Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 27

In 2013 there was a proposal for the Foundation to take over the running of WebCite (see Meta:WebCite). The idea was supported by WebCite themselves. Alternative suggestions were that the Foundation should support WebCite in some lesser way; with technical support or monetary grants for instance. The proposal was closed without saying what has actually happened, if anything.

Since then, the site has had frequent, lengthy, and unexplained outages (see Talk:WebCite). WebCite is very important for Wikipedia. It enables us to safely protect references against linkrot. Is it time to reopen this proposal? SpinningSpark 12:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The landscape has changed somewhat since that proposal. We now have a better idea how many links there are across all wiki languages (WebCite is about 5% of all archive links on Enwiki), and WMF has a good working relationship with Internet Archive including IABot and WaybackMedic. There are also new players like archive.is which are effective at archiving WebCite archives, and I suspect Internet Archive would be open to it as well. In the end it's not our responsibility to fund WebCite as an entity, we only care there are archives of the pages. If we fund a site like WebCite, why not fund Internet Archive, Archive.is and everything else? If WebCite can't supports itself, why are we outsourcing our most critical pillar of

WP:V

to them when there are other quality competitors who don't require funding.

This can be accomplished IMO simply be capturing the WebCite archives somewhere else as backup, in case WebCite ever go down permanently. We can also begin the process of moving links away from WebCite to other providers, we've got bots ready to go at a moments notice it could be finished in a week or two. But it would require consensus discussion because despite the unreliability of WebCite (weeks long outages etc) there are users who want to and will continue using them. -- GreenC 15:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

To me, the great selling point of WebCite is it will archive on request. You can guarantee that there is an archive of the page you used as a source on the day that you looked at it. SpinningSpark 18:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh others have that these days. On Wayback it's called Save Page Now (SPN). On archive.is also available. In fact I would argue WebCite has the least robust because they will report the page is saved and provide the URL, but then start a background process and email when ready. If the page is not saved for some reason, but in the mean time you added the URL into Wikipedia, this creates link rot. My bot has cleaned up thousands like this, why WebCite has the largest percentage of link rot. -- GreenC 18:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We still have many bios with political offices that are inconsistent with capitalizing & non-capitalizing. The best example is the bios of US governors & lieutenant governors. Can we enforce WP:JOBTITLES to settle the dispute? GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Are these bona fide disputes, or just things no one has fixed yet? --Jayron32 02:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It's suppose to be settled at JOBTITLES. But, not everyone is abiding by it or at least, not everyone is making the effort to implement it consistently. A combination of some dispute & apathy, seems the core. Possible cause? lack of awareness across the community. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Might be disagreement as well. JOBTITLES is part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style which is prefixed with "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I opened an Rfc at the WP:Manual of Style page. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

A decade or more ago, various (entirely good-faith) Wikipedians added exlinks to omacl.org, which was at the time was the Online Medieval and Classical Library - which hosted a range of historical texts. But now, as an IP editor points out, omacl.org redirects to a payday lender. I expect that the domain has expired and has been bought by that loans company. We have nearly 200 links to omacl.org, which obviously we need to fix somehow. The IP fixed that particular link by changing the domain to mcllibrary.org, and that site appears to host the correct documents (and for a few of the other links we have, at least). I'm a touch skittish about that site, because it seems to be hosted by another individual person - and I fear that if we put work into changing all the links there, in a few years that person may abandon his project, and the same kind of domain-lapse problem will recur. It would be better if we could fix the links to a more stable location, like the Internet Archive, or a University department. So my questions are:

• is there such a host that has this content?
• should we change the links wholesale to that, or must we consider each link on its merits?
• is there a partitially automated process (e.g. Twinkle) that someone could use to simplify this task? 200 edits is a lot for a person, but too little for a fully automated bot task.

I'll prod a couple of the related wikiprojects for their input. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 18:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Finlay McWalter: You can leave a comment on User talk:InternetArchiveBot or its operator's talk page to ensure these references are updated to archive.org links (or if they are not updated, then they can't be updated). For all others, you will probably have to 1-by-1 replace the links, and then I would recommend ensuring those links are saved on Internet Archive also. --Izno (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember ever looking at this site, but it appears from the list of links (see above) that it offered older English translations (therefore PD) of fairly well-known sources, in machine-readable text divided into chapters. This is not what the Internet Archive does best -- it's more like what Project Gutenberg does. But I don't know of any reliable way to convert the links to gutenberg without checking each one. Andrew Dalby 14:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to comment that the idea that documents hosted by university departments are stable is misplaced confidence. They are just as suscepible to linkrot as anywhere else, possibly more so. The documents often only stay up as long as a particular course is being run or a particular professor needs them. I've fixed hundred of such links that have gone dead. SpinningSpark 14:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of lists of non-notable victims is becoming problematic. It seems that they are being added by editors to articles dealing with mass casualty WP:EVENTs which is causing frequent, often lengthy and sometimes acrimonious debates over whether such lists are appropriate and/or violate WP:NOTMEMORIAL and NOT:EVERYTHING with local consensus proving either elusive or dramatically varying from one article to another depending on shows up and how determined they are to bludgeon their way through. This is getting out of hand and we really need to establish some kind of guideline for the sake of consistency and putting a stop to these endless debates. I personally believe that in most cases they are unencyclopedic, add nothing of substance to the article and violate, at least in spirit, NOTMEMORIAL. But even if a decision is made to allow them, which I would strongly oppose, that would be better than the status quo. My personal preference would be to amend NOTMEMORIAL to expressly prohibit lists of non-notable victims. Obvious and commonsense exceptions would include otherwise nonnotable victims who were significantly involved in the EVENT. Which is to say they did more than just die. Generally these will simply be named in the article narrative. I also would be fine with including an WP:EL external link to a suitable memorial website or news site that lists the victims. I do realize that this has been discussed before, but the status quo is just not working. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I also think that these lists add little to the article narrative. If a person had a notable role in an event, as documented in reliable sources, their role can be noted as part of the prose narrative of the event. If the person is otherwise wiki-notable (has or could have a stand-alone article based on their life outside of the event) then they can also be mentioned in the prose of the article. I am at a loss as to what the possible use is of lists of otherwise unnotable names, dropped into such an article without context, serves in the story of such events. Such lists serve little more than to act as a memorial to the victims, and while they can often be referenced, they rarely serve any relevant purpose, and as such, should go. --Jayron32 15:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

We've gone round in circles on this issue at Talk:Thousand Oaks shooting and it was previously discussed here. I'm firmly in the "no unless the people are notable" camp, but some people aren't and always try to have a list.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• • This needs to be broadened somewhat to include participants or crewmembers. USS Monitor contains a list of crewmen who are non-notable and don't perform any important actions. People who do something significant should mentioned in the text, but a list of people who were simply present has no value, regardless of their status as victims or whatever.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Citing lists from more articles that should also be removed doesn't really help build a case... --Jayron32 15:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• They should be removed in general. Where one or more victims had a role, as was the case in the Sandy Hook shooting, they can be described in prose. Makes it very easy to draw the line of what to not include. --Masem (t) 15:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • To add to my argument, victim lists tend to be a matter of RECENTISM as well as sensationalist reporting (if the incident involved innocent civilians). A question to ask is if twenty years later, will those victim lists be essential to an article? Nearly all the time, that answer is no. I do realize that locally/regionally/nationally there will often be memorials to such victims, but that's just not information appropriate for an encyclopedia if these people were non-notable. What value is there knowing that Jane Smith and John Doe died in the event if they otherwise had no role in it? --Masem (t) 17:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

We are not "memorializing" anyone. You have to know intention to charge that we are memorializing. Show me where "Jane Smith" or "John Doe" died in an incident. Names happen to often reflect ethnicities. Names are often "non-generic". Hometowns, ages—all of humanity is not a pile of undifferentiated biomass. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

In 10-20 years, unfortunately, yes they are, if they are non-notable persons before the event. The vast majority of humans are non-notable, and rarely gain notability post-death. And why do we care about ethnicity, save for cases when that was a reason for the mass death (eg the recent shooting in Pennsylvania) in which case we can say the broad description about them. --Masem (t) 18:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"why do we care about ethnicity" I don't know. But we do. And it is not just ethnicity. It is age too. And a minimal few other factors. Occupations and home towns have informative value. Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This is fundamentally an

WP:ILIKEIT argument. Whether an individual picks their nose has some degree of informative value. Whether it belongs in an encyclopedia article or not is a different question. Parsecboy (talk

) 18:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Whether an individual picks their nose has some degree of informative value." That is why we exercise judgement as to how extensive our coverage is of the lives of decedents. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

But you just said "all information is constructive" - you can't have your cake and eat it too, my friend. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't speaking about Wikipedia. All information is informative. Most of it fails to inform. The value of information is a function of our ability to decipher it. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"All information is informative. Most of it fails to inform." GMG^talk 18:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

We can summarize any critical ethnicity/gender/age/etc. breakdown if it seems appropriate in the prose given what the event was (eg we frequently break down nationalities of passengers in international aircraft disasters, or in cases of school shootings, how many were students and how many were teachers/others). We absolutely should not be guessing on names, hometowns (which doesn't confirm anything on ethnicity) or other details. --Masem (t) 19:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, you literally said "Our primary purpose is compiling information. You are mistaken if you think our primary purpose is providing constructive information. That is because ultimately all information is constructive." (until you removed it after I pointed out you contradicted it here - rather poor form, I'd say). So unless you have a mouse in your pocket, and you're working on your own website, I can only assume you were talking about writing articles on Wikipedia. Again, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You either make distinctions about what information is useful for an encyclopedia article and what isn't (like you seem to suggest above) or you don't (like you did in the comment you have now removed). If the former, you need to provide an explanation about how such information as you'd like to include is relevant in an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a newspaper article or a genealogical archive, for instance), and if the latter, then you have no leg to stand on, policy-wise. Parsecboy (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Let's stop being silly. If there aren't space constraints, editors should be allowed to build articles. This is the sort of information being removed. The "Casualty" section is entirely constructive to the article. We see no excess of information in that "Casualty" section of that article, which of course I am presenting merely as an example. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  That sort of information probably should be removed. There are practically never space constraints, but we still don't include every piece of information. It's just article bloat – that's what

  WP:INDISCRIMINATE is for. Continuing to use this article as an example, I can't see how someone wanting to read and learn about the collision could ever care about the names, ages, and home towns of the dead. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos

  ) 15:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  I would say many readers would "care about the names, ages, and home towns of the dead." I know I would. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  Well, it's trivial to find a minimum of 1 person in the world who would be interested in anything. However, I think the better test would be to look at the general trends at Wikipedia towards lists of people's names. There's nothing inherently different between, say, the list of people who died in a particular event compared to say, the list of people who attended a certain school or worked for a certain corporation or attended a particular concert or some such. What is Wikipedia's guidance for those sorts of events. Whatever that is, we should probably have similar guidance here. There's nothing extra special about dying over any other life event, after all. --Jayron32 16:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps so, but show me an encyclopedia that lists that information. They'll give the number of casualties, but not details. Similarly, you'll often find histories of individual ships that are seriously damaged or sunk that lack detailed information on crew losses or casualties. Hell, a lot of my sources have different loss figures for the same event. The key thing for me here is WP:SUMMARY; naming the casualties/participants/etc. isn't summarizing anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Responding to Jayron32 and Sturmvogel 66—the specifics matter. Part of the huge impacts these events have are their fatalities. There is a risk in generalizing. It is not "there were 7 deaths". It is "these are the people who died." We should not want to elaborate beyond a certain point. But it is also ludicrous to think that we have covered an incident by lumping all of humanity into one pile. There were specific people who died. There are minimum identifying features that should be included if we are covering an incident. That includes names, probably ages, and perhaps a few more identifying features. In the case of American sailors the hometown is a logical and completely defensible piece of information for inclusion. Do we want to know their dog's name, whether they are married or not, number of children, hobbies? No, we don't. Specific people with specific identities died and our coverage of these topics should allude in some small way to their identities. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Specific people with specific names also attended a university, or worked for a corporation, or attended a concert. You've not established how these lists are distinct from others where we avoid naming otherwise non-notable people in them. --Jayron32 17:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"You've not established how these lists are distinct from others" Nor need I. Reality has established the distinction of these lists. We are not here primarily to educate people. Yes, most of the time we try to digest information in accordance with the views of sources. But identities of decedents do not require any special explanation. We are documenting by minimal means the identities of the fatalities that are of central importance to the incident being written about. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You keep repeating that. It doesn't become true merely through your will to say it over and over. --Jayron32 18:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"We are not here primarily to educate people." GMG^talk 18:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Discussed in November 2017 as linked by Ianmacm above. Discussed more recently in July 2018, here. People keep bringing the issue to the community, and the community keeps punting, saying that it needs case-by-case evaluation and even a default guideline would be bad. This, despite the indisputable fact that the arguments are the same in every case. If any argument has ever included something particular about that case as distinct from other cases, I haven't seen it. That means that case-by-case evaluation is a ridiculous waste of editor time. Until it can be brought to the community without case-by-case on the table—or the community magically comes to its senses—I don't see how we're not condemned to the status quo indefinitely—repeating the same arguments again and again, with the outcomes variously determined by who shows up for the discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Summarize the core arguments with links to examples, in an essay. Anyone can do it - demonstrate the repeating arguments. It would be a good first step to creating a guideline. -- GreenC 17:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Does the inclusion of victims names add to the understanding of the articles subject for the general reader? I can think of some cases where it does but generally no it does not. Therefore I would support a policy along the lines of "Normally victims should not be mentioned by name in articles. Exceptions should be discussed on the article talk page and a consensus formed before being added." Lyndaship (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• This seems like a parallel discussion to one ongoing at
  WT:NOT. --Izno (talk
  ) 17:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• IMO, the ultimate where trying to write the article without a victim list would be completely bizarre is Ariel Castro kidnappings...Naraht (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  That article does not have a victim list, so it is a bad example. --Jayron32 17:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  Maybe look again? The victim list is in the very first sentence of the article. Not all victim lists use list formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  No, that article does not have a victim list. What that article has is three people whose story of integral to the prose narrative and we, of course, don't scrub their names from that narrative, which would be stupid. That article has zero connection to what is being discussed here, which is a list of people who died during an event, without any part of the narrative. So no, that article is not in any way a useful example because nothing in this discussion would change a single character of text of that article regardless of what the consensus comes up with. Try again. --Jayron32 04:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  It's a list of the victim's names, and therefore it's a "victim list" in plain English. And we are (and IMO should be) discussing all victim lists, not just lists of people who die passively. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  Naming victims that are essential to properly summarize the crime/event in the prose of the article is fine. You just don't need a separate table for that. --Masem (t) 18:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's a matter of scope. Including the names of victims of a crime where there is only one victim (
  π, ν
  ) 18:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• The first question we really need to address is, what value does a list of names of non-notable individuals really add to an article? Unless you personally know the individual in question, a name is meaningless. The second question is, should an encyclopedia be in the business of providing enough material on a non-notable individual that their name is not meaningless? No, we obviously should not. News outlets generally include such information, which is all well and good, but we are not a newspaper. Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"a name is meaningless" Doesn't a name sometimes suggest an ethnicity? Bus stop (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes, but frequently not. Without clicking the link, tell me where Vincent Rodriguez III is from. Moreover, what relevance is that for an encyclopedia article about an event? In other words, it would be relevant to know where a person is from if the article is about that person, but if the article is about an event, and they are a non-notable individual where their place of origin has no bearing on said event, why do we care? Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As unhappy as I am about lists of names of non-notable people in articles, I think that battle is lost:

I find interesting a section for

Passengers by ethnicity. Bus stop (talk

) 19:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

We routinely include breakdown numbers by nationality/ethnicity in any mass-transport international accident. --Masem (t) 19:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a summary to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Some people are hyper-involved ("geeky"?) with the Titanic, they known every passenger and their background. Books on this subject. Not a typical example. -- GreenC 21:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"they known every passenger and their background" And why do you think this is so? There may be reasons particular to the Titanic incident, but I don't think that explains all. No matter the incident the reader wants to know the identities of the people involved. Editors here are arguing that this information shouldn't be in the article. But who are we writing the article for? Oh, we know what is best for the reader? That is the height of hubris. We are not talking about extraneous or tangentially related facts. The identities of the deceased are clearly within the scope of the article. I don't think it is our role to deprive readers of relevant information just because we think they should not be interested in this information. And I will be the first to admit that I am interested in this information. The reason we are interested in knowing a little bit about the identities of the deceased is because we want specifics. When it comes to fatalities we want specifics on who died. It is unsatisfactory to simply be told "7 people died". The reader has an appetite for more information in the form of "which 7 people died?" Wikipedia is not here to

WP:WEIGHT. Obviously too much information on decedents is too much weight. But names and ages clearly are not too much weight. Bus stop (talk

) 22:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• A random idea is if what if these lists existed at Wikisource (as long as they are properly sourced)? They can then be linked too from WP articles. --Masem (t) 19:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Often people who are victims will then receive coverage in the media, so that they become notable, but it is just a one-event situation, so then they should be listed or mentioned in the article about the event. So if adequate sources exist then the victims should be included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Victim lists proposal #1

So OK. Normally I'm of the mind to let the editors decide, but if it is true that "Victims lists are becoming a source of constant debate and argument", that wastes energy. So how about a compromise? Make a rule called WP:VICTIMS with something like this:

Articles on events in which two or more people were killed or injured -- airplane crashes for instance -- may usually give the names of the victims if there were ten or fewer. If there were eleven or more, articles should usually not include the names of the victims.

