorry that I do not understand the technical reasons of this initial approach (or any tech matter) to write the colour 'brown' capitalised, when it is an isolated word (not in a sentence, not a title of a book or essay, but just a word). Thank you. Sarri.greek (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Sarri.greek: It's a MediaWiki (read: software) decision. You would need to talk to the developers. (Just because the developers are on WMF payroll doesn't mean the WMF made decisions on how to handle article titles, especially since this well predates the WMF's existence.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm struggling to see how this would be beneficial. If we have our titles in sentence case, shouldn't the first word still be capitalized? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I believe this is a proposal to stop having our titles in sentence case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Which would make the whole thing look more inconsistent, as section titles, for instance, will presumably stay in sentence case. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I am generally of the opinion that the case sensitivity of Wikipedias was a mistake (and largely disagree with that aspect of WP:DIFFCAPS, although I of course follow it). Similar to why all articles start with an uppercase letter, the case sensitivity made some sense if you look at the origin of Wikis in general where they would auto link CamelCase words without additional syntax needed. As Mediawiki no longer does that, the need for a leading capital letter is largely gone. And why it's still there is, I think, the understanding that the effort (programmatically/technically , content updates, and just everyone getting "used" to the changes) wouldn't be worth the squeeze. Although my guess is most of the technical effort would be making the migration as seamless as possible for readers, as Wiktionary already allows (or at least appears to allow to readers and editors alike) actual initial lowercase (but is case sensitive). I haven't researched enough to know exactly what I'd support or oppose. Skynxnex (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply