Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 176

There is

I think that banner is way to big, would rather something less intrusive like we did for 6MM articles (example). Keep in mind there is already also a huge CN banner for the New York area at the top of the page, landing on Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia_Day_2021. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Xaosflux, While the banner could be slightly smaller this is wikipedia's 20th anniversary and I think something big would be appropriate Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Asartea: I'm assuming this would be in addition to already styling the logo special as well - that's why I'm suggesting not making it so large in addition. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Support mainpage banner and the page Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Support Good idea ....but could we incorporate a few more options like above. Just not sure a cartoonish look is apprioate during a world wide pandemic...should look more academic in my view.--Moxy 🍁 16:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Moxy, considering my quick reading of the Logo seems to indicate D will win this banner would be in the same kind of style. A more academic banner might clash with the logo otherwise. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree D will win.... the one that looks like the stickers on my granddaughters baby monitor ...sad face. Can we get color blind friendly version at least.--Moxy 🍁 00:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note: There is a banner campaign planned in support of WP20 in place of the usual WMF fundraising thank you campaign and will follow a similar format to that run in previous major anniversary. Seddon ^talk 18:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Seddon, that's good to know. I'm not sure it'd interfere with this unless it's being planned to launch tomorrow. The aim is also different if it's fundraising vs. seeking editors. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 19:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• I do not support the proposed banners. I do support our usual banner like at 6m articles. Something like "Wikipedia celebrates its 20th birthday with 1 billion edits" or something. --Izno (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with Izno, let's do the usual Main Page banner style like at the n-millionth article celebrations. Mz7 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I should clarify by saying I think something is better than nothing, and I merely prefer the usual banner style, but I don’t want to prevent there from being any banner at all. Mz7 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, it's a bit odd to have the page icon and not a banner. As for the format of this, I'm not really sure on what would be appropriate but do support a graphical style one.

✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• There seems to be the least resistance so far to do "something" over nothing-- going off the styling at Template:Main_Page_banner - can we settle on some text, including a single bolded call to action that has a specific landing page? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Xaosflux, Would it be simplest to just use a modified version of the "x million articles" message? For instance, The English-language Wikipedia is celebrating its 20th birthday! Learn how you can take part in the encyclopedia's continued improvement. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've added the plain-ish banner via Template:Main Page banner; the landing page is Wikipedia:20th anniversary. I'm at least slightly involved in this preference, but "anything is better than nothing" seems to be prudent initially - discussion on further improvements to the banner are more than welcome to continue here and any admin is welcome to revert me if they think this is out of line without more discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, I'm glad we managed to get something up. No one has addressed the technical stuff I mentioned above, though, so it currently works terribly on mobile or screens with an unusual resolution. Could we get someone good at CSS to address those things as soon as possible? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: can you be a bit more specific? The banner seems to be displaying at least as well as any of the other page content to me at very small and very large resolutions, in vector/monobook/minerva/timeless, also via the minerva on the mobile site (en.m.wikipeida). Are you referring to the banner itself or the landing page (Wikipedia:20th anniversary) itself (I think that one certainly could use some work but I didn't have anything to do with that page). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, I was referring to the landing page. BrandonXLF swooped in and fixed the issue, so we're set now. (Not the first time he's helped fix a CSS issue for mobile; many thanks!) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The text of the banner current says The English-language Wikipedia is celebrating its 20th birthday! I think we should change it to Wikipedia is celebrating its 20th birthday! The founding of English Wikipedia and Wikipedia were the same, and founding Wikipedia as a whole is the bigger event, so that's what we're celebrating. Plus it's just cleaner. And I don't think we need the wikilink when this banner is appearing directly below the permanent banner which already includes a wikilink to Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Xaosflux, courtesy pinging you on this since you implemented; would you be willing to switch the language? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done trimmed Template:Main Page banner. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

When I go to a page logged out, I see a banner with the rather silly tagline "celebrating 20 years human", linking to the WMF page. There doesn't seem to be anything on it at meta:CentralNotice; does anyone know where this is coming from? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I'm not seeing that one, just the CN notice with "Thank you for making 20 year..." that has a javascript easteregg to the foundation site (sigh....). Can you inspect that element you are seeing and provide more info? Also is this on desktop, mobile, or mobile app? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: OK those seem to be coming from CN's as well (e.g. in pages like meta:MediaWiki:Centralnotice-template-WP20 test1 Cake20 I see the text) - think these are all being managed by User:Seddon (WMF). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Xaosflux, when I just tried reloading the page, it changed the text, so we're seeing the same thing now. Attaching screenshots. If you'd like to know anything about the source code, just tell me what to look for when I inspect the element.

The main issue is that these duplicate our banner on the main page, creating some redundancy. Not a super urgent issue, but not totally ideal either. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: think they have a few CN's that will cycle and they also have impression diets that make them not always show, and they show on every page not just MP - don't think we should remove our MP banner just because of that. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds fine. It might be nice to suppress the CN banner on the Main Page to get rid of the duplication, but I don't feel strongly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This type of banner isn't really designed to be long-term, suggest taking it back down either (A) when changing to the more subtle site logo soon or (B) in about 2 weeks when we revert to the standard site logo. Any feelings one way or the other? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Barring any objections, I'll stand this down whenever A occurs (see other section for progress on that). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed from Template:Main Page banner. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)`

• @Mz7: Thanks for the close. Do we have any conclusions on the preferred duration? Up above there seems to be desire for it to be longer than a single day, but no firm consensus on exactly how long. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: Unfortunately, the discussion above only focused on which logo to use, so there aren't any conclusions on the preferred duration. I would say "do what you think is right", but if you want a definitive answer, then more discussion is needed. Mz7 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I was expecting we might have another "24-hour RfC" on when to remove when it seemed the mood was for changing it back, but perhaps starting an RfC now on duration might be best, closing ad hoc when it's been almost the period of time that has the most agreement. (I'd like a week but I am but one mortal.) — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• FYI, per our normal deployment procedure, there shouldn't be any deploys until Tuesday, at the earliest (Monday is a US holiday so few people are around). Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• This doesn't happen that often, I'm good for anything up to a month. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Two weeks would be reasonable imo. ~ HAL333 01:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I also support using option A for a much longer duration (up to a year) afterwards. It's subtle enough. ~ HAL333 02:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• one month since this is a unique achievement perhaps it should stay like this one year(however I'd switch to option A)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• It shouldn't go beyond the 15th unless it is changed to a variant of the original logo. We had a rushed RfC that installed a hideously tacky logo that barely fits with Wikipedia branding, regardless if these were picked by Wikimedia. Nihlus 02:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Two weeks to a month sounds reasonable. I absolutely opposes 24 hours. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• IMHO, the current logo (option D) is too distracting and loud to be used for a whole month. On the other hand, I'd be okay with having the logo up for a whole month if one of the more subtle options (e.g., option A) were used after the first 24 hours. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with the IP above that the current logo (D) is not suitable for long-term use, and with Nihlus that the 15th (or soon after) would be long enough. Two weks or a month would be too long. I wouldn't object to Option A (the original choice) replacing it for the remainder of 2021, though, since it's only a small adjustment from our regular logo. We'd then go back to the normal logo in 2022. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• I have a slightly radical suggestion - keep option D for anywhere between three days to one week, and then keep option A for one year, till 15 January 2022. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 04:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• I preferred Option D, then Option A in order - as the Option D is way cooler than Option A, but I didn't realize how ugly it was until today. I agree that Option D should be used for a short while, then Option A for the rest of the year until 2022. MarioJump83! 04:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• 20 days for 20 years. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 05:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that option D is probably not a great option for a long term logo, though I do like the idea of switching to option A for the rest of our 20th year. It shouldn't be hard to implement either as long as we can find someone to do the deployment. We've probably got this one through the weekend though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• D only for a day as a nice joke...use A for the month.--Moxy 🍁 05:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm also liking the idea to switch to A after a bit. I don't think we need to keep D for more than a few days to a week at the most. Switch to A for the remainder of the month, or longer. — The Earwig ^talk 05:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• ~20 hours should be enough: with all these colours and everything there's hardly a need to keep it longer, people will have understood that we do indeed care a lot about this occasion. The logo File:WP20 EnWiki20 SimplifiedLogo.svg would be ok for longer periods. Nemo 06:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• No more than a week of Option D; I don't know how long celebrations will be going but they should be done by then.
  π, ν
  ) 07:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• 20 days sound good. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• No more than a week of our painfully bright logo (fine for big splash, not a good long-runner), 72 hours would be better. Against just 1 day. Like some of the above, I'd be happy with 2-4 weeks of the calmer "A" logo. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• 20 days sounds good. imo keep D for the entire duration. No opinion on whether to revert to original logo, or option A, for some period afterwards. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Only 1 day seems good to me, if you must keep it longer then changing to (A) would be better for the rest of the time. Also, can we go back to 'The Free Encyclopedia' please? We're still about a factor of 1,000 from 1 billion edits, we're only at around 1000 million. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• There is more than one definition of a billion. See our article. Britmax (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Britmax: Exactly, that's why it's best to avoid using the word. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Good point. Britmax (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
      • One million million as a billion is supposed to be the English variant, but my English self has never heard a single person use it that way IRL, and that's not what the news, books etc. use. I'm sure it's different in different countries but I think it's predominant enough to use here. At some point you have to make a regional choice. No-one has yet suggested "100 crore", which millions (rather: tens of lakhs) of our readers would find most natural. — Bilorv (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I'm from the UK, but whenever I hear 'billion' I have to double-check what is actually meant... Good examples with crore/lakh. Why not avoid the whole issue by either just giving it as a number, or going back to the standard tagline? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Then I suspect that you,
          Phil Bridger (talk
          ) 18:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Of course, the "correct" understanding of the term billion is indeed one million million. We do all know this. Sadly, we in the homeland are over-influenced by the usage of our ex-colonies and so tend to use their understanding of a billion to be a thousand million. We know that they are wrong, but the usage is spreading all over the place. Hence "billion" is likely to be a confused term for some people. I suspect though, that in this case, most people will not internalise the word billion to be a real number and will just accept that Wikipedia has done "lots" of edits. That is enough really. We have done lots, are justifiable happy about that and that is a Good Thing — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• One to a few days, I think it tends to confuse users about whether they are at the correct site. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• 1 week seems reasonable to me. My rough sense is that most people visit Wikipedia at least that often, so keeping around for that long will give everyone a chance to see it. Anything beyond that and it just gets tired. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• I wouldn't mind it being used on a permanent basis going forward. It adds some new color the site and breaks the monotony of gray and white.
  -- Calidum
  15:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• As briefly as humanly possible. Imho this is an abomination, and I came to this page to say as much. Put the number 20 in a wreath or something if you want to celebrate "20 years", when I saw this, my first thought was that Wikimedia has finally sold out to Google. This "Silicon Valley" art style is ugly aesthetically as it is soulless. Maybe it is only fitting that Wikimedia finally wears this style on its sleeve, but it doesn't suggest a celebratory mood, at least to me. --
  dab (𒁳)
  19:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• The instituted icon should be up for minimal time. I think rest-of-the-month-to-20-days is a reasonable time for option A, since several seem to be suggesting that. --Izno (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Leave D up over the weekend, switch to A on Monday. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option D should only stay up until the end of the day today (24 hours from when it was implemented, whenever that is). Option A is much better, in my opinion, and I am willing to see it for up to two weeks. A whole month seems silly to me, and a year even more so. — Goszei (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Switch to A as soon as possible. D is ugly, off-brand and (to many non-American liberals) it also features a symbol of female oppression. Crazy. Rollo (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• 1 day sitewide / 1 week main page. Switch to A if long-term. This is a good compromise for both the celebrators and the let's-get-back-to-work people. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 00:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• I hope this won't last long. Yes, I missed my chance on !voting for another option, though I probably wouldn't have voted for any. Honestly, I first thought this was a feature letting me click on one of the four images (which are in fact one) depending on what device I was using (phone, desktop, tablet, other). As
  dab pointed out, these cutesy-primary-colors aesthetics don't quite cut it. ---Sluzzelin talk
  00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'd say 2 days for option D, then switch to option A and let it stay that way for 20 days. pandakekok9 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• comment there are about 8 editors that both would agree to change to option A and leave for a year (there are several more indicating at least a month; also one gets the feeling from reading the above posts that the majority prefer option A)...Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is for readers. Most readers couldn't care less that it's an anniversary, and the anniversary logo's visual heft is distracting. Wikipedia is for its contributors. Its contributors have spent years contributing to a site with a playful puzzle ball. Count this as another vote for "as soon as possible." (Option A is fine, but consider that many readers won't know what "one billion edits" even means. Yes, the process by which Wikipedia is made is something to celebrate, but at the end of the day, people only care if the information they're looking for is here, and whether it's right.) -- Zanimum (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• If it's going to be for longer than today, we need a much wider discussion. I predict a vote of 10–1 against the current banner. To me this is a cautionary lesson about making site-wide changes without a fully representative discussion. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It was first proposed something like seven weeks ago, on this very page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Switch to Option A starting 0:00 UTC January 19 and keep Option A for the remainder of the month. Some1 (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• It's time to take it down, in my opinion. ~48 hours (the time period in which it was Wikipedia's birthday in at least one time zone) would have been long enough. --Yair rand (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say take it down at 0000 tomorrow. That's enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option D is horrible (accepted by a mere 1 vote "majority"), the sooner it is gone, the better (yesterday was too late). Pavlor (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove immediately I've been puzzling over the elements of the image.