As always, common sense exceptions may be made. Bluelinked names are exempt from this rule, may always be given, and do not count against this "rule of ten" limit. There is no requirement to give victim's names; it is allowed if someone wants to (and there are ten or fewer).

The names and descriptions of victims should be in sentence or paragraph form, not list format. Normal sourcing rules apply, of course.

What's good about this is that it quashes arguments, pretty much. Why ten? I dunno -- got to have some number. Make it eight or twelve if you like. Ten is not really an imposition on the article. You can ten names and bit more into a short paragraph. It doesn't unbalance the article.

As to having the names in paragraph rather than list format: 1) it makes them a little less prominent; they don't take up half a screen, and 2) lists of victims just drive some people nuts, perhaps for that reason. Let's try to gruntle both sides a little.

Sure this is arbitrary but arbitrary works. Like for baseball players, there's an arbitrary rule: if you had even one at bat in the major leagues, you get an article, even it it was in 1887 and we don't even know your first name. If you had a fifteen year career in the minor leagues, you're not in. (Unless you meet

I don't think you are addressing the core issues here. Sure—we can place arbitrary limits. But what are we discussing? Names of deceased fall squarely within the scope of articles on incidents with fatalities. Certainly we can't include all decedents in World War II. But it is entirely incorrect for us to decide that readers should not want to know the identities of people who lost their lives in incidents. Elsewhere this information exists for current tragedies and there is no reason I know of to make Wikipedia the truncated source on these tragedies. Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I would oppose that if proposed, as my objections to the lists have nothing to do with the size of the lists. You won't find "hey it takes up so much space in the article" in any of my arguments to date. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I would oppose that. (The baseball thing is not arbitrary, but basically an objective means to determine if a player played in one profession game). It is a number that will be gamed. It is better not have to have the lists in the first place. --Masem (t) 23:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"It is better not have to have the lists in the first place." The same can be said for anything—"It is best not to include the names of alleged assailants", "It is best not to include the make and model of the gun used", "It is best not to include the street address of the venue of the incident", "It is best not to include the name of the venue". In your wisdom you feel the reader should not satiate their appetite for information pertaining to the identities of the deceased at our article; they will have to go elsewhere if they want that despicable information. You are making an arbitrary value judgement. Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

We're talking about victim lists, not prose information. If any of those elements are essential to be able to summarize the event clearly, then they should be included. Victim lists are rarely essential - there may be victims that were known to try to take action to stop the event, but those names can be included in prose. --Masem (t) 00:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we are talking about victim lists. I strongly favor victim lists of otherwise non-notable people including only rudimentary information such as name and age and sometimes a few other bare pieces of information such as occupation and hometown if applicable. That is the crux of this discussion. My examples might not have been good—you are correct to point out that my examples take place in prose. I stand corrected. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Passengers of the RMS Titanic

(and similar) list articles, but I think that won't be too hard.

The hard part will be getting entrenched editors to compromise on a rule that would let them get back to the work were all

WP:HERE to do, instead of setting ourselves up for having this discussion at least twice a year for the next decade. So for all those who are thinking about opposing it: If you want to have lists, wouldn't you at least like to start with something that says that it's possible, under certain circumstances? And for those who hate these lists, do you really want to have this discussion again next week over the Camp Fire (2018) victims, or could you live with a compromise that at least rules out victim lists that include the names of dozens of non-notable people? WhatamIdoing (talk

) 00:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not want to have this discussion again at Camp Fire or any future articles. What I want is for the community to confront the issue head-on and decide, once and for all (or at least for the next decade or so, since

WP:CCC), whether the lists should be included as default or omitted as default, with provision for exceptions by local consensus in either case. While I would prefer the latter, I would much prefer the former to the status quo. ―Mandruss ☎

00:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that the default needs to be either "yes to all" or "no to all"? Wouldn't "Yes if it's a short list, and no if it's not" be an acceptable compromise? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: As I said above, my objections to the lists have nothing to do with the size of the lists. These principles are not something it's ok to ignore as long as you only ignore them in small quantities. But if the community decided on include as default, I can certainly see the need for a rule-of-thumb limit on size. As a practical matter I wouldn't try to address both issues in one proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The Day the Music Died names all (four) victims from that mass casualty event. One of them is non-notable. Are you going to remove his name, because you oppose all victim lists in principle? If not, why not? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I wouldn't require "notability". I think a significant non-passive role in the event should suffice. Certainly the pilot of a plane that crashed qualifies as a significant non-passive role in the crash. He's named 19 times in that article, and he's very likely discussed at length in reliable sources because of his role, not his death. It's not hard at all to see the difference between him and, say, one of the victims of the Thousand Oaks shooting. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The arguments I've remember you putting forth in the past are that victim lists are a policy violation (which presumably includes even this short one), that they are invasions of privacy for people who aren't public figures (which definitely includes this one), and that names are meaningless to almost everyone (which basically assumes that all readers are from your culture, so that if a name doesn't mean anything to you, then you conclude that it won't mean anything to anyone. For example, if an editor doesn't happen to know that a "Vicente Rodriguez" is probably Hispanic but a "Vincent Rodriguez" (i.e., a French or English first name with a Spanish family name) has a higher chance of being Filipino, then you conclude that almost nobody will, which is probably not true).

So now you add that you would exclude the names of passive victims. All right, I can agree that the pilot of that flight probably wasn't a passive victim. So let's look at

John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash, which also lists all the people who died, two of which did nothing other than happen to be in an airplane that crashed. One of them wasn't notable, either. Why wouldn't you

blank the name of this non-notable passive victim? She doesn't fit into any of your previously articulated exceptions: She's not a public figure, she died passively, and you have declared that names are meaningless. But I don't think you would remove it. Why not?

(She fits perfectly into my circumstances in which we should include names: It's a very short list, and it's unseemly to list nearly everyone by name except one or two). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@

John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash is not in the same class as Thousand Oaks shooting. ―Mandruss ☎

21:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss—you say above in reference to a pilot that "he's very likely discussed at length in reliable sources". Reliable sources also happen to discuss the victims of the "Thousand Oaks shooting". In my opinion we should not be splitting hairs and making distinctions that editors think are significant. You are distinguishing between non-passive roles and passive roles. But those are your criteria. How do you know that the reader has no interest in knowing the identities of those people that editor Mandruss considers "passive"? Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"No thanks" to what? Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing—Wikipedia is

WP:NOTPAPER. A separate page for listing brief identifying factors pertaining to fatalities such as name and age is feasible when the number of victims would take up too much space to be practicable on a main article page. Bus stop (talk

) 00:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Enh, what I'm seeing here is a couple-few guys who who don't want to compromise. Whether my idea is good or not, whether it could be adopted or not... who knows? When the most clearly expressed positions are "No, we must never list victims names, and no, no compromise from that position is possible" versus "Yes, we must always allow all names of all victims, and no, no compromise from that position is possible"... We're not going to solve the problem and you're going to have these discussions forever. You will; I won't, because I will have forgotten about it, because I don't much care, because it doesn't matter, really. The best-for-the-Wikipedia thing to do is to fix this problem. Holding fast to an entrenched position -- any position -- is not the best-for-the-Wikipedia thing to do. There's no core policies at stake here, and there's no "right" or "wrong" position. Give a little. Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Totally unfair. Not one editor has said we must "we must always allow all names of all victims, and no, no compromise from that position is possible". Not one. Nobody has denied that there are many policies and guidelines that might justify excluding a name (or any other fact), such as

WP:MOS, etc etc. Disputing that there is are universal grounds exclusion does not assert that there are never grounds for exclusion. There has been a straw man that we are insisting that we name thousands or millions of casualties for every war, but that is but a straw man. Funny how fake news works: they repeat a falsehood often enough and eventually a lot of people start thinking it must be true. --Dennis Bratland (talk

) 22:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

As a different suggestion, I would argue that fully sourced victim lists can be listed over at Wikisource and linked back to the en.wiki article, eliminating any victim lists within en.wiki. Articles in prose can still discuss notable victims and talk about specific victims that had a role in the event, but the tables should be omitted in favor of the Wikisource version. (This also makes those lists available for other Wikiprojects). --Masem (t) 00:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Why at Wikisource? Why not a separate page on Wikipedia? Why wouldn't a separate article called "List of decedents in XYZ tragedy" serve that purpose, and only in instances where space constraints require that solution? Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikisource accepts those. Wikidata would, and Wikibooks might. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This is quite a good idea I think. Herostratus (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata sounds fine by me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata sounds good. The proponents of these lists state that they have some sort of informative nature, data wise. Wikidata sounds like the perfect place for this kind of info. Numbers, birthplaces, occupations....that's all uncontextualised data. How about it @Bus stop: and @Dennis Bratland:? You get to keep these lists and encyclopedia articles will stop looking like bad journalism. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing from preventing people from making lists of Holocaust deaths, deaths in the World Wars, deaths in automobile accidents in (insert region). Why is a person who died in a collision more important than a Holocaust death? Or what is the difference between a ship collision or an automobile collision? Because one was a soldier? Well then, what if it was a soldier travelling to work? Those sailors on the ship were sleeping. Llammakey (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether is Wikidata/Wikisource/whatever, I am fine with any sister project that is designed to take raw data without additional commentary. That's the whole point of the suggestion. --Masem (t) 15:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

And yes, this could be used for things like Victims of the Holocaust. The only key criteria is that the lists should primarily be sourced to reliable third-party sources... an obvious "next step" I could see would be arguing for the alumni of every high school and college on the same principle, but those lists are not published by third-parties (outside local papers), and thus not appropriate. --Masem (t) 15:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Both of the two proposals so far follow the unexamined premise of here, that casualty names in articles and lists are becoming a problem. Not so. They have always been an unresolved bone of contention. There has never been strong consensus on what this policy means.

  I strongly suggest going to the

  local consensus. No easy appeal to the top-down dictates of policy, like some simplistic 10-victim rule. No way is there global support for assigning an arbitrary numeric limit like 10 casualties, and no way is there consensus to shift all of it over to some other wikiproject.

  The best, most realistic outcome would be a frank admission that this isn't something that Wikipedia has a firm position on, and it will vary from article to article. There are beautiful FAs and FLs with no casualty names mentioned, and beautiful ones with non-notable casualties included. It depends, and that's fine. --Dennis Bratland (talk

  ) 04:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  It will (continue to) vary from article to article only because the participants vary. The arguments do not vary from article to article. (While I haven't survey-studied all past discussions to make sure that's a 100% true statement, I've made the claim numerous times in numerous venues and it has never been disputed, let alone shown to be untrue. I think that's a reasonably fair test of its accuracy. It's true for the half-dozen or so article-level discussions where I've participated.) ―Mandruss ☎ 13:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  Reading on, I see your comments about a ship collision. Note that I'm speaking only of articles about random mass killings. The wider the scope, the more complex the question and the less likely any consensus will be achievable. I suggest keeping the scope narrow for that reason. Random mass killings have very little in common with ship collisions, so I don't see how it makes sense to lump them together. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Can anyone point to an article that they feel has been negatively impacted by the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims? Bus stop (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Using this article as an example, it is about a collision between two ships. There are people involved that are mentioned by name because of their role in the investigation and its outcome, and they are already notable per WP:MILPERSON. There are otherwise non-notable people mentioned by name because of their involvement in the cause of the collision and/or the outcome of the investigation (eg: the commanding officer was criminally charged). As a result of the collision, seven non-notable people died. This is where the debate comes in: there is no need to add these names, either as a list or in prose. They have no relevance to the article. Except for the few people that might actually know them, these names are essentially meaningingless. You swap out any of those names for "John Smith" or "Bob Jones" and it would make no difference to the reader. The names do not lend, in any way, to the reader's understanding of the subject matter in the article. They have nothing do with the cause of the collision, they play no active role in the outcome. They just had the misfortune of dying. Noting that seven people died and they were all from the US ship is all that is needed, along with the numbers injured from each ship. Adding the names just needlessly memorializes them and Wikipedia is not an obituary. A couple editors, specifically Dennis Bratland and Bus stop, have argued vehemently to have the names included, but so far, despite numerous posts on multiple pages over several days, have failed to show how these names are in any way relevant to the article.
• This is an example of same type of debates taking place on multiple pages, with these two, and a few other like-minded editors, arguing to have memorial lists of non-notable victims in articles about mass-death events. Some of these pages now have these needless lists, and they are being used to bolster an WP:OSE argument in support of even more such lists. This is why we need clear language in a WP policy to address this, and prevent further debates which have become massive timesinks, for years now, causing a great deal of discord, disruption and clearly irrelevant content. -
  wolf
  07:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Other stuff exists argument right there? Isn't your reasoning that we don't have a list of all the casualties at our World War II article (50 to 85 million fatalities) therefore we should not list the casualties at the "USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision" (7 fatalities) as seen in this version of the article in the "Casualties" section? Bus stop (talk

) 23:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Yet you also find me saying"...? Are you trying to paint the two comments as contradictory? -

wolf

00:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Referencing the

WP:OSE argument, isn't it? Bus stop (talk

) 01:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Erm, you seem to be missing the whole point of an "OSE argument", which is "justification". For example, Dennis tried to use the Titanic passengers page to "justify" adding those seven names to Fitzgerald/Crystal collision page. So I was then

wolf

01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You also said to me "But we no more need their names to complete this article than we need a list of the names of all ≈80 million people that died in World War II to complete, or understand, any of the articles here about that subject." Bus stop (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there was more to that comment; "Again, I will ask you; how are these names pertinent to the article? How do they lend to the reader's understanding of how the collision occurred, and what transpired after? Yes, seven people died, and that is noted. But we no more need their names to complete this article than we need a list of the names of all ≈80 million people that died in World War II to complete, or understand, any of the articles here about that subject." Unfortunately, Dennis jumped in there right after and I never did a response from you. So how about answering those questions now? (It's somewhat overdue). Thanks -

wolf

•

You are the one that brought up the (partial) quote from the Fitzgerald/Crystal collision talk page (and have done so about a half-dozen times). I just pointed out that the quote was incomplete, that you never responded (and why), and asked if you would respond now, considering all the questions you seem to expect me to answer.

You still have not addressed the questions I asked. Instead, you abbreviated the quote to a single question that suits you and then launched into a lengthy reply where you've now introduced yet another article, this one about a mass-shooting.

As with any mass-death event, the names of the non-notable victims are irrelevant (unless they are individually notable, outside of the event, or had a notable role in the event, other then dying). In a mass-shooting, the name of the shooter is notable and relevant (do you dispute that?). I don't really have an opinion on the name of the bar, but if it's just a random, average bar, with no bearing on the event, I don't see a reason to name it. If the event takes place a location relevant to the event, (eg: a gay bar, and the perpetrator was homophobic) or notable location, (eg: Disney World), then yes, the location should be named in the article.

The seven names are not relevant to the ship collison article and you still haven't shown how they are. You just keep going on about how we should include these names because the readers might be interested in them, though you also admitted you have no idea why they would be.

"This gets us back to "who died"?" - Who cares? Except those few who might actually know these people, and as has already been made abundantly clear to you, Wikipedia is not an obituary.

If writer's are "consulting" Wikipedia articles for research, they should be using the sources cited in those articles. That is why we add them, so people can verify content. if they can't find the names of mass-death event victims in the sources, then those names shouldn't be in the article anyway. -

wolf

23:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

thewolfchild—how would you justify omitting the name "Borderline Bar and Grill" from the article Thousand Oaks shooting? You say I don't really have an opinion on the name of the bar, but if it's just a random, average bar, with no bearing on the event, I don't see a reason to name it. Bus stop (talk

) 09:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why I would need to "justify" that, but I did explain my reasoning for it already. Conversely, I take it that you believe the article absolutely must have the name of the bar included. Why? What bearing did it have on the either the cause or the outcome of the event? How does adding that name, as opposed to simply saying "a local country & western bar", lend in any way to the reader's understanding of the event? -

wolf

17:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Short numbers of names (as proposed by Herostratus above take up a handful of bytes and don't seem too out of place (users read articles, not policies). For longer lists why not simply create a page "List of victims of XYZ" and hat-note to it? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, I pointed to sources that gave detailed reasons why the particulars of the 7 casualties mattered, and why they were not interchangeable with just any 7 people anywhere. You have repeatedly claimed nobody has given you reasons, and every time I remind you that indeed I have, you ignore it. Now you’re coming here to repeat the same false claims. If you disagree with the reasons that were given, you could criticize them directly. But instead of doing that, you pretend they don’t exist, and repeat your demand to be told what value the names add. I told you, others told you, and you responded by demanding someone tell you. What you’re doing is called sealioning. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

So, resorting to insults now, Dennis? That's disappointing. You've lowered yourself and diminished your standing in this debate. I have read all your lengthy comments, it's one of the reasons I mentioned you by name. I have not "ignored" your responses, the fact remains that despite all the "reasons" you've given, you have not provided any kind of sufficient rationale to justify the inclusion of those names. You have not shown how they, in any way, are encyclopaedic, relevant to the article, or enhance the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter. You keep claiming that none of the policies or guidelines cited by any opposers apply, while relying heavily on wp:ose as a justification to add those names. Tell you what; explain why those seven are so special, or explain why WP should list of all 2300+ military personnel killed at Pearl Harbor, all 2900+ civilians killed during 9/11, or all 80 million people killed during WWII. You can't justify one without the other. -

wolf

15:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Insults? Listen to the way you denigrate the editors whom you don't agree with. You describe them as unresponsive, unreasonable, criticize them for lengthy responses yet go on and on repeating the same demands for answers. You get answers that you happen do disagree with, and instead of simply saying so, you paint those who disagree with you in a negative light. But you're the one who feels insulted?

It would be much more productive to 1) stop re-fighting the Fitzgerald ship collision debate. You won, in case you forgot. Never seen anybody complain so much after getting a majority of editors to support them. Hate to see how bitter you can be when you don't get your way. Let it go now. 2) Seriously read the old discussions on 'not memorial'. The ones from 2006, the ones year after year after that. The thing to notice is how many editors (names you recognize as admins, from writing FAs, as leaders with years of contributions) confidently see a place for lists or prose mentions of people who were casualties but not main actors in events. Your point of view has many adherents. Many fine, experienced, important editors. But there are just as many fine editors who don't feel obligated to list thousands or millions of dead for every event, just because they do list some names for other events. You say "You can't justify one without the other" and that's fine. Many editors think a consistent standard applies to every event of any kind, and many say, no, it depends. For 14 years, nobody has formed a strong consensus on it.

Maybe now you can change that and get a policy change that settles it. But history suggests you won't, in which case you ought to try to make peace with the reality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Riiight, I've been just awful, haven't I, Dennis? Look at how deeply I obviously hurt you with my scathing comment about kittens. As for the topic at hand; I simply cited the

Please stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I could, I've already shown that. The question is, Dennis; can you? -

wolf

01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield; it's not about size, it's about relevance. Non-notable victims of mass-death events simply do not need to be mentioned on WP for any other reason than being one of the unfortunate to die in that event. Wikipedia articles are not obituaries, it's not the purpose of an encyclopaedia to memorialize such people. However, if people want to find or create a well-sourced off-site list and link to it as an external link, that is a different matter. -

wolf

15:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Just for the record. I don't see a problem with this proposal at this time, as I just mentioned in reply to a similar comment just above. -
  wolf
  15:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Victim lists proposal #3

Bare lists of victims, which only compile names and basic information (age, birthplace, occupation, etc.) are to be deprecated. Victims of crimes and disasters and other tragic events may be named as a normal part of a quality prose narrative, but lists of names with no context are not useful to most readers anymore than lists of names are in other Wikipedia articles, and advice for creating lists of names of otherwise non-notable people are as applicable to victim's lists as anywhere else in Wikipedia, and victims lists are not accorded any special exemptions from the normal practices of creating lists of otherwise non-notable people.

The goal here, is not to scrub the names of victims from articles, but to avoid the bad writing of slapping in "contextless" lists just because, or to afford "special status" to people because they died during a notable tragic event. The role of Wikipedia is not to create a remembrance of people who died in such ways, though we should also not be afraid to include names where the actions of those people during events would have come up anyways in the course of writing a prose narrative about the event. Simply put: if you think a person's role in an event in which they died bears coverage, it should be covered in the prose narrative. Simply creating a contextless list of non-notable people is not good writing, in this type of article or in any other. --Jayron32 12:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

In the case of random mass killings, there are often a few reliable sources reporting enough about each victim that someone could construct what they believe to be a "quality prose narrative" that includes every victim. So, for those who oppose the lists largely for privacy reasons (in the same spirit as

WP:BLPNAME), this proposal as worded does nothing to address those concerns.
What each victim was doing, or what they said, just before they got killed is simply not encyclopedic information, but news organizations report it because they are not encyclopedias. Similarly, we rightly omit much of the tabloidish play-by-play detail about the killers' movements and actions in these events.
Further, inclusion of little bio blurbs about each victim—that she was a mother of three and he was active in school orchestra—is nothing but memorialization, feeding the purely emotion-based desire to give the victims as much individual attention as the killers. Again, that could and would be considered a "quality prose narrative" by some editors. ―Mandruss ☎

14:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Which we could thus probably add in a bit of BLP1E: if the names of persons that are victims of these events meet BLP1E, then even if there are mini-bios of each person from RSes at the time of the event, we don't include them. (The fact that they are generally memorialized that way is, to me, a sign of sensationalist news reporting, to prey on sympathy from the reader, which at WP , has no place). --Masem (t) 15:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No, the point is that we don't treat victims of tragic events differently than we treat people in any other event. If a person does something worth note in an event, we don't conspicuously avoid naming them during the narrative. For example, let's say we have some fire which dozens of people die, and one of the victims rescued several people before succumbing. Let's also say that consensus is that this part of the story is relevant to the overall narrative. Saying "John Doe, one of the residents of the building, rescued several other residents before dying himself in the blaze". If John Doe's involvement is important enough to the story of the event, we don't avoid naming him. What we shouldn't do is include the names of people whose role in the story is not noteworthy of itself except that they died. "Jane Smith was watching TV when she died in the blaze" is a rather mundane event. "Jane Smith was watching TV" is not, under normal circumstances, a relevant, noteworthy detail of her life. That she died while doing it is unremarkable, so it doesn't bear writing about in the event. So we needn't mention that event (thus not her name) in the narrative. If she did nothing in the course of the event that is important for the narrative, then we don't also need to create a list of victims just to make sure they are named. Naming is not of itself sufficient reason to include. If we would include a person anyways, go ahead and name them. If we have no other reason to include them except that they were present and died in the event, we shouldn't. Just like we wouldn't include a complete list of people who were present, in an unremarkable way, at other events. --Jayron32 16:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Fine, but you're reading a ton into "quality prose narrative" that is not present in the proposed language. Many others will interpret that vague phrase very differently; instead of endlessly debating the meaning of NOTMEMORIAL, we would now be endlessly debating the meaning of this new guideline. My goal is to substantially reduce the endless debating, and in fact that's a goal consistent with the heading of this level 2 section which I didn't initiate. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Lets work out a better wording then that captures the spirit of the proposal, but has less ambiguity here. This is VPIL and not VPP for a reason. This isn't a vote, this is a workshop to create the new policy so we have good stuff to bring to a vote. Feel free to propose something else. --Jayron32 17:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Ok, let me sleep on it once or twice. It's far easier to shoot something down than to offer a better solution, I know. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Simply creating a contextless list of non-notable people is not good writing, in this type of article or in any other." (Jayron32 12:07, 20 Nov) I precisely disagree. I prefer contextless lists in many instances. The crux of this discussion happens to be contextless lists of non-notable people. Can anyone point to an article in stable condition that is negatively impacted by a contactless contextless list? User:Thewolfchild above attempted to do that above but did not link to the past version which contained a section called "Casualties". It is worth examining that past version because I would contend it is constructive to the article. "Contextless" is not the negative quality it is purported to be. I'll admit that I was surprised that one of the most starkly contextless lists made it into the

Can anyone point to an article in stable condition that is negatively impacted by a contactless [contextless] list? That's the second time you've asked that question in this discussion. It was ignored the first time I suspect because it's such a vacuous question (that's certainly the reason I ignored it). List opponents feel that any article containing a list is "negatively impacted" by it—for the reasons we have thoroughly articulated in discussion after discussion, of which you are fully aware. That you disagree with those arguments goes without saying. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Every argument you are making is countermanded by replacing "articles about events where there were lots of deaths" with "articles about literally anything else". Any argument you make for these types of articles should be applicable to articles on other subjects. What is the harm in including a list of every graduate from a University? What is the harm in including a list of every person who attended Live Aid? You've asserted that dying somehow makes these people special, but to make special note of someone merely because they died, and for no other reason, is the exact definition of a memorial. And consensus has determined that memorializing the dead is not, of itself, sufficient grounds for relevancy to an article. --Jayron32 16:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss—a productive discussion might involve not only pointing to articles negatively impacted by uncontextualized victim lists but also speaking about how that particular article is damaged by the presence of such uncontextualized victim lists. Can you possibly criticize this uncontextualized victim list? It contains Jewish names and ages. I contend that a reader derives tons of information from such lists—in almost every instance. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that's illustrative. The article already clearly establishes that the dead were Jewish. You don't need "Jewish names" to show that (as if most readers know what a "Jewish name" is anyway). As for ages, that too can be summarized if it's deemed relevant; we could say that the dead ranged from 54 to 97. That's encyclopedic information. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That's like saying we don't need additional information if we already have information asserting a given point. There is no rule about that on Wikipedia and there should not be any rule about that on Wikipedia. Why would you prefer a range of ages when a particular person, identified as male or female, can be associated with a particular age? And all Jewish names are not the same either. Jewish names can break down into more religious-sounding names and less religious-sounding names. The question which you are not addressing is what is wrong with the list. My original question was—can you point to an article and show how the victim list damages the article. We know there are alternative means of including information. But why are you going to great lengths to prevent other editors from creating an article such as the linked-to section of this article. Please tell me what is wrong with the present version of that article. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the list bloats the article and includes information which is not vital to the narrative. --Jayron32 16:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"the list bloats the article" The article is not overly long. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The length of the article is irrelevent. The level of detail is. Details which are not vital to the narrative should not be included, even in short articles. Look, you know that you don't win this argument by simply repeating yourself over and over, right? I think your position is clear, and I'm not sure it will be worthwhile to respond to your increasingly repetitive demands. We get it. You want to include the lists. Lets hear from other people on the matter. --Jayron32 16:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Why would you prefer a range of ages when a particular person, identified as male or female, can be associated with a particular age? For the reasons I've given in discussion after discussion, including several where you've been present and I know you've seen them. You have a particular talent for not hearing opponents' arguments, repeatedly demanding that they give reasons that they have already given countless times, and I'm beginning to fantasize about a topic ban from victims' lists. I'm not aware of a single other editor that does this in this topic area. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"For the reasons I've given in discussion after discussion, including several where you've been present" I must have been out to lunch. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Finally, something we can agree on. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"You have a particular talent for not hearing opponents' arguments, repeatedly demanding that they give reasons that they have already given countless times, and I'm beginning to fantasize about a topic ban from victims' lists." Perhaps you should learn to repeat yourself. Just because you've said something once, especially in another thread, is not a reason you cannot say it again. You are shying away from debate. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I promise to consistently "shy away from" repetitive debate. You know very well where to find my arguments if you truly have any interest in them. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"I promise to consistently 'shy away from' repetitive debate." When a person asks you a question you should answer it. It is as simple as that. You don't know where they are going with their line of reasoning. You are stymying debate by constant grandstanding. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No, what you're doing is trying to win the debate by sheer force of will: You seem to think that because you spoke last, you won. That's not how these things work. What you're doing is repeatedly asking the same questions over again, once you've been given the answers, as though by asking the question again, you invalidate the prior answer. That's called sealioning, and is not a productive means of reaching consensus. It's much better to make your point and go on. --Jayron32 17:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:BIO already serves the purpose of preventing the creation of articles on non-notable people. The question of whether there should be a list of victims is a simple decision best left to editorial discretion. My argument is simple. Bulleted lists have their value. I don't understand why a fuss is made over such lists. But if editors want to argue over them, let them argue over them on article Talk pages. In short I don't think Ad Orientem should have started this discussion. I'm sure Ad Orientem meant well but this is a can of worms. Bus stop (talk

) 18:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

We actually do have a rule about arbitrary information, that's

WP:NOT#STATS too). --Masem (t

) 17:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a good proposal. If there's some information about particular victims that would be valuable to the encyclopedia and is well-sourced, then the names can be included as part of that. For example, if there were a disaster or shooting and many sources discussed the actions of one of the dead victims during the event, then that might be worth including in the description of what happened. If there are many sources about what a survivor did in relation to the event afterwards (activism, writing a book about it, whatever), then that might be included in the article as related. Basically, if a survivor's name cannot be included into prose containing some significant thing they did related to the event, then it probably shouldn't be included at all. Even if that's the case, inclusion should of course be subject to the normal BLP and NPOV restraints. I just don't know if lists of unlinked names should be included except maybe on list articles. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon—I disagree. The absence of contextualization in this instance is not a problem. There is nothing that needs to be fixed. We are only talking about rudimentary details about lives lost. Not only does the inclusion of that material not matter but in fact it is constructive to the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I think everyone knows you disagree. You've made yourself very clear in your 21 posts on this subject so far. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon—"context", in the final analysis, is a red herring because tons of information can be conveyed in the absence of context. This version, which unfortunately has been reverted, tells us tons of information on the 7 people who died in a ship collision. How can that be construed as unconstructive to that article? Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Because it's not a encyclopedic summary of the incident. Too much detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is a proposal that is closely in line with my own thinking and preferences. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support, in theory. Just for the record. Agree there shouldn't be lists. If a person, in the event being documented, is notable, either for having a bio/blp page of their own, or they played a notable role in the event, other than being injured or killed, then they should be noted in the article prose, along with appropriate sourcing. This proposal could work in conjunction with proposal #2. -
  wolf
  16:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• I too like this proposal. I do feel though that we need a rider along the lines that Editors who wish to add names need to obtain consensus on the talk page to add them if challenged ie the default is no names and the burden to add is imposed on the editor who wishes to add. Lyndaship (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I'd go that far. I think that we let people write the narrative, and if some event in the narrative is determined to be trivial, we remove that event. The name itself would go with it. Efforts to shoehorn in unremarkable text into a narrative are rather obvious, and most everyone will see through such efforts to work a "list" in the back door that way, per

  WP:BOLD is still good policy, and we shouldn't demand that people avoid names during the normal writing process. Prior approval is not required for good-faith editing. --Jayron32

  16:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is an improvement on the previous proposals. There are different approaches to article content. But it's still simplistic, and it's one of those broad laws that only begs the question. What is sufficient context? Wikipedia has thousands of stand alone and embedded lists. Non-prose lists are very often a very good format, following various acceptable approaches found in guidance like
  Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. Saying names are fine in a quality prose narrative again begs the question. Now editors will debate whether the prose is of sufficient quality. Why not recognize that local consensus is what really decides all of this? If you're going to let local consensus decide whether a prose list is of sufficient quality, why not trust local consensus to decide if the article as a whole works structured one way or the other? There will never be global consensus for ideas as broad as "there shouldn't be lists". If embedded lists of casualties are bad, what about embedded lists of songs, even though none are bluelinked? Or a list of albums, some bluelinked, many not.