strike 1: The four pictures are supposed to come from the official resources but only 3 of them do so – the mobile phone at bottom left is not part of that set, which has this instead to represent mobile usage.

strike 2: The top left image is supposed to symbolise Wikiversity, not Wikipedia. Using an icon intended for a different project seems quite erroneous.

strike 3: None of the icons created to symbolise the point of the occasion have been included – no cake, fireworks or even the number 20.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Switch to A ASAP. Leave A for 2 more weeks — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Switch to A or Remove I !voted for D on the assumption that it was running for one day, because it was unsubtle enough to (hopefully) be noticed by site visitors. Agreed that's it's too flashy to stay medium- or long-term. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 12:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

D has been on for long enough Switch to A sooner rather than later, or go back to the original. Not particularly concerned if A stays on for a month or so. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Switch to A I'm OK if option A stays for a while (month to year). --Enos733 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Switch to A asap. The current logo is nice as a special for up to a week, but if we want to do something long term, then go to A or original. — Preceding
  talk • contribs
  ) 00:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• I also think the current logo has run for long enough that we should switch to A. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• I don't edit here much anymore, but I feel like one month is long enough for a celebration like this. I'm one of the few that actually like Option D as it is a special occasion, but I'm fine with Option A if consensus reaches that conclusion. — Gestrid (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep D until tomorrow (21st) and then switch to A and keep it until 15th April. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Margin increased in site css files. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Guys, right now this looks like this on my main page:

"OVER ONE BILLION EDITS" is cut off, and "Navigation" overlaps. It's like this on other pages also. Please fix. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I see this has already been raised above. BD2412 T 23:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: this should be all patched in now, let us know if it isn't working for you please. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's good enough. The overlap is gone, and the "OVER ONE BILLION EDITS" is all there, although it seems a bit sharp at the bottom. BD2412 T 00:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we fix the color combination in the 4th image....as of now not visible to color blind readers.--Moxy 🍁 00:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy: We can try. What color combination would look better for color blind users? You can see the palate at meta:Wikipedia 20/Resources#How to customize the mark but feel free to pick whatever colors you think look best. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Accessible Colour Contrast.--Moxy 🍁 06:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy: this seems stalled, someone will have to want to work on this before the "duration" discussion decides to remove it -- feel free to mock up a new logo if you would like, but it's not a matter of just uploading it to deploy it to code either. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Take this for what it's worth to you, coming from an editor who mostly just does drive-by edits here and there and who's not really part of the "meta-community"... but the new temporary image is so garish it actually motivated me to try and find a place to discuss it. :) I find the colors distract from the article texts, and the overall "aesthetic" sort of reminds me of K-12 sites from 20 years ago. The drawings themselves are competently-executed, it's just really out of place in what has traditionally been a greyscale, unobtrusive area. I appreciate that someone put some time and energy into it and that at least several people seem to have figured it was okay enough to win the above vote, but... man... oof. Anyway, feel free to refactor or move this to wherever people are discussing the image post-implementation, not calling for anyone's head here, just felt like I had to speak out! WonnE66 (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• I concur with the above. It's really distracting when trying to read articles. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• I feel that going off-script is warranted for celebrating 20 years. I'm glad you found your way here to share your opinion though. To 20 more years! Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 03:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am sorry to say that the new image -- which I dearly hope is only temporary -- is truly, truly awful. I'm afraid this is one of those times when consensus really wasn't the best method to arrive at a good result. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: yes, temporary #Duration above is discussing how temporary. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it looks like clip art from Windows 95. Ceoil (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Question: Is it a known issue that when you go to "page information pages" (e.g. for the main page) it still shows the old logo? (Xaosflux or other user with technical knowledge) Sam-2727 (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  purging your browser cache to fix it. Nihlus

  06:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Nihlus, Thanks that worked Sam-2727 (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It should read "more than 1 billion edits" not "over one billion edits". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Lugnuts, I agree ("more than" is better grammar, and I think "1" looks cleaner). I thought about bringing it up earlier but decided not to since I didn't want to risk derailing anything. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  (Also, is anyone else super reminded of the McDonalds tagline haha?) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• It seems symbolic not of 20 years ago, but 40: it brought back a memory of CGA graphics. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• I never thought I would be so motivated to go out of my way to complain about a new (albeit temporary) logo, but here I am. I agree with BMK; it really is dreadful.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think this is necessary, and keep in mind would only change for users with the English interface language set (everyone else will still get the system default). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per
  MOS:ENDASH. This seems like a pretty simple grammar fix (albeit with a huge scale), so I'm not sure it needs a giant discussion here, but I'm also not sure where else the discussion would've been hosted, so I can see why you brought it here. To speak to Xaosflux's point, this shouldn't be something that only applies to English, so if we can figure out how to apply it to all languages, that'd be even better. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk
  22:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  Shouldn't the punctuation on each project conform to its own language and MOS? The MOS on enwiki would certainly indicate that an en dash, not a hyphen, should be used here, but an em dash or hyphen may be correct in other languages. A centralized discussion on Meta would be a good place to confirm that each project's tab punctuation adheres to its own MOS. Armadillopteryx 00:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Meh for en.wiki; they're all just horizontal lines. 99% of users have never noticed, and of that 1%, 96% won't care. None of our business for all other wikis. I assume I'm misunderstanding Sdkb's comment; you aren't suggesting that the result of a discussion here should affect all other wikis? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: From what Xaosflux said above, it seems that a fix might only apply to the English Wikipedia with the English language interface set, not all language interfaces. We control all language interfaces on English Wikipedia. As for other Wikipedias, it might be nice to standardize among those, but that discussion would probably have to be held somewhere on Meta. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  It's very likely you know more than me about this. But "We control all language interfaces on English Wikipedia" doesn't sound right at all. I think I must be missing a subtlety or distinction or term of art? Anyway, it isn't important that I understand. As long as you're not saying we should make changes for, say, es.wiki or Commons too - which it looks like you're not saying - then we're good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  In Special:Preferences you can set your language. If unset or set to a language that doesn't have a locally created MediaWiki page, there is a default MediaWiki page used. Killiondude (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  MediaWiki has a framework to support translations into different languages in its own user interface messages, as described by Killiondude, which is what Sdkb is describing regarding having control over all language interfaces on English Wikipedia. It has been long recommended for users not to change their preferences to another language, though, as a lot (most? all?) of customized messages have not been translated (and as I recall, even specifying a country-specific English variant, like en-uk, will cause a fallback to the default message, thereby losing the customization). isaacl (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Killiondude and Isaacl: actually it seems that if a custom message is set but not translated, the custom message is used. At least in the sidebar - go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth?uselang=de (an en.wp page but with the interface language set to German). The second item in the "contribute"/"Mitmachen" section is the custom English "Learn to edit" in both English and German interfaces rather than the default "Introduction" / "Einführung". Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  You can see what impact changing the interface language would have by appending ?uselang=xx (where xx is the language code you want to use) to the URL (or &uselang=xx if the URL already contains a ?). For example go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth?uselang=de to see an English Wikipedia article with the interface language in German. The article text remains in English, but all the tabs, sidebar links, etc. are in German. Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  It took you all more effort than it was probably worth, but I finally understand. Thanks everyone for the patient explanations, sorry everyone for being technologically incompetent, and sorry User:Sdkb for momentarily implying you might have been saying something crazy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  No worries at all! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support this change on enwiki (and other English-language projects) per
  MOS:ENDASH; projects in other languages should make sure the dash (or hyphen) used conforms to their own MOS. Armadillopteryx
  00:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment: previous relevant discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135 § Proposal: Amend page title element to remove "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Support, hyphens are not used for this purpose,