  What about this embedded list of patents for things that are mostly not very significant in of themselves, but taken as a whole, tell a story. It brings us back to why we endorse redundant categories and lists and navigation templates and portals and prose containing the same information. A prose description of an inventor who has a long series of patents for inventions great and minor is fine, but the same information can also be given in bulleted list form, and for some readers, convey meaning better.

  We can't prescribe what to do in every case in a top-down directive. Perhaps the real problems is treating names of the dead as a special case. Articles are full of things, in prose and in lists, and some of those things are highly notable, of great significance, and some of those things, names, patents, inventions, filmography or discography, that are worth mentions but not otherwise of great importance. It depends. --Dennis Bratland (talk

  ) 17:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  We can't prescribe what to do in every case, but we certainly can decide on a default that would require a local consensus to override. Arguments to override would be required to show what sets the case apart from the majority. This would reflect the fact that the factors are the same in a very large majority of cases. As I expressed above, the scope should be narrow enough to make the preceding statement true for the cases within that scope; i.e. random mass killings wouldn't necessarily be covered by the same guideline as ship collisions or aircraft crashes. I see this as little different from different article title naming conventions for different categories of articles, which AFAIK has worked fairly well without an excess of debate or edit-warring. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  Sure, but do we need a

  WP:NOTMEMORIAL's vague wording. Admit consensus doesn't support it limiting article content so we can stop arguing over it and focus on more subtle discussions over whether this list in this article makes it better or not. --Dennis Bratland (talk

  ) 17:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  Clarification: LISTPEOPLE does not say "bluelinked names". It says that the most common (=not the only allowable) criteria is "notable people". This means red-linked names if the person is notable, but nobody has written the article yet, then it's acceptable, but a blue-linked name that was redirected because the person isn't notable is not acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  Sure. I said "bluelinked names" as a shorthand for "meeting

  WP:BIO as a blue link to an article or a redlink to a plausibly notable article". I didn't think the word count here needed to go any higher and everyone generally knows enough about these guidelines to know what I meant.

  Anyways: anyone who thinks not-memorial applies to both article topics and to content should propose plain English words to that effect. Lacking strong consensus for that, admit that there isn't strong consensus that it applies that way. Everyone agrees you can't create a new article about someone for no reason except as a memorial memorial; they have to be notable. Only some editors think this means mentioning a non-notable dead person carries any special burden that wouldn't apply to whether or not we can mention any other fact. --Dennis Bratland (talk

  ) 00:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  I've never seen LISTPEOPLE cited in a victims list discussion. I assume the reason is that it applies to list articles. Same for CSC. For the most part—although "list of victims" articles have actually been proposed at least once in this saga—we're not talking about list articles but about lists within event articles. In my opinion LISTPEOPLE and CSC would support arguments for a new guideline establishing a default of omit, but they aren't substitutes for one. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  MOS:LIST reiterates all these principles, for both types of list. There are cautions on indiscriminate items, poorly defined lists, not using lists when prose is better. It's all there. Maybe everyone is so busy arguing over 'not memorial' they don't take the time to look at the basic guidance on lists. You can have casualties on an embedded list, stand alone list, or enumerated in prose, but only if it meets numerous criteria for quality. What we don't have is a single policy that lets someone do a drive-by deletion of casualties in all cases with a simple "per policy X". They have to get down in the details, know the context, and collaborate. It's a good thing, and it does work. --Dennis Bratland (talk

  ) 19:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  I hate to state the obvious, but if that were sufficient it would have sufficed. In years of these discussions, I've yet to see any arguments of that nature, let alone see them prevail. Even if they were made widely by the "omit" side, it would be a rare closer who would close in their favor if the "include" side had a clear majority and made reasonable-sounding arguments. The solution is to make the guideline simple and more specific, using all that more general stuff as its basis. You could call it a derivative guideline. I understand the

  WP:CREEP objection to something like that, but the status quo clearly isn't working and I prefer some CREEP to the status quo. ―Mandruss ☎

  19:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  It's not a guideline. If 'not memorial' were a guideline, rather than policy, it wouldn't be such a battleground. Policies are powerful weapons that let one nuke content wholesale, silencing dissent. Guidelines ask us to bend and compromise and see nuance. Demoting it to a guideline would accomplish much.

  Or end the 14 years of debate over 'not memorial' by changing it match the de facto state of affairs: there is no global support for applying 'not memorial' to article content, only article creation/retention. For the sake of proving a point, we could start with a proposal to make it say the opposite, that it does limit article content. Succeed or fail, those proposals would shift the debate away from not memorial towards other content guidance like the list guidelines, as well as

  WP:WEIGHT and other guidance on content triviality vs importance. --Dennis Bratland (talk

  ) 20:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  NOTMEMORIAL is used to limit content in articles. We have several articles that fall into "crime against a single victim" where the victim was not notable, most of these start with "death of..." or "murder of..." for example Murder of Meredith Kercher. Just enough information about her background is given to understand family member roles (in the case history) and why she was where she was when she was killed. Not a full blown biography with flowerly langauge to make Kercher seem any more important, only that the murder and investigation had drawn enough attention to be a long-term news story. That's proper application of NOTMEMORIAL. --Masem (t) 20:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  Wouldn't

  article title defines an article and suggests its scope (which is really two ways of saying the same thing). Bus stop (talk

  ) 20:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with this proposal. Contextless lists of victims should be deprecated and the default position should be to avoid having them. But I wonder how far we'll get on this proposal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

  I think that the reason that LISTPEOPLE isn't brought up is because editors don't think it will help them "win". The most relevant guideline is actually

  WP:DUE, and don't when they're not". And that leaves editors exactly where they started, with some people absolutely convinced that the names are never-ever-ever DUE, and some people absolutely convinced that they frequently are, and perhaps most of us really not caring unless it gets really unwieldy, but trying to stay out of the line of fire between the two entrenched camps.

  The longer this argument goes on, the more I think that the problem might be most efficiently solved with a TBAN for about a half-dozen editors. WhatamIdoing (talk

  ) 19:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  You can TBAN for persistent disruption, but you can't TBAN for caring too much about an issue. The problem here has not been with the participants, for the most part, but with the community's tendency to establish guidance that is so vague and watered down as to be completely useless, basically saying "If you feel X is better, do it; otherwise, don't do it." Duh. Thanks for all the help. Village Pump is frequented by too many experienced editors who can only sing one song: "Don't bother us, just go work it out in article talk." That's abdication of responsibility in my view. Perhaps the new discussion at VPP will bear fruit. Perhaps not. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  You're almost right about "guidance that is so vague and watered down as to be completely useless". If it's a should, and not a shall, then it belongs as a guideline, not a policy. Everyone gets that guidelines, like the extremely useful and successful MOS, are not ironclad, yet over time articles progress to meet that ideal, and those exceptions that need to deviate either gain consensus or lose it. Mere informational pages, like

  WP:WBA, are extremely influential even though the lack any force of law. NOTMEMORIAL wouldn't be such an odd duck if it were a guideline. As a policy, it's an embarrassment, precisely because it doesn't represent a global consensus. If it did have a strong consensus behind it, the language would have grown tighter and more clear over the last decade and a half, not remained mired in dispute. --Dennis Bratland (talk

  ) 02:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  For anyone else who is seized by curiosity: our

  actual practice. WhatamIdoing (talk

  ) 06:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support There's a lot of text here to wade through to get down to the bottom of this discussion. I've come to the following conclusions based on what I have read: 1.) Something aught to be done to address the problem, something specific so that editors can stop debating the point so often, and 2.) the arguments like "we need to know victims' names in order to understand the context" are utterly unconvincing, right up there with "It isn't hurting anything to include such a list" (um, yes it is: it hurts my attention span, even if the article is short) and "it is constructive to the article.to include this information" (which is so subjective it makes me want to vomit in terror). I am not convinced that leaving the issue up to individual articles is a best option because that is exactly where it seems the conflicts keep taking place. We could probably use a guideline that reigns in editors who feel compelled to add these lists, because those editors seem to be doing it for the wrong reasons (i.e., memorialization, beneath a veneer of contextualization). I have never been a participant in those debates, and at a certain level I do not care. But as a Wikipedia reader, I would be truly annoyed to come across these victims' lists because in most cases I would only come away believing, "Well, I guess if *I* die of lung cancer some day, maybe MY name will get to be on a Wikipedia list of 'Victims of lung cancer'.'" Because, you know, I DIED from it! You have to know who I am to understand the context! (no, ah, no you don't, not really).
  talk
  ) 10:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we exclude material because individual editors find annoyance in inclusion of that material. "But as a Wikipedia reader, I would be truly annoyed to come across these victims' lists" Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support option 3 (support option 2 as additional, and oppose option 1, although for consistency even option 1 or the terrible counter-option "all crimes must include a victim list" would be better than repeated rehashing of the question). Where identification of particular victims, whether killed or injured or unharmed, is necessary to understand an event, whether criminal or otherwise, they should be included contextually in the article. Where their individual inclusion is not necessary to understand an event, they should not be. If there ever happens to be an event with an overwhelming quantity of notable (bluelinked) victims, then
  including a list of those would be reasonable. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)
  ~ 02:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

My proposal is to add a second indicator that details the gross change in bytes. This way, large restructurings that have net byte change of zero are still shown as more significant than other, more minor edits. After thinking of different ways to do this, I have come up with two ideas: First, a second parenthesis could be added that details gross and is bolded if the gross change is more than 500 bytes, or the current parenthesis bracket could be expanded in a way that shows something like (gross change, +/- net change), where if the net change is high, the whole thing is bolded that color, while if the net change is low but the gross change is high, the indicator is bolded blue (for small nets and gross, the gross could stay blue and the net could be whatever color?). Thank you for your time, IntegralPython (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of major edits being hidden in this way? They must be extremely rare. I don't recall ever seeing one. I've seen many edits that show zero bytes change, or some low number where the actual change involved more bytes, but these are invariably something quite minor. I wouldn't count refactorings like changing section order as being a major change. That doesn't significantly affect the information. SpinningSpark 08:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking back on it, it may not be as common as I initially thought. I have edits show in drop down groups on the watchlist, so when it displays the summary in the header of said group, many times reverted edits show as (0) when in fact there was a large edit that was then reverted. This also happens to me when people make many small changes to an article in different edits, so I see now that most of what I was thinking about will not apply to most users. I might try in some time to make myself a js that does it for me. Thank you though, IntegralPython (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I think CC-BY-NC-ND, CC-BY-NC-SA, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-ND (all creative commons) Flicker images should be allowed here on the English Wikipedia. I found this discussion on the commons about the same issue (c:Commons_talk:Flickr_files#Why_are_NoDerivatives_&_NonCommercial_not_allowed?) and it got a reply saying some Wikipedias allow these types of Flickr images to be uploaded locally but not globally (as the commons does not allow them as the commons does more the just illustrate Wikipedia). Using the images locally wouldn't be a commercial use as Wikipedia is not an commercial entity, so these images should be allow to be uploaded to Wikipedia. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 02:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:5P3). Galobtter (pingó mió

) 03:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

example: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7RYcp.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmio (talk • contribs) 14:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexmio: Wikipedia is always in "reading mode" unless you click the edit button. However, if you want to change the background color, you can do so by adding the following line to your common.css file, located at Special:MyPage/common.css (replace #F1ECE8 with the color of your choice):

.mw-body {background-color: #F1ECE8;}

If you want to be able to toggle it with an eye icon, you can instead insert the following into your common.js file, located at Special:MyPage/common.js (replace #F1ECE8 with the color of your choice):

var readingBG = "#F1ECE8";
mw.loader.load( '//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ahecht/Scripts/ReadingMode.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' ); //[[User:Ahecht/Scripts/ReadingMode.js]]

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Many of us that use Google on our 60+ inch TV's add the "Dark Mode" extension - chrome://extensions/?id=dmghijelimhndkbmpgbldicpogfkceaj . Simply a toggle button.--Moxy (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This link goes to the extension on the webstore; I personally use this extension in general but use this nice vector dark skin on Wikipedia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Firefox also has something known as Reader view which removes a lot of clutter. There are probably extensions available for other browsers. Besides what others have noted above, you can also install a dark theme.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• There's a related wishlist item you can vote for: m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Reading/Accessibility settings for everyone.
• Sidenote: @Alexmio: I occasionally use a bookmarklet to achieve this at various websites. You just drag the link given there into your bookmarks/bar, edit it to change the two instances of "tan" to "#F1ECE8" (screenshot), and then use it whenever you want at any website. Quiddity (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I sympathize. I use this user stylesheet for en.wikipedia.org:

#mw-head-base, #content, #mw-navigation {
    background-color: #f3f3f1; /* 6S 95L */
}
#toc {
    background-color: #e7e6e4;
}

It sets everything to roughly the TOC's default background, then darkens the TOC accordingly. —wing gundam 02:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a pretty new editor here...maybe one month. At first, I kept encountering lots of "class C - high importance" pages. So, I just assumed they were bad. But, then I started leaving messages on various WikiProject Talk pages and never get a reply. I assume they are dead? Even though they seem to have many members. Finally, I decided to get a "start class" article reassessed. I go look at one WikiProject assessment page and they have a queue of 11 articles and the oldest one is from 2013...five years waiting for reassessment!

So, my question to Idea Lab is whether Wikipedia needs to do something about article assessment by the WikiProjects. Perhaps a better messaging system is in order? Well, that was my one idea. Thanks for the consideration! Seahawk01 (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Nettrom and User:EpochFail have been working on WP:ORES scores for articles, so that we can automate some of this. But the general rule of thumb is: if it seems significantly incorrect, then you should Wikipedia:Be bold and fix it.

The easiest cases are articles that are marked as stubs but are obviously too long for that status. (My favorite rule of thumb: if it's got more than 10 sentences, then it's not a stub.) The absolutely minimum case for B-class is that every content section (not counting the introduction or ==See also== or anything like that) contains at least one

Wikipedia:1.0/Assess, but they are only followed approximately, so don't get too hung up on the details.) WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:RATER. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs

) 23:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing, I left messages with both User:Nettrom and User:EpochFail offering some simple suggestions on improving article quality ratings. Seahawk01 (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing and pythoncoder, thanks...great information about assessments. But, I'm still a bit confused about how assessments and Wikiprojects intersect. Maybe it will all come to me in a flash over the next week or two...I'm still a bit new :-)

Also, I would say that part of this post is about assessments, but part is a general complaint about dead Wikiprojects...or at least lack of communications inside the Wikiprojects and a need for a better messaging system. Seahawk01 (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@

new page patrol and the like. Also, even if some parts of a wikiproject are active, assessment pages often are not. So it may be a communication issue as you said. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs

) 03:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Seahawk01: The level of activity of wikiprojects is extremely variable. You are quite right that many for all intents and purposes are dead. On the other hand, others are extremely active. I am in the electronics wikiproject, and review requests usually get dealt with eventually (though there may be a long wait before someone takes an interest in that particular subject). The Military wikiproject is probably the best example of a well organised project. They have an established, well-used review process for getting articles to Class A. I'm not a great fan of new page patrol routinely adding wikiproject banners. Usually, the person doing this has no interest in the subject, is likely assessing it inaccurately (especially for importance), and is merely proliferating useless banners for semi-dead wiki-projects. SpinningSpark 09:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

When I assess articles, I usually skip the |importance= (sometimes called |priority= ratings, unless I'm very familiar with the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Just want to put this here in case anybody wants it, I have developed a hack which allows a editor to undo an edit while on the mobile interface here. Comments, criticism, bugs, requests welcomed. — fr ⁺ 09:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The mobile editor seriously needs to change. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

+1 — fr ⁺ 06:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Go to Bohol Sea.

Look top right.

See "coords" and a globe?

Click the globe.

Did you know it makes a map appear?

I was thinking about consistent maps for bodies of water, and that was pointed out to me. I never knew about that. Should that be made more prominent or the link put elsewhere or something? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Be aware that the map is just zoomed in on a simple Mercator projection. The result is that for higher latitudes the map appears stretched E-W. You would do better to click on the coordinates and select a map once you are above around 40° N or S. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a separate "Interactive map" with the globe icon next to it in the info box rather than buried by the Coords would help people discover it. Jayzlimno (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Anna - I did not know that clicking on the globe made a map appear, until you had pointed it out. Vorbee (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys, when you look up the KKK, go to the dates where the 1st generation began and ended. The real exact date the 1st generation ended was in 1872. Just to let you know. Thanks!

Slenderman4962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slenderman4962 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Slenderman4962: Thanks for the help. You'll want to do 2 things to fix this. 1) Find where you read this so others can read it to 2) Raise the point at Talk:Ku Klux Klan so that people can fix the article with the information from your source. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the limited number of experienced editors / administrators who are taking a large step back from Brexit-related articles / debates (on the basis of lack of knowledge of the subject) and leaving the same small pool of editors to reiterate their positions with ever-decreasing politeness.

Crunch time for Brexit is coming up. There is a crucial vote in the UK's parliament on Tuesday 11 December 2018.

• Stewart, Heather (28 November 2018). "Brexit: how the meaningful vote will work". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 December 2018.

and prior to it a head-to-head TV deabate between the Prime Minister, Theresa May and the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, on Sunday 9 December 2018.

• Mason, Chris (29 November 2018). "Brexit debate: Clash over whether BBC or ITV will host debate". BBC News. Retrieved 1 December 2018.

In July 2018 the BBC printed the following four Brexit outcomes:

1. Leave with a deal
2. Leave without a deal
3. Stay in the EU
4. Hold another referendum

• Staff writer (19 July 2018). "At-a-glance: The UK's four Brexit options". BBC News. Retrieved 1 December 2018.

There's a lot of POV-pushing between possible outcomes going on.

Elaborated on in November 2018 by Bloomberg News.

• Ross-Thomas, Emma (15 November 2018). "Confused about Brexit? Here's what you need to know". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 4 December 2018.

Is there some way of widening the pool? There is a Brexit Task Force

Speaking for myself, the whole area is changing so rapidly that any attempt to move beyond a bland minimalist description is bound to fall foul of

WP:BATTLEGROUND. I would seriously suggest that editors who are holding back and waiting to see what happens are doing the right thing. There's always Wikinews if you feel you want to make a dynamic contribution. Martin of Sheffield (talk

) 11:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: I was thinking more of AfDs and RfCs being responded to by the same pool of editors while other editors run a mile. Also see my answer below. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the BBC has a couple of objective explanations/infographics as to what's the options in the brexit process are -- it could be a starting point. If you think there's POV pushing try

WP:NPOVN? ProgrammingGeek ^talktome

14:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@ProgrammingGeek: Thanks, I do post on noticeboards when there's a discussion, I find there's a tendency to step back. As an example — forget Brexit a second — imagine a shopping list:

1. Bread
2. Cheese
3. Milk
4. Carrots

A second draft of the list reads:

1. Bread
2. Cheese
3. Carrots

Then someone argues with you that the carrots in the second list are not the same as the carrots as in the first list because they are now numbered differently. Sounds daft doesn't it? Yet when the

meaningful vote went from being an amendment on the bill to a section of the Act of Parliament that was the discussion, diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6 etc. Today I was able to add the ref Parliament’s 'meaningful vote' on Brexit from Institute for Government saying "The bill was further amended during its passage. Section 13 now says...", hopefully that will be the end of it. I have to say I agree with the comment in this diff It strikes me that those who oppose the use of the current description of the article's subject essentially do not accept that this article should exist at all! A few more voices saying "wait, this has nothing to do with the complexities of Brexit or working out what may happen in the future, it's just re-numbering" that would really have helped. --The Vintage Feminist (talk

) 16:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The one thing we have learned is that- the leave yahoo brigade invent thinktanks who claim to be independent. Nothing that appears in the media can be trusted. Even if I wished to enter this maelstrom- I couldn't find a WS:RS. So I apologise if I keep my politics separate from WP, and offer

Steve Bray (activist) as the closest I dare come. ClemRutter (talk

) 18:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid none of us will affect what happens in Britain this week by our editing, but more revealing articles on those thinktanks, their supporters, etc. will do good in the longer term.

For full disclosure, I currently avoid by editing on Vicipaedia, where rapid news-led changes are pointless (the probability is that no one will read them). But I am planning to work on the thinktanks and propagandists. Andrew Dalby 10:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This bit of discussion shows how quickly perspectives change. The consensus at that page a year ago was that citations of right wing thinktanks in the big media are not even worth mentioning. Andrew Dalby 14:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

For us, occasional editors who do not get it perfect the 1st time, allow us to eliminate missteps from & clean up the history by adding to the "View history" tab - "Compare selection revisions" button, a function to consolidate the intermediate revisions by the same user into just 1 resulting edit with description. This should reduce storage and clutter in revision searching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N8HSU (talk • contribs) 23:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this works for attribution reasons? I'm not sure though programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 04:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Any comments on this idea - A course on Wikipedia similar to ones on Coursera or EdX:

• Problem: Learning about the intricacies of Wikipedia is difficult for a new editor and sometimes the process is discouraging and very slow. Navigating Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays takes time, and mistakes by new editors increases the workload of older editors. Also, learning about Wikipedia can be made more fun, structured and efficient through such an online course for Wikipedia like the ones on Coursera (https://www.coursera.org/) or edX (https://www.edx.org/). A proper course with videos, quizzes, interactive elements, the history of Wikipedia and basic help navigating wikipedia for future editors, how the largest volunteer community in the world works, how things are resolved on controversial topics, so many things can be covered sequentially. The course can cover the whole of Wikipedia as well as WikiMedia, Commons, Wikidata etc and how all the other Wikis are part of the larger Wikipedia universe.
• Who would benefit: All new editors, prospective editors and for those just curious about wanting to know more about Wikipedia itself. It would also provide an educational platform for teachers across the world to teach their students about Wikipedia in a more thorough and structured way.
• Proposed solution: A course on Wikipedia on Coursera or Edx. (Even YouTube)
• More comments: I know that Wikipedia – The Missing Manual and
  WP:The Wikipedia Adventure
  exists. But The Wikipedia Adventure would need to be expanded and updated extensively to cover this idea, it also doesn't cover the other wikis. I understand that there are other more experienced editors who help clear things out when there is a confusion related to how Wikipedia works, Talk pages are there as well as the TeaHouse etc.
• talk
  ) 03:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The Wiki Education Foundation has developed training materials for the student classroom program. They include guides such as Editing Wikipedia and online tutorials. Perhaps some of this could be adapted for orienting new Wikipedia editors. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 10:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well the dead horse I've been beating on this for a long time is getting video summaries for each major policy/guideline. There's potentially grant funding available that could cover things like space and equipment, maybe even a couple cheap actors. Writing scripts is easy enough. But I don't know anyone who has, for example, substantial experience producing content for youtube who would have the knowledge and expertise to bring the whole thing together and get a good production quality out of it. I'd love to snag someone like the GeographyNow crew who would be on board to see the whole thing through, but as of now I just continue to beat the horse. GMG^talk 16:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  Well I'm fairly decent at various video production tasks, so I'd be down for this. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I have a brief case full of training booklets that have been produced for edit-a-thons and training sessions- and the they are all wanting. Dive in: Commons:Category:Wikimedia UK training booklets . If you want a quick fix, you could try Commons:File:Newspeak House- Strengthening an article manual.pdf

• I have been a proponent of
  independent resource-based learning
  for decades, whereby tutorial material is written, and the learner or a trainer chooses the route through them. The resource sheets are written for different ability levels, in differing languages and in many ways resemble a wiki, catalogued and linked. The tutor will talk to resource- the independant learner would choose their own route. The resource bank would now include youtube type clips.
• There is a massive need for a printed manual- but it must reflect Wikipedia as it is today. Forget teaching newbies about creating new articles: New page patrol and the draft space review backlog will zap most of those. Forget about teaching syntax: newbies usually edit with visual editor, or on cellphones/mobile phones. The experience we had when we started is not the same as the newbie gets today. Similarly, the language used by academics is not the same as that needed to write a tutorial sheet. The test I use to evaluate tutorial sheets is how they explain referencing.
• Material used for tutorial material is not written in the same way as explanatory promotional material even if the content may appear similar. Both are needed. Active editors can provide the content, and the foundation can help with typesetting and editoral skills- the trainer can select the most appropriate for his students. I think the message is that we should have a serious look at the problem and appreciate that there is no one correct way, but having nothing is wrong. ClemRutter (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 15:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 15:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Ramjohn probably has more pull than any of us could have as far as connecting the logistical dots. I did work up an example of a draft script a few months ago, just to illustrate the kind of thing I'm talking about. Very much shooting for a GeoNow or Crash Course type vibe, being informative and minimally entertaining, while keeping things super low budget and not taking ourselves entirely too seriously. (Incidentally, I've already emailed both GeoNow and Crash Course begging for interest and neither ever replied.)

But the idea is to make some passive way of learning policy, something where you can cook dinner or browse reddit and still absorb information about policy. At least enough to get you to the point that when a new editor actually sits down to read the full text, they already have a general idea of what it is they're reading and how it's applied. GMG^talk 15:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I went through the link -example of a draft script. Noticed how you wrote "start what is probably a waste of time" for the first edit summary. :D ... it's a good script. But then actually converting it into a video is another matter....
This has made me think that if a script like yours, coupled up with good reasons and more content, a larger outline can be drafted in to a grant proposal made with Project Goal, Project Plan, Activities, Impact etc etc. (with the grant only being for the final production of the videos, So say you are a scriptwriter, you will be included in the proposal, but the grant wont be towards the scriptwriter, or any writers at this stage. It will merely be for the actually camerawork and the video editing, etc that can be worked out). Now once the entire outline has been developed, Wikipedia communities all over the world can be tagged and pinged with the only aim that someone needs to actually make the video... and since an entire outline has already been drafted... it may work out. I think this is a more logical way of going about it. (WOW! This is exciting :D :D)

I also noticed a couple of videos on YouTube with over 150,000 views such as How to Edit a Wikipedia Article, but this kind of video is NOT the aim at all, so the proposal will have to build on this and answer what new things the new video attempts... as you wrote "something where you can cook dinner or browse reddit and still absorb information about policy", "production quality like GeographyNow"...  

talk

) 15:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Well

Wikipedia:Art+Feminism

.)

Unfortunately the problem with that video is that it is immensely text based. So basically what that means is that it ain't worth nothin if you don't speak English. If we were going to try to put together a series, part of the goal would ideally be to make it basically contain as little text as possible, and as many...lets be honest...visual gags that are cross culturally relevant as we can. What you set yourself up for there is that anybody can slap on non-English subtitles and the video content would still make sense. For that matter, you could dub it over with non-English audio if you wanted, and still, something like a big leather bound book as a visual gag is still going to communicate the meaning effectively. GMG^talk 16:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 16:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, at the extreme end of that, you could go with a video that is entirely based on voice-over. Then the native language wouldn't matter.

But overall, yeah. Writing a script is easy. (Most of us are here to begin with because we're amateur writers giving away our work for free.) But I expect we would still need to find someone with some kind of production experience. I wouldn't have any idea how to write a proposal for...justifying studio time, detailed equipment needed, etc. GMG^talk 16:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@

I wonder if User:Fuzheado or User:Rosiestep would be able to give any pointers as to how they got that super fancy video they showed at WikiCon North America. GMG^talk 17:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I tip my hat to Fuzheado for that video. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Video is a splendid thing. So is printing, and many introductory pages exist, scattered in various places including user subpages. Mine is User:Jim.henderson/Wikipedia is collaborative which, on the theory that too many intros are technical (list of rules, how to format refs, etc), takes more a sociological or political tack. I print it as a single sheet folded as four pages and pass it out at edit-athons, where it is often well received. The usual problem with nicely printed pamphlets is distribution; the papers must be brought to the user. My sheet can simply be run off on your printer, giving a result far less pretty than what any competent print shop will produce, but it's easy. it would be prettier and easier if it were in a WP format instead of a Wikimarkup page. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 16:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

What we do will depend on what resources we can muster, @DiplomatTesterMan: and what we've got are writers. As it happens, I learned most my writing skills when I was young, far back into the 20th century, and improved them in BBS discussions and later in editing SimpleWP. I haven't learned anything about making videos, much less instructional games. Those who have made our instructional videos, haven't impressed me with their command of the art. This is not counting promotional videos full of skillful razzle-dazzle and not trying to convey a major load of information.

A couple days ago I was in an edit-athon where we showed videos. To me, they seemed terribly inadequate. For that setting, even a moderately poor live presentation is better than our typically poorly constructed and plotted videos. What I should improve, for these purposes, is my own live speaking skills. This is in my own environment, New York City, where we have many live events and improving them would make a difference. Most newbies, however, are not in a city with an active local Chapter, and must learn from dead material, whether paper or video, made for home consumption.

Those who make this material must know not just the topic, but how to present it. For us who are competent only at writing, it's a somewhat different kind of writing. It's another skill that I, at least, should cultivate by extending my little four-page folio with material of similar style but covering technical questions such as notability and references. Which, once written raises for me the question of home binding since I'm still going with the theory that it ought to be printed at the instructor's home for passing out as a takeaway at our live sessions. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There are frequently statements such as "The new season at Actor's Theatre will open on October 12, 2017 with a production of Hamlet". I question whether such statements are ever justified (they may be just promotional), but if they are included, they should be flagged with and automatic mechanism that alerts somebody to the necessity of updating once the predicted event occurs. Here is my proposed logic for such a flag:

{{the verb tense used in this statement must be updated on October 12, 2017}}--Toploftical (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Toploftical: There's a template for that work already: {{Update after}}. Read the documentation for more details. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

thx--Toploftical (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I come across a hypothetical Wikipedia UI revamp mockup with a clean interface and a night mode toggle button. See mockup here: phab:M270 --Agusbou2015 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

What is the best way to deal with spoken audio files on English Wikipedia?

Currently you can put a pronunciation in the lead and a complete article recording can be linked via {{Spoken Wikipedia}} (a little box at the bottom of articles, in the external links section).

But how to work with multiple audio files? For example Channel Tunnel could include "Channel Tunnel" in an English accent, "Chunnel" in an English accent, "Le tunnel sous la Manche" in French. Then there may be an Australian accent for the lead (using metric) and an American version (using Imperial). Finally a recording of the whole article.

What about creating a subpage, eg Channel Tunnel/spoken? It would have several advantages:

1. A central spot for whole article readings, simple subject pronunciations and mid-length recordings of the first sentence or lead.
2. Allow access to recordings with different accents and subjects in different language if notable. Without cluttering the article itself.