WP:NDASH.  Nixinova   T   C

   02:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It's a tiny, tiny thing...but honestly, I would be happy to see it happen.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support on enwiki per Armadillopteryx. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 16:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• RFC be opened to gather more feedback? —⁠andrybak (talk
  ) 16:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support – It shouldn't be a question that our interface should generally conform to the MOS absent any reason to the contrary. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Tentative support, but I am wonder whether there is a technical reason that hyphens in page titles are so common, even for sites with strict style manuals. For example, both the New York Times and the BBC have hyphens in their page titles. Indeed, it looks like every site in my browser bookmarks that has equivalent punctuation has a hyphen (except that my university's Blackboard Learn site has both a hyphen and an en dash in the title, which looks quite ugly now that I have noticed it). Any thoughts about why that might be? blameless 21:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing my support per the below and continued investigation. It was said above that "hyphens are not used for this purpose"--I am certainly a
    descriptivist, and I would say that hyphens are used for this purpose for purely internet-based instances of language (such as browser tabs) that are entirely separate from prose content, for the sake of consistency and reliability across browsers and character sets. Neutral. blameless
    19:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose or replace with pipe. Browser tabs have limited horizontal space, and the only effect of this proposal is to waste a bit more of it. Perhaps this is why it is so common to use a hyphen or a pipe rather than an en-dash or em-dash. ST47 (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  ST47, I'd have thought that the pipe would take up less space than an endash. I've tested in Firefox and Chromium in Ubuntu. In Firefox the pipe takes up more space than endash (font Noto Sans 10pt). In Chromium both take up the same amount of space (I couldn't figure out which font is used). —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• My browser (Firefox on Debian) follows our page title (and every other page title) with " - Mozilla Firefox" so using a dash or pipe would make my browser title look weird. Is that enough to oppose? I don't know, but clearly hyphens are pretty standard separators in how browsers display page titles. Additionally, it's probably better that our page titles are ASCII-compliant, and this change would move us away from that. This could affect page downloads or distribution on offline hardware. My main concern is that we gain pretty much no benefit, but there might be hidden problems it introduces. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Meh Not worth the trouble for all the reasons Wugapodes mentioned. Probably nothing will break, but the benefit is so small it's not worth doing. The hyphen-minus is also the standard window title element separator on every non-Apple platform. An en/em dash will take up more space, which is undesirable. Switching to pipes would change the visual style, and I'm not a fan of that idea either (the hyphen-minus is the most common <title> separator anyway. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Browser has limited space. Also, the proposal text doesn't clearly say which Hyphen#In_computing is currently used. Hyphen-minus is ASCII. If it currently is ASCII, then stay with ASCII for less interference with third party systems. TerraCyprus (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sticking to ASCII is about 3 decades out of date, and is in general too limiting, even for English. Dicklyon (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  TerraCyprus, regarding If it currently is ASCII, then stay with ASCII for less interference with third party systems. tag <title> already contains dashes and much more of the Unicode. E.g. Ágústa Þorsteinsdóttir, 燒酒. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Meh (Is Meh a valid voting option?) The title is also used for bookmarks, and so the site suffix has some value there, but I generally edit the titles to make sense to me and normally remove the suffix. Most of the time the tab is too narrow to display all of the article title, so the "- Wikipedia" site suffix is lost anyway. Personally, I would delete the site suffix from the titles as the icon at the start is enough to identify the tab, but I do suspect that would be seen as a step too far — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Meh because I'm not sure I'll ever encounter a Wikipedia debate that warrants "meh" as much as this one. I'm sympathetic to both sides, but would probably favor the character that can be entered with one tap of the keystroke and is easily identified by non-native English speakers who don't even know what an en- or em-dash is. On the other hand no one's really going to be typing this on their own. Also, what were French and Russian Wikipedias thinking when they instituted the em-dash? -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  Fuzheado, Russian Wikipedia's MOS is based mostly on current Russian grammar and typography practices. Same is probably true for the French Wikipedia. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• WP:ANRFC. —⁠andrybak (talk
  ) 18:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The use of the hyphen here is an old "lazyism" from pre-
  MOS:DASH days. Should have been corrected a long time ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢
   😼  03:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support –definitely. It's professional English, and apart from being in accordance with the major style guides (including ours), it's slightly easier to read. I don't care if other languages want to stick with their shabby little hyphens. Tony (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, Support the hyphen is a lazy substitute for the intended punctuation, a dash of some sort. The spaced en dash is a good choice. Those who won't notice the difference won't be bothered. Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It's a very minor thing, but we may as well follow proper professional usage. Alkari (?), 10 December 2020, 04:29 UTC
• Oppose Pretty much what Floq said. I don't have a real "side" as far as the actual issue, because, like most people, to me the distinction is essentially meaningless.(Please, please don't feel compelled to explain to me how very important it is) So, the only concern here is "will this break anything?" And it seems that a few people here are concerned that it might. So, very, very little benefit (arguably none at all) and some risk, so that's a no for me.
  talk
  ) 00:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I found myself on both sides while writing this comment, but settled in support. The MOS is clear that an en-dash is preferred over a hyphen as a separator here. The most cogent objection is that the en-dash may cause certain technical issues, and there's a lesser point that it takes up more space. However, this same reasoning would apply to our many articles that are titled with – or — instead of -, or indeed any other non-ASCII characters, which all show up in the <title> tag. And yet, MOS:DASH has been in place for article titles for many, many years with no apparent problems. The fact that dewiki, frwiki, and ruwiki all use some form of dash also supports this point. We can always revert the change if we find out about some unexpected side effect. — The Earwig ^talk 06:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose If it works, don't fix it. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Why so many people have this thing for a character that's not standard and cannot be typed is beyond me. It's constantly forced down our throats for no reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  HTML entity –. —⁠andrybak (talk