Before I complete a load of article subject pronunciations I am looking for suggestions on how to link to spoken audio files.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

First off, there's no subpage structure in mainspace. Channel Tunnel/spoken is an independent page not a subpage of Channel Tunnel. Also I think part of the problem why Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia is inactive is largely because of the ineffectiveness of representing dynamic content in a static audio. Wikipedia changes all the time, the moment you record an article, the audio can become outdated the very next minute. Wikipedia is first and foremost text-based. If one wants hear article being read they can use screen reading softwares which one can customize to accent they wants and also have the added advantage of reading the current version of the page unlike recorded audio. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what you said, but I intend to purely record article titles. Unlike whole articles, these rarely change. Also, you cannot beat a human pronunciation by a local when compared to screen reading software.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You can add them to the commons category and make sure that is linked on the page. That would be my recommendation. --Izno (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on detecting paid revisions with a framework that requires weak heuristics for their detection. But I've no experience as an editor, so heuristics that I come up with probably aren't going to be very effective. Does this sound interesting to any experienced editors out here?

The framework that I'm working with. Paper supporting the framework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apiarant (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be concerned that such a heuristic can't tell the difference between paid editing and COI editing, as different policies apply to both. Or worse, not tell the distinction between paid editing and editing on an organization page as extensive edits to organization pages can be symptoms of spamming, paid editing or mere interest. Heuristics don't have mind reading powers, after all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This is no rocket science. Heuristics cannot differentiate paid and COI editing. Even humans only do so by looking at the surrounding factors, prior knowledge or confession not by merely by looking at revisions. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've been a bit more clear and gone in a little more detail about the framework. Indeed, the difficulty with detecting paid editing is that we don't read minds. And so, any auto-detection method that uses what we already know (like revisions made by self-disclosed paid editors) doesn't have much base knowledge to work with in the first place. Snorkel (the framework above) tries to improve this limited knowledge problem by trying to squeeze more out of shakier sources of knowledge, like experienced Wikipedians' judgments and their personal heuristics. A short summary of how it does this:

(1) Instead of applying heuristics directly, Snorkel (the framework above) can take a large collection of heuristics (which are never wholly correct) and model the ways that they are correct and incorrect with respect to each other, as a whole.

(2) From considering all heuristics, Snorkel can then make probabilistic claims about revisions. It can declare how unsure the sum of the heuristics should be.

(3) These probabilistic statements can be applied to edits that no one's really sure about. But now we have newly explicit knowledge that we didn't have before -- even if the knowledge is fuzzy. This probabilistic knowledge can improve other methods. Like the types of models that ORES works on.

Snorkel is a state-of-the-art thing that made a little splash. But it isn't a quick and easy solution; there's a lot of work to do. A first step is collecting a set of heuristics to model. And of course, if its performance looks shaky when testing offline, then it won't be brought online. Apiarant (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how this could possibly work in the context of Wikipedia. As a concrete example, I've created numerous articles on artworks currently in

Iridescent

10:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a pretty messy problem -- I agree. Whether this can work comes down to whether there are sufficient behavioral differences between paid and good-faith editors' behavior (as far as they are revealed to Wikipedia). If there aren't sufficient differences, then that's that. We don't have evidence to work with to build cases, so to speak. But if we've got the evidence, then whether we can produce an automated solution comes down to a technical challenge of finding the right model to capture these differences. As you've said, some of these differences might be quite subtle and difficult to observe, even for experienced humans. The nice thing about Snorkel is that we aren't asking for it to work with the evidence all by itself. Snorkel works because it gets "help" from people in the form of heuristics. And the more diverse and richer the knowledge-base of those heuristics, the better Snorkel can do -- sort of like a Wiki. The end model is (kind of) collaboratively edited.

More personally, my reason for the proposal: As the central repository of knowledge for the world, it's a shame that Wikipedia doesn't have the type of money big companies have for state-of-the-art automation (like Google / Facebook's ads, Amazon's recommended purchases, etc.). But Wikipedia has passionate volunteers. Snorkel has the potential to bridge volunteers and efficient solutions that work at scale, especially given stagnating growth in number of new editors. Apiarant (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:COIN. The heuristics could help in finding paid rewrites of existing articles that slip through the cracks. One identifier of paid spam is promotional articles from new editors that are too well done (someone who is paid often try to do a good job of it). Galobtter (pingó mió

) 10:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

to expand on

Iridescent

's example, even for commercial organization, it is reasonable that individual hobbyists will be interested in all the products from a company. This even holds for non-consumer products==one of the revelations of WP is the range of things hobbyists can get fascinated in, and there's a even better example, Wikia. What I tend to find most suspicious is a deep interest in products from unrelated companies, but this is why most UPEs know at least enough to pick a different user name each time. Many of us working with UPE detection go by writing style--but this is less helpful one might think, since even the most characteristic PR quirks are copied by good faith editors whose idea of appropriate stye has been contaminated by exposure to the huge amount of PR in the world, and in particular by the large amount already in WP, which they copy thinking this is what we want--naive good faith editors have even said this explicitly, that they've deliberately copied the style of what they find here.

It should be possible to find a heuristic as good as any one of us, but none of us are really very good. It should even be possible to find one as good as the combined consensus here, but that will only be slightly better, for we often disagree on anything not utterly obvious. That's why the practical emphasis is on removing promotional articles, no matter by whom they are written. Very few people or firms will hire an editor to write non-promotional articles about themselves. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Apiarant, I think the big issue here is the difference between trying to identify a paid edit vs trying to identify paid editors. I don't think you can extract enough of a signal in the context of a single edit to reliably and usefully flag any but the most blatant cases. (We have edit filters that catch usernames which substantially match the article title or article content, which catch a lot of clueless COI accounts. See (recent changes examples). It would be more challenging, but much more viable, to attempt to identify paid editors based on the collective context of their editing history. Most paid editors use a disposable accounts with only a handful of edits, a new account for each article they want to push. With such a short history these accounts are created in an endless stream, they are generally pretty obvious, but they are hard to firmly deal with. They just come back with a new account, and there's a painful tension between an "obvious" disposable accounts and a presumption of Good Faith for accounts with little or no clear bad-history. At the other end of the spectrum long term paid accounts are far less common, far more insidious, and it can take a painfully long time to dig through their edit history to build a strong case against them. A quality tool to identity one or both classes of paid-accounts would be more useful than trying to classify individual edits. Alsee (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: If I recall correctly, weren't somebody associated with you researching into the same locus? ∯WBG^converse 19:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I had been interested in finding someone who might want to go that route. I don't believe I ever got any firm commitment from anyone, though some were interested. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk

• To avoid unnecessary deleting and undeleting, wasting the editor's time and Wikipedia's server's time, we need abilities for admins to do these to a page:
  1. Select some of its visible edits, and delete only those. (This is not the same as hiding some edits.)
  2. Select some of its visible edits, and move only those.
  3. Move its deleted edits, while keeping them deleted.
  4. If the previous, select some of its deleted edits, and move only those, while keeping them deleted.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• 1. Also have history merge without deleting the target (could be combined with selective revision move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Most of these are impossible unless T20493 • Tthis happens:(∯WBG^converse 19:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Currently it is stated to be an explanatory supplement. I am not sure this is the case -

In any case, I am aware there are various issues - so I thought I would create a discussion point for people to hopefully comment on and moot solutions (if applicable). Nosebagbear (talk)

Please feel free to start sub-headers for different issues

@Nosebagbear: It feels like a version of this discussion is happening already. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: - you are right of course, I'll the question and your link here, since they seem a beneficial link. If someone wants to rephrase purely into a link they may do so. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear all

I've submitted a grant application to the Wikimedia Foundation to continue to work at UNESCO in 2019 and would really appreciate it if you would consider endorsing it (the blue button at the bottom of the infobox). In 2019 we want to focus on:

1. Helping UN agencies adopt open licensing and share content on Wikimedia projects
2. Share UNESCO content at large scale (100,000s of images)
3. Build the relationships between UN agencies and Wikimedia organisations to run projects
4. Continue to write and improve instructions on Wikimedia projects (list of previous documentation on my user page) to make it easier for everyone to run projects

This will be the last time we ask WMF for funding, we have a grant proposal outlined for a large external grant for 2020 but without this year's funding we won’t get to where we need to be.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Historically, there have been only two ways to fix an edit. Either revert it in its entirety or allow it to stay. This has led to a certain mentality among patrollers to revert even when the edit could have been improved. I personally have come across edits which could have been fixed by adding a citation needed tag or a spelling correction. Often a portion of the edit is incorrect, the rest is okay, however there is only one way to fix it, revert. Suppose we had a extension/script which allowed you to correct these edits, add a citation tag, fix spelling mistakes, remove problematic portions or copy-edit a edit while in diff mode. That would make life a lot more easier and prevent biting of newbies.

Is there such a script/extension ? Would a lot of editors benefit from such a tool ? Or is it just me who think such a tool is necessary ? — fr ⁺ 17:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Citations/Dealing with unsourced additions - "citation needed" button is related. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

And since the community wishlist entry (linked by JJMC89) was not accepted, I have begun work myself on a button like this. I'm hoping to present it at the NYC Wikipedia Day meetup, so it'll probably be in testable condition in early January. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Uh. "only two ways to fix it" ? "only one way to fix it: revert" ? You know those aren't the only options, yes? DS (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes; however, if you're not going to alt-tab away from Huggle, those are the only options. Ditto if you want to deal with a page-ful of recent changes quickly. Obviously it's better to use more options (such as the ones mentioned in the original comment by fr), but in practice I don't think that happens often (supported by my RC-watching while designing this feature). Enterprisey (talk!) 05:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ummm. There's the most important option: editing it. Get out of diff mode and actually edit the article. I'm actually shocked that the obvious answer is no longer obvious. Risker (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  Risker, what I was asking in the original proposal was an ability to perform the common editing tasks in diff mode.  — fr ⁺ 10:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe we should get a Google API key, for the purpose of using their API to keep up to date numbers and improve accuracy. For instance, the key would allow for pages relating to youtube to keep current video statistics, and thereby remove the menial task of having to get them manually. The issue is that the account monitoring the key (as an account is needed for the key) would have to be created officially (Maybe by staff?), because otherwise the key would be under the name of an individual and probably break some rule. Thoughts? WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a bot task to me. Would need consensus and probably an RfC. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Does wikidata use bots? This sounds like something wikidata would be good at. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

What does the Google API terms of service say about licensing and usage restrictions? -- GreenC 22:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

To answer the question: Section 5e says it is prohibited to "Scrape, build databases, or otherwise create permanent copies of [Google API] content". Data scraped from the API into Wikidata would probably not be permitted - unless Google says otherwise. Google uses Wikidata. There is a Wikipedian who helped create Wikidata then hired by Google. He would be the one to ask. -- GreenC 22:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yea, I wasn't thinking of using it as a scraper, I was thinking more like grabbing small (notable) data such as the view numbers for the youtube top viewed videos list. WelpThatWorked (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@WelpThatWorked and GreenC: If the data is publicly accessible then it's probably better to save it to the Internet Archive than to e.g. dump it in Wikidata (unlimited storage for all practical purposes, easily automated, acceptable in some jurisdictions as legal evidence, data is kept indefinitely, no licensing/database rights issues). I'm already doing this for the three top videos lists (tool archive-things on Toolforge – all of the video pages linked from those articles are saved once an hour); if you make a list of YouTube videos somewhere on-wiki I could also use that list. Wikidata also tends to avoid discarding old but correct data, so adding this data there would start to become unwieldy after a short time. Jc86035 (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like exactly what the Google Terms of Service say not to do. Being publicly accessible isn't the same as public domain. They apparently don't want API data scraped and saved into "otherwise permanent copies". There are licensing/database rights issues. Section 5e. -- GreenC 16:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yea, so I wasn't intending to scrape with it, but use it for keeping small statistics of the notable variety up to date. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my paraphrasing does not accurately represent the Terms of Service. I used the word "scrap", but the Terms of Service say much more. The Terms of Service can be found in Section 5e. I would recommend reading Section 5e, and not relying on what I say. For example 5E says:

Scrape, build databases, or otherwise create permanent copies of such content, or keep cached copies longer than permitted by the cache header

Is the intention to create permanent copies of the data?

Copy, translate, modify, create a derivative work of, sell, lease, lend, convey, distribute, publicly display, or sublicense to any third party

Is Wikipedia a third party? Does Wikipedia content have a license that is incompatible with the Google API Terms of Service?

Misrepresent the source or ownership

Is Google's ownership and the source of the data not being represented?

Remove, obscure, or alter any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary rights notices; or falsify or delete any author attributions, legal notices, or other labels of the origin or source of material

Is API data concerning legal notices, etc.. not being represented?

I don't have answers to these questions, but they seems like good questions. At the very least any regular and automated retrieval of Google API data into Wikipedia should be vetted with Mediawiki Legal, and/or Google. -- GreenC 16:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC and WelpThatWorked: Clarification: the archive-things script is archiving the YouTube video HTML pages themselves, not making calls to Google's API. I don't believe this would be against Google's TOS, since it doesn't involve the API and IA has been archiving videos based on tweet mentions (i.e. a lot of videos). We don't have to worry about copyright for IA because IA assumes fair use by default, and small amounts of data – e.g. for the YouTube Rewind dislikes graph – wouldn't qualify as violating any sort of database copyright.

Maybe what could be done is that the script could edit the articles every few hours to add some of the data that it's downloaded (since it's downloading the pages anyway so that it can also archive the images), although I'm not really sure how to do that. Jc86035 (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have 1,000+ edits over about six weeks. Things were going along lovely. I found everyone friendly. The Teahouse was working great and same with the Help Desk, Idea Lab (here) was a place to offer suggestions. Couldn't complain at all about my Wikipedia experience. That is, until last week when I went through Wikipedia:Questions to the #wikipedia-en-help IRC chat room...that was a big mistake and after that everything turned dark.

I had a simple question about stubs and ended up having someone put the article I was working on into draft space. Then I had two other people jump all over me. It was quite a shock.

Doing further research I found: Wikipedia:IRC and discover that this is a freenode channel, run by volunteers, but not affiliated with Wikipedia. To quote from that page:

When the channels are used to attack Wikipedians, or when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action, the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships.

Looking further for policy about IRC, I found this: Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help. It is the first Wikipedia help page I ever found which says in big bold letters that the #1 channel guideline is "don't be a jerk", so I am assuming there are a lot of people who like to act like jerks there.

Lastly, I reference this: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution which says:

Resolve disputes as soon as they arise. When two editors disagree over what to do with an article, they must talk things through politely and rationally.

So, in the chat room, people took unilateral actions and made on-wiki changes without any discussions. I repeatedly asked for them to post on my Talk page, but this was ignored. Placing the article in question into draft space was a major hassle. Other people were also working on the page and now they won't be able to find it. This has drained my enthusiasm for Wikipedia and made me really question why I should even volunteer my time.

To sum up, I really think Wikipedia should not endorse the IRC chatroom at all, take all links down and especially take down the link at Wikipedia:Questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahawk01 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You clearly read the instructions, since you're quoting them, but you've ignored the "no public logging" that's listed in multiple places. I've removed your link. Natureium (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I see two issues here. First, there were legitimate content issues with the article; an article that started New York City is suffering a crisis in housing affordability. Although the city's skyline has been filled with construction cranes for a long time, net affordable units continue to be lost. New York City is one of the most expensive places to live in America. There is a crushing rent burden on the poor, working poor and elderly. Homelessness in the city is currently at an historic high. had some obvious NPOV issues. Second, this seems like a mis-use of page-mover permissions, and moving to draft-space in general. Moving an article to draft-space shouldn't allow non-admins to unilaterally delete articles.

π, ν

) 03:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Seahawk01: While the en-help chatroom isn't "officially" affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation (the non-profit that "owns" Wikipedia), there is a bit of a process of registering a single hashtag channel that starts with the word "Wikipedia" on Freenode to avoid misuse. So I doubt the channel itself will get "unapproved", so to speak, since that would be more difficult than getting it approved to begin with.

Sounds like there was some communication issues that could've been better dealt with to make the decisions made

bite

less; however, that doesn't mean that the decisions made need to be reversed, per se. That doesn't mean that the help channel needs to not exist.

Also, FYI (also to

Power~enwiki) all because the article is in draftspace doesn't mean other people can't work on it, nor is it a way of "unilateral deletion". Rather, it's a way to prevent outright deletion from occurring. You express concern that people might not be able to find it. Perhaps link to it on your user page, or talk page. Generally speaking, if they can't find your talk page, they'd have some difficulty collaborating with other editors, anyway.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits

) @ 04:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@

abandoned, it should always be there for you to continue to work.

It makes no difference whether people editing the article found out about it from IRC, the Teahouse, or even this disucssion here because the minute you added it to the mainspace it became pretty much fair game for all to edit; so, trying state that IRC is the problem here sort of indicates a bit of a misunderstanding as to how Wikipedia has been set up to work. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 05:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @

buzz

14:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Seahawk01: Can we get a dedicated on site wikipedia IRC, that'd be really cool! -- HentaiDoujinMaster (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

HentaiDoujinMaster, see also WP:IRC. It's not hosted by the WMF, though; I dunno if they'd agree to set up servers. Maybe if Freenode goes under, I suppose. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

  Duplicate proposal See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia interaction redesign — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomie (talk • contribs) 03:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed that our "you are blocked" templates, such as {{Uw-block}}, can confuse new editors. Some edit the template's instructions instead of making a proper unblock request. For example: 1, 2, 3. I was thinking that maybe we should edit the templates to warn people not to edit the example unblock request. Then I thought, "Why not use an edit filter?" So, then I wasn't sure which way to go, or if maybe the problem is rare enough that it doesn't even matter all that much. Any thoughts? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I've seen the same and have had to fix an unblock request for someone who did it incorrectly in that way; an edit filter sounds like a good idea. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Does the "you are blocked" template {Uw-block} distinguish between people who are temporarily blocked and people who are permanently blocked? Vorbee (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Setting the parameter |indef=yes will change "temporarily" to "indefinitely". --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion was left in 2008 regarding trying to find software (or volunteers) to put pronunciations into the entries in Wikipedia. While I don't usually have a problem with regular words, I do have a problem with foreign words or locations, such as places in the Middle East. Have we gotten anywhere on this discussion / suggestion? ErinBS — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErinBS (talk • contribs) 11:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

ErinBS Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13 dates from 2014 and I've found no discussion on this topic there. If you wish to revive an old discussion you will have to provide a precise link.

The problem with pronunciations in articles is that most of them are unsourced and appear to be

"original research", an activity editors are not supposed to indulge in. The original researchers may think the pronunciation familiar to them is common knowledge and not be aware that folks somewhere else pronounce the same word differently. See, for example, various discussions at Talk:Baltimore to get an idea of the complexities that can arise: Bhunacat10 (talk),

20:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to have, at the top, a list of logically valid arguments that have been put forward thus far in the discussion in order to aid those who join later in knowing the state of the debate. It should have two sections: ‘arguments for‘ and ‘arguments against.‘ Each argument on the can have an objection or a counterargument from the other side written right under it. Some arguments can be put into a syllogistic form (premises and conclusion) for clarity and for aiding their evaluation. The list would also help the closer of the discussion in determining whether consensus has been reached and what exactly is the consensus. VarunSoon (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Above and beyond the complication of this (not to mention people disagreeing about what exactly one argument means), I suspect writing it in syllogistic form is probably a bit too much too ask. Though it might pare down certain issues - we could really test editors and require their arguments to be in symbolic form. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Using propositional calculus? - Donald Albury 15:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the arguments need not be required to be symbolized. We do not even have to require every argument to be stated out in syllogistic form; what I mean is that it is an option when it is necessary (which would be quite rare). For example:

Arguments for deleting categories of Wikipedians by his/her philosophy (Side 1)

1. These categories fail
   WP:USERCATNO, specifically because they are based on advocacy (such as Category:Calvinist Wikipedians and Category:Creation Science Wikipedians) or are divisive (such as Category:Evangelical Wikipedians, Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians, and Category:Social Darwinist Wikipedians
   ) or both. For example, if an atheist Wikipedian comes across a category that lists creationist Wikipedians, hostile attitude is likely to form, and this attitude towards specific users can obstruct cooperation and discussion when the he/she crosses path with Wikipedians that he/she knows is on that list.

VarunSoon (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I can see this proposal causing far more disagreement, about things like whether an argument is valid or not or is the same as someone else's argument, than it prevents. It might be good for the closer of a complex discussion to summarize arguments in this way, but I think that doing so during a discussion will end up being counterproductive. Some people simply like arguing for the sake of arguing, and this would just give them extra things to argue about.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 13:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

My main concern is with a user joining a discussion (concerning an issue) and entering his/her input without reading everything above (things that have already been input by other users) first, causing already-mentioned arguments to be repeated. Also, for the closer to have to go through everything by himself/herself is, in my view, too much to be done by a single person for judging the presence of consensus (or lack thereof) accurately. Third, consensus might not be reached among the participants because there are those who, because of the complexity of the discussion, have not considered every point that has been made in the discussion, causing discussions that could have ended in a consensus to end with no consensus. In other words, past long discussions, at least in my view, have been chaotic or not orderly enough for them to settle an issue efficiently (settle an issue without letting it to continue existing and be brought up again in the future) and effectively (producing consensus accurately). Lastly, I modify my proposal such that any arguments, even logically invalid or logically unsound ones, can be added to the list if they are not a repetition of the ones already added. VarunSoon (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

For preventing development hell:

I have nothing to add to what I wrote above, which remains my position.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 09:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@

Phil Bridger: Aren't disputes about repetitiveness and logical validity already present in the current system, even without the implementation of my proposal? For example, if person A says 'Your argument has already been addressed,' then person B can say 'No, my argument is not the same as that of person X and person Y.' Also, logical validity can be determined by examining the argument's structure alone. My proposal is for new discussions only (those started after the implementation); the first participant would add an argument either in the section for arguments in favor or the section for arguments against (or both, if he/she wants to express his/her ambivalence); when the second participant joins in, he/she can either add a different argument or second the one that was already added (by adding his/her signature under it; he/she may also edit it in order to rephrase it). VarunSoon (talk

) 12:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

"Her Majesty" occurs on the wiki 17,469 times. Scrolling thorough the results, it seems that about half of them refer to the current monarch of England. When the queen dies, we'll have a lot of work to do to fix all of those. I wonder if it would be a good idea to create a "their majesty" template and start changing things over now, so that when we actually have to change it over we can do it in one place. As a bonus, if we're still around in 20-80 years when we have a queen again, it would make our lives much easier. Gaelan 💬✏️ 07:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gaelan: I couple of questions. Where did you get that number (17,469) from? And, how do you know which ones are meant to refer to the current monarch (throughout time) and which are meant to refer specifically to the current monarch as of now? Just wondering, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: 1) a search on "her majesty" 2) eyeballing the first few pages of that Gaelan 💬✏️ 07:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't replicate either of your results; a search for "her majesty" returns 6000 results not 17,469, and almost none relate to the current monarch. ‑ 

Iridescent

08:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the quotes. (I had the quotes in my comment not as part of my search but just in the conventional English sense.) Good catch. Gaelan 💬✏️ 08:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Even in the results without quotes, looks like some page moves will need to be done though I can't see that many uses relating to the current monarch. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I would imagine, too, that most things referring to QEII would remain "Her" while only references/redirects to the office title would need changing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that the third in line to the throne (

Prince George of Cambridge) is only 5, you're making a lot of assumptions (some a 'bit iffy') in assuming a "queen again" in 20-80 years time. Besides which, "Imagining the Queen's Death' is technically an offence, and more to the point some people do live past 112 – see Oldest people! :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk

) 11:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Does "Imagining the queen's death" consitute high treason? And doesn't that still technically carry the death penalty?

Phil Bridger (talk

) 12:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

When the queen dies Quite the assumption that the Queen isn't an immortal robot-alien sent to rule us for all eternity. Assuming however, that she will die, I'm not finding too many instances where this would have to change in the search results and in most cases we'd probably have to do more changes than changing "her majesty" to "his majesty" to the pages and thus a template could confuse things by having some things up to date and some not. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Despite the fact that I might be liable for the death penalty by saying so, the current queen of my country is clearly mortal, and at her age we can expect her to die in the next decade or two. I'm sure we have enough editors who follow the British royal family to make the required changes when that happens. Maybe

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Preparations for the passing of the monarch have been made by the UK government, the BBC, and other governments (down to broadcasters having black ties and suits ready at all times), so I don't think it's an offence. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

With all those preparations, isn't it weird that they haven't included wikipedia‽ ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so; I wouldn't expect the UK government or the BBC to undertake editing Wikipedia. Even leaving aside the paid editing concerns they would encounter, keeping Wikipedia up-to-date isn't within their scope, just as they wouldn't update other encyclopedias. isaacl (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

We catch various agencies of the UK government fiddling with Wikipedia all the time, with various degrees of hamfistedness when it comes to the attempt to conceal their tracks. Here's

Iridescent

21:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said for the purpose of transitioning the pronouns from Her to His. I presume all of the ongoing fiddling is for a political purpose, and so there is incentive to do so. There is no political upside to helping the world's encyclopedias to update their pronoun usage. isaacl (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Now see, I distinctly remember a discussion in the Swiss parliament where a MP questioned whether the Swiss government has a policy for editing Wikipedia (apparently it happens quite frequently) and trivial updates and the like were among the things that the Swiss government does. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's come at this from a different direction. Yes, organizations (such as private businesses and government agencies) like to edit their Wikipedia articles to keep the information up-to-date, like the current top officials and the current mission. But as per the original question, is it weird that we haven't heard of a plan for governments to update Wikipedia to change the pronouns from Her to His on the passing of Queen Elizabeth II? Given that it won't be obscure news, virtually shutting down at least parts of the UK for a period of time, I don't really expect governments to do this. isaacl (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think Amory's comment was intended to be much more light-hearted than the way you and others are interpreting it. I may be wrong, but the message that I get from that comment is that Wikipedia is nowhere near the most important thing in the world - something that we should all bear in mind.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 21:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I imagine it was; the interrobang was invented to express surprise or incredulity in a question [2]. I chose to address the incredulity aspect, but it was probably a rhetorical question. isaacl (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles should only use the term "Her Majesty" when referring to someone's style and title or when it is part of a direct quote. In most cases there will be no reason to change the gender when in the fullness of time a male heir ascends to the throne of the United Kingdom and her realms beyond the seas. Incidentally, a lot of articles would have to change queen to king, but fortunately there are hundreds of editors who would joyfully muck in. TFD (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Quite. We don't routinely refer to Jesus as "Jesus Christ" or to Muhammad as "the Prophet Muhammad PBUH", so we shouldn't routinely refer to the current monarch of the United Kingdom and some other places as "Her Majesty". If we do so then that should be changed now, rather than waiting till she dies.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 20:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Most articles have fields in the info-box for both ideology and political position. While there is usually agreement about ideology, there are often differences over political position. See for example Talk:Liberal Party of Canada#Drop "Center-Left", Talk:Democratic Party (United States)#Political position discussion, Talk:Labour Party (UK)#Centre-left to left wing for current arguments.

Essentially these arguments boil down to where the ideologies belong on the political spectrum.

Reliable sources are in disagreement over how to characterize various ideologies. For example,

TFD (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the parameter in the info box as it has been such a problem that recently we had to install an edit filter that is having problems pls see Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_12#Far-right/far-left. Other than that I think we should get our content from the best academic sources there are. There's a whole academic discipline dedicated to this so I don't foresee any problems finding high-quality sources..... it's one of those topics we don't need the news for.--Moxy (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, the problem is though, as shown by the examples I provided, that reliable sources do not use the terms consistently with one other. Hence the Democratic Party of the U.S. can be reliably sourced as center, center-left or left-wing in books that agree on what its ideology is. It is centrist because it is a liberal party, center left because it is similar in some ways to European social democratic parties and left because it is the more left of the two major parties. Each of these descriptions only make sense if context is provided, which an info-box does not do. TFD (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The current commonly used one-dimensional left-right political spectrum is inadequate for sorting political ideologies. That is because it is not clear what is the necessary characteristic(s) for an ideology or a political party to be categorized as left-wing or left-leaning, or to be categorized as right-wing or right-leaning. Is the left defined by social liberalism or by anti-capitalism? Is the right defined by conservatism or by pro-capitalism?

There are several reasons for this inadequacy:

• progressive liberalism
  .
• Conservatism needs to be anchored by its adherents to a specific culture in order to make clear what they are attempting to preserve or restore. In other words a conservative ideology needs a modifier. For examples,
  Islamic conservatism
  , etc.
• The relationship between fascism and other ideologies is complicated, causing its placement on the political spectrum a difficult one.

Because the reliable sources disagree with one another (for the reasons described above), I recommend that the use of a term with the word 'left,' 'right,' or 'center' in it be avoided entirely and that we let the terms such as 'progressive liberalism' or 'libertarianism' do the informing. VarunSoon (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This would be ideal in my view...but don't think we'll be able to suppress the opinions and terms used by a specific academic community. I will support any policy that would use more academic specific terms over news use jargon.--Moxy (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing the infobox parameter wouldn't mean that the terms couldn't be used in the article if there's something worth including. A lot of the time news sources offer a range of descriptions that aren't easy to condense into a two word phrase, and academic sources are slow to reflect changes. I'd support removing the infobox parameter if a proposal comes of this discussion. Ralbegen (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The political left-right idea only goes so far. It's better to list actual ideologies than anything like "center-right" or "far-left". That's not even getting into other political compasses (8values, the authoritarian-libertarian axis, etc.) - PrussianOwl (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The title explains itself, really. Many white-background sites (YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, etc) are adding a "dark mode" option. Why doesn't Wikipedia add one? Xninetynine (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)X99

@

User:BrandonXLF/invert for a script that does this --DannyS712 (talk

) 01:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-12-24/News_and_notes -- PrussianOwl (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I looked at the example picture for the script. It reverses the colors, much the same way a Mac does, but because of this, it inverts the picture colors as well. A Wikipedia Dark Mode would have to keep the original colors, or everyone in the picture looks like some kind of demon. Xninetynine (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)X99

@Xninetynine: I can try to work up a user script. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: There is an option in Preferences that changes the display to black with green text (in my opinion, Wikipedia for Aliens). Maybe you could start there, in terms of writing a script. Xninetynine (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)X99

There's already mw:Skin:Vector-DarkCSS (which works quite well, in my opinion) and a night mode will be developed as part of the community wishlist per m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Results Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

When I "examine" an attempted edit that was disallowed, it takes me a while to see what changes were attempted. Can we get a few colors there to show what is different? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: have you tried the 'details' view instead of the 'examine' view - it has diff screens. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I say, Xaosflux, you're right. I'm sure I never saw the red diff at the top part of details. I remember telling myself ages ago, "Details doesn't tell the tale. Use examine." I must be going bananas. Please don't recall me on the grounds of insanity. It's treatable! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: You can try this one: User:Anomie/linkclassifier. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 04:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that script will help with Anna Frodesiak's issue here. Anomie⚔ 12:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This was probably discussed before but I couldn't find anything in the archives. In the last six months a number of US websites have stopped showing content to EU users (e.g. NY Daily News, LA Times) or show a limited selection of the content (e.g. USA Today), and this doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. There's a number of workarounds that allow those of us in the EU to easily view those pages (Google Cache, Internet Archive, Archive.fo), however these are probably not known/used by the average Wikipedia reader who just wants to follow a reference. Hence I propose to automatically link pages from the GPDR-affected websites to the Internet Archive (easily possible via e.g. https://web.archive.org/*/https://...) for visitors who geolocate to the European Union.

I don't believe there are GDPR impediments to us doing so, since we'd be only linking to the Archive website which we do anyways and the restricted websites wouldn't be gathering EU users' data, and as for other legal issues we regularly link to archived versions of dead webpages from those sites anyway. I suppose this will require programming work, but the payoff will be big as there are many links to these websites on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Daß Wölf 18:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Could be added to an existing bot WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

A bot? What would you want this bot to do? Bot's cant change content based on the private ip addresses of readers. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

For uses of {{cite news}} archive the source given in |url= at web.archive.org and note the archive address in |archive-url= & the date in |archive-date=. Cabayi (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot managed by @Cyberpower678: and @Kaldari: deals with most of our archive.org stuff right now, would want to hear ideas from them. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea for a number of reasons. Legislative blocks are happening all over the world, there's no way we can constantly try to fix them. Blocks are at the mercy of human decree, they come and go constantly. Wikipedia is not so technically flexible to edit 100s of thousands (millions) of pages every time there is change in a block so that someone somewhere isn't blocked at that particular time and place. What about the blocks in China, much worse. The dead link system is meant to fix permanent dead links ie. link rot. It doesn't do well as a tool to fix political problems. -- GreenC 20:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a censorship, but a self-censorship issue: a small number of US companies have for whatever reason decided to close up shop rather than comply with EU privacy regulations. I'd rather not speculate on their motives. Yes, this does happen, and yes, they happen to own some major US news outlets, and do affect tons of pages on Wikipedia. However, unlike in the case of China, we can do something about it.

If we solve this via MediaWiki, e.g. by serving something like https://www.nydailynews.com/^{[original link]} in place of https://www.nydailynews.com/ to visitors who

geolocate to the EU, we would avoid the disturbance of editing 100,000s of pages, but even preemptively adding archive links to these references would result only in a small eyesore for users outside the geoblock area. Daß Wölf

12:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I personally always preemptively add archive links. Not every one favors that solution, but I think any potential for link rot is worse categorically. What could be done, besides such activity, would be to hack up a script making all links to certain websites go through archive.org. I would guess that this script would not have consensus as either a) for everyone or b) even just opt-out for logged in users, but it would at least be an opt-in for logged-in editors. --Izno (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Some service for readers affected by American companies' geoblocking would be nice. But we could also just treat the LA Times like paywalled sources and try to use more open sources instead whenever we can. That is also better than sending a huge amount of workaround traffic to the Internet Archive that could potentially go to more accessible sources instead. —Kusma (t·c) 14:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• For news sources—which is what we're talking about here—there are strong arguments against the use of archive sites, since they provide a snapshot of the source at a given time and consequently won't show any subsequent retraction or correction. I can't imagine such a proposal ever gaining consensus. ‑ 
  Iridescent
  09:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  The GDPR question notwithstanding, Izno's idea seems to be a good solution generally, i.e. having a gadget affected users could use that automatically adds an IA link to (certain) sources so that those users could at least see the sources. Issues of later corrections exist already with offline news sources without them being disallowed. Regards SoWhy 10:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

User:SoWhy, Would this be a browser plugin? Similar to the official Wayback add-on [3]. -- GreenC 21:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think a userscript would suffice that people can turn on on this page. Javascript should be able to add a Wayback link to all external links in references if so desired. Regards SoWhy 06:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding how this is materially different from the problems we've been dealing with for years, e.g., that some Google Books or YouTube videos are only available to users who geolocate to particular countries. Why should we accept "This website won't show this content to people in Germany because of German copyright laws" but try to build a workaround for "This website won't show this content to people in Germany because of German privacy laws"?

(I wonder whether the decision to block content is primarily a business decision about expenses vs revenue, or if it might not be a deliberate act of civil resistance. Submitting to regulation by a foreign power – even if it weren't one that has somewhat weaker views on the freedom of the press – is not something that I really expect serious American newspapers to do unthinkingly.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Many of you might not know, Wikipedia has already been using Artificial Intelligence to manage work. For instance, a team led by Aaron Halfaker designed the Objective Revision Evaluation Service, an open-source machine learning-based service designed to generate real-time predictions on edit quality and article quality. ORES has already been incorporated in over 20 Wikipedia applications to support a variety of critical tasks such as counter-vandalism, task routing and the Wikipedia education program.

We want to know your thoughts on how we should use AI in Wikipedia. Please reach out to me by [email protected] or my talk page! We are working with Aaron Halfaker and his team to make ORES better. You can find more details on our project here. Look forward to hearing from you! Bobo.03 (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for posting Bobo.03. I'm looking forward to working with anyone who is concerned/interested/etc. in AI's in our spaces. Our goal in working with Bobo is to better match ORES to the needs and values of editors. Please consider taking the time to let us know what you think. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

ORES is being used in places other than vandalism. Am I correct that this step of development is focusing on that? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Yes, you are correct. We mainly plan to focus on vandalism-related applications for now. Bobo.03 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this. A question which arises is how does one define Artificial Intelligence - for example, are bots A.I. ? Vorbee (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vorbee: Good question! It's a board and open concept, and there is a whole Wikipedia page discuss it:) I think for us, we refer it as an algorithmic system implemented by machine learning. Does it make sense to you? Bobo.03 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense - I have had a brief look at the Wikipedia article on

• Throwing my hat into the ring: language detection of sources so that |language= can be filled in automatically. Actually I have no hats as I keep throwing them away. -- GreenC 21:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  This is done by reftoolbar's cite filling. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Oh nice. Do you know if it is AI-based detection? -- GreenC 21:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  Reftoolbar uses this bit of code which appears to mainly call m:Citoid for citation and language filling. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  I believe that Citoid relies entirely on the language specified by the webpage, but User:Mvolz (WMF) could tell you with certainty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Is there the possibility for switching to a text-only mode, without images?

At the end of the page users visualize a link "mobile view" or "desktop", enabling them to switch from a mode of visualizazion (mobile or desktop view) to the other.

It may be hopefully added a third text-only mode of visualizationthat is useful for users with visual impairments or with speed-up a

A text-only mode can benefit the server workload, moving also to an even more improved [Web Traffic performance for those specific but non extraordinary operating scenarios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.139.111 (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Moved this discussion from Talk:Wikipedia#Why not to link an only-text mode of visualization at the end of Wikipedia web pages?. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Your browser can be set not to load external files (of certain kinds). If you want to speed up your receipt of this data, you should use the capabilities of your platform which could be used for all websites rather than our platform, which would only help you on Wikipedia. So no, we shouldn't do that work. --Izno (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that someone (Google?) was using a stripped-down version of Wikipedia for people in lower-bandwidth places (e.g., mobile users in India) a couple of years ago. I don't remember the details, but perhaps someone else will know more about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Accounts created which be limited to 5 users per IP on one year, to prevent sock puppets, vandalism and disruptive edits. Also, IP and user blocks should be extented. (Don't forget to ping me) ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ignoring the fact that IP addresses change, what about people that share an IP address with other library patrons, or university students that share an IP address with other people living in dorms? Should only 5 students per year be able to make a wikipedia account? Natureium (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Natureium Well, I was just sayin' in general. Sidenote: in my uni, the ip is blocked. It should be somehow identified by experts which of them are larger ip addresses. 20:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImmortalWizard (talk • contribs)

• This wouldn't work at all - I don't keep count but I would say I must get atleast 1 new IP each week or certainly 1 every other week .... so I would assume others in my area or who's got the same Internet provider as me would also get new IPs each week/every other week .... Can't see how this could work.... –Davey2010^Talk 15:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Most people can get a new IP address at home whenever they want, so it won't stop anyone who's determined to have an account anyway. OTOH, it'd be a serious obstacle for anyone running
  Wikipedia:Edit-a-thons, which is the source of new accounts that is (by far) the least likely to be engaged in vandalism, spam, or sockpuppeting. WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 21:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• This would not be possibly without significant changes to the meta:Data retention guidelines , as IP information for registered accounts is limited to 90 days currently. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to develop a proposal for deprecating the use of indefinite blocks. If the idea survives the scrutiny of this lab, I will. I am prepared to discard the idea, without animosity, if it does not. As a preventive measure, nothing appreciable is lost by using blocks with a prescribed duration instead; a duration capped at a maximum of perhaps 10 or 15 years. I realize that there are, and will continue to be, cases where the restriction is meant to never expire and suggest that in these eventualities, the respective accounts should be locked indefinitely, not blocked.

Since this is not a proposal, there's no "survey" section, and nothing to support or oppose, so: please don't. Please do: ask questions if things are not clear, mention concerns that you may have, and measures that could mitigate your concerns (if such mitigation is possible), speak with candor if you believe there is no realistic means to achieve the desired end, or if you feel the idea is lacking in merit or somehow in need, and most of all, be a colleague and expect the same from others as well. Thank you.--

• Hello @
  John Cline: just curious to know what prompted this idea. Any specific incident? Additionally, what problem are you hoping this will solve? – Teratix ₵
  10:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you

  John Cline (talk

  ) 06:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  I don't know much about the circumstances surrounding Chzz's block, and I couldn't hold a definitive opinion without access to the off-wiki evidence that led to the block. But as TonyBallioni noted when declining the appeal, Chzz does have options if they wish to appeal the block – the standard offer or an appeal to Arbcom. I don't think there is any reason why they wouldn't be unblocked if they submitted a convincing request. Even if this proposal was implemented, I'm struggling to think of editors who would be dedicated enough to Wikipedia to wait 10 or 15 years to return and would do something serious enough to receive a block of that duration, so I'm not sure there would be any difference in practice. – Teratix ₵ 08:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  You make several good points in your reply; I primarily agree. Remember this is an idea which is inherently rife with opportunities for improvement. It very well may be that 5 years is a better maximum than the 10 or 15 I originally suggested. I will mention one more editor that has been dedicated in his hope to one day return, in spite of what I regard as having been treated very poorly:

  John Cline (talk

  ) 13:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• How would a 10 or 15 year block be better than an indefinite block? Any block may be repealed. I recently unblocked an editor that I had blocked seven years earlier, and haven't regreted it, yet. - Donald Albury 19:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  I agree

  John Cline (talk

  ) 06:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• What problem do you see this as solving? The entire point of "indefinite" is that it lasts until we see evidence that someone isn't going to repeat the issue that got them blocked. Why would someone who we deem unwelcome nine years after their block miraculously become welcome the following year? ‑ 
  Iridescent
  19:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you for your question

  John Cline (talk

  ) 06:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• I am not aware of a problem with indefinite blocks. They are not handed out lightly. When they are given they almost always fall under one of three headings. Either the editor is clearly NOTHERE, their behavior has been judged as so disruptive that the community has banned them, or they have engaged in one or more activities generally understood as
  zero tolerance offenses. The idea of unblocking obvious vandalism only accounts because of the passage of some arbitrary time frame does not strike me as a good idea. -Ad Orientem (talk
  ) 20:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with you

  John Cline (talk

  ) 06:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see this helping anything. Certain types of topic bans possibly should expire by default after 5 or 10 years; the effort in keeping track of the original cause after that long may not be worth it (and they can be re-imposed if necessary). Blocks, on the other hand, are easy to track as they will be related to the most recent edits in the edit history.
  π, ν
  ) 03:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you

  John Cline (talk

  ) 06:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  I don't understand this comment at all, and that if this is what you believe, your entire proposal is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. Except for

  Iridescent

  20:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you for commenting, I appreciate it. I am sorry for the confusion my comments engendered. One thing that is clear, however, is the emerging consensus that this idea is not one the community would be willing to support. I am sufficiently dissuaded and prepared to move on. My thanks again, to you and all others for helping me realize these things. Cheers.--

  John Cline (talk

  ) 07:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Re-sending notification to
  John Cline (talk
  ) 07:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Per my above comment this looks like a solution in search of a problem that IMO does not exist. I would likely oppose any proposal along the suggested lines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you. I understand.--

  John Cline (talk

  ) 15:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this up here, I think it's good that we scrutinize our policies from time to time. I think, perhaps, you have confused "indefinite" with "infinite" in your suggestion - we do not block accounts forever (although some wikis do, eswiki I believe has a "permanent block" in their policy) but there are some indefinite blocks for which the conditions for lifting are unattainable (i.e. blocked sockpuppets). I personally would counter with an argument in the other direction: all blocks should be indefinite, meaning simply that they have no fixed expiry and are entirely dependent on the blocked user indicating they understand why they were blocked and will not repeat the behaviour. If they do then the block is lifted, and if they do not then they remain blocked. Blocks with fixed duration are inherently inequitable: the duration of a block is dependent on the blocking admin's assessment of the severity of the situation, and so sanctions for the same misconduct vary greatly depending on which of the several hundred independent administrators happens to be first to act. If we had a table of offences and recommended sanctions then perhaps this would be less of an issue, but we don't, it's just the wild west out there. And of course IPs should not be blocked without a fixed expiry, so maybe this whole thing is just out the window. I guess I'm kind of off on a tangent now. Thanks for the morning thought exercise, anyway :) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  You're welcome

  John Cline (talk

  ) 22:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Standard offer is available for indef'd editors as is the option for the indef'd editor to edit on other Wikipedias to show that they are still capable of being constructive. Putting arbitrary number lengths on it don't seem to be the answer. I do agree however that someone who vandalizing when they are 12 can be constructive editing when they are 21 but that in no way justifies putting excessive block lengths as opposed to indeffing.JC7V (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think you meant quite that. For many editors here, "edit on other Wikipedias" would require learning another language first, which is surely not intended to be a requirement. Most people who try the standard offer go to another English-language wiki, e.g., Wikisource or Commons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Ad Orientem almost verbatim expressed my thoughts. PrussianOwl (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• John, it sounds like you'd prefer a situation in which indefs were more clearly sub-divided into two classes, approximately meaning "Hopefully short" (e.g., editors who need to make some changes) and "Never" (e.g., spammers). Splitting these would more clearly communicate the blocker's intentions. WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 19:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  It would be an inherent result; and yes: one which I would prefer. Nevertheless, I have acquiesced the opposing rationale, and remain.--

  John Cline (talk

  ) 09:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Name Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Components;
  • Other possible names: Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Elements
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Sections
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Structure
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Format
  • key focus: add common sections to articles; such as:
    • "See Also" section, and
    • at least one Nav Box
  • Possible effects:
    • promote awareness of broad topical areas at Wikipedia, showing clear relationship between articles and topic.
    • "See also" sections and nav boxes might become as common as categories; i.e., would show broad connections within topical areas.
  • Other possible sections to include:
    • "External Links"
    • at least one portal link for each article as well.

feel free to provide any comments. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Adding a navbox often (usually?) implies updating the navbox to include the article to which it is added. This would usually be a good thing as long as the navbox is appropriate to the article. There will probably be some people opposed to adding navboxes because this is Wikipedia, and there are usually some people opposed to anything. A project for this could help.
• A see also section is only useful if there are links that need to be there. If a see also section is added, it would be helpful to annotate the links as recommended in MoS so that the reader has some idea of what they are about. Tooltip popups give the start of the lead section, but sometimes that does not help, and tooltips popups are not universally available.
• External links. See comment about 'See also' sections. Add 'External links' sections only when there are valid external links to add.
• Most articles are not included in a portal. What level of association with an existing portal would be acceptable to justify a link?
• Are there no existing projects which already cover this scope, or could be slightly expanded to include this scope? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• I love navboxes but my love for them has meant that I particularly notice when others say they are a scourge of the site, because I feel very sad when they say so. At this point, I'll just wish you good luck and warn that you're likely to encounter quite some resistance in bringing more navboxes to Wikipedia, but I wish you all the best. --bodnotbod (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Rather than a wikiproject, have you considered a signpost article or two? This would give you the opportunity to explain why you think such changes would be helpful, if you make a good case you are likely to influence many editors. I suspect that others from the opposite extreme will make a case as to why the See also section is really a temporary parking ground for links that should be included in the article. But for such changes discussion is a good start, then if you have consensus that these changes would improve the pedia, try making the appropriate changes to MOS and the FA criteria. WikiProjects are most common in covering particular topics, they can also be useful in maintenance, but best to get consensus first ϢereSpielChequers 11:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Rather than a new WikiProject, you might try reviving WikiProject Navigation templates with a slightly broader focus. I agree with other comments' points that the navigational sections mentioned are not always desirable; these essays on avoiding template creep and how not everything needs a navbox provide vivid examples of how well-meaning additions can work out poorly. – Teratix ₵ 13:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, all of these comments sound interesting. I appreciate all of the comments and ideas here. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)