  ) 16:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  And it doesn't matter anyway in this context. Bushranger's "utility" argument is inapplicable to something that is simply part of the interface display.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per
  MOS:ENDASH resp. Sdkb and particularly 207.161.86.162 and SMcCandlish, who both expressed my view very succinctly. Similar to The Earwig, I was wavering for some of the same reasons, but above all because of GhostInTheMachine's statement. However, my support was strenghened when I saw that a significant portion of the Oppose votes were because of a fear that something could break, which is absurd IMO given andrybak's point that the title already often contains non-ascii characters. ◅ Sebastian
  20:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It's small change but conforms better to English style guides. I don't see how typing it is such a problem. This is not a change that implies the need of manually entering the character, and
  MOS:ENDASH already mandates it for a lot of content. --MarioGom (talk
  ) 14:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per the MOS & correct punctuation. Cavalryman (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC).
• Support it's hard to take a side here, and indeed I don't take either with much confidence. But as a small change that better conforms with MOS and standard English, I think we may as well. Aza24 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Don't think MOS applies to page titles. Most sites - massive, big, and small - use a hyphen in page titles. English Wikipedia would be sticking out like a sore thumb. Keep the hyphen. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support.
  MOS:ENDASH. Personally, I was quite getting used to this. MarioJump83!
  04:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we have survey convenience templates? Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

While

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey (survey convenience templates)

• {{Support}} as proposer. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose As I would typically say in TfD, insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template. I completely fail to see the point of creating a template whose content is its name with three apostrophes prepended and appended, when that is only two characters longer than typing the wikitext out in the first place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• @
  tq}} vs. this alternative way of writing it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk
  ) 22:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would prefer to type “ {{Support}}” rather than “'''Support'''” because the “'” character is not on the iPad keyboard. {{Support}} could be made to auto-subst. Oppose cut or gaudy pictures. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • my iPad allows me to type a '. Switch the keyboard to punctuation, then press and hold the ‘ key. The pop up menu offers you 4 differs types of quote symbol — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 23:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    • That was a nice trick to learn! Thank you. Unfortunately, it is very tedious to do the six times. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • or just type Oppose, select the word and click the B on the editing toolbar — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 23:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah that works. Unfortunately, the toolbar is above the fold. I wish it could be moved to below the editing window. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Or you could just try convincing people using words instead of syntax. —
        Cryptic
        06:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I like the simple bold of the lede word of the !vote. Do you dislike that low level of syntax? This !vote bolding culture underlies the working of https://afdstats.toolforge.org/, which is sometimes a nice tool. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • One possible work around is to use iOS's text replacement feature (Settings -> General -> Keyboard -> Text replacement). You can choose any sequence of characters to be replaced by another. For example, you could choose bqq to turn into ''' (three single quotes.) isaacl (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry but no. I understand that moving between projects is a mental pain (I struggle with the equivalent of {{tl|xxx}} at Commons) but hiding simple syntax does not help the project. Some projects appear more focused on a vote count, and that idea should not be encouraged here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnuniq's comments, especially about hiding syntax. We should not be encouraging anything that gives the impression that votes are more important than the rationale accompanying them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: How exactly does the existance of a convenience template give that impression, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  @

  not a vote}}). Thryduulf (talk

  ) 23:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree with that thinking, I don't think having the template would give any more weight to a new user's thinking that they can !vote than seeing a list of bold-formatted support/oppose votes that they could copy/paste would. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose what would the Support template expand to, other than Support in bold? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 23:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would have the string {{Support}} auto-change and substitute to '''Support'''. I would find it useful, for the same end result. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• weak support I don't think it unreasonable request--no reason to make anyone's editing harder and it sounds like there are a few people it would help. That said, the help is minor and the worries about a slippery slope to voting aren't utterly trivial. So a small thing that helps people now vs. a very unlikely thing (but not impossible) that might hurt the culture down the road? I'm gently leaning toward the short-term gains being worth the improbable long-term risk. Hobit (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnuniq ~ HAL333 04:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• weak Support If we can have {{Agree}} and {{Disagree}} why not Support or Oppose? RudolfRed (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Like this: {{agree|1=Support}} → Support . Now, how to lose the gaudy green tick? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • {{strong}}? {{strong|Support}} → Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Does it substitute? {{subst:strong|Support}} → Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
      • <strong {{#if:|role="{{{role}}}"}} {{#if:|class="{{{class}}}"}} {{#if:|id="{{{id}}}"}} {{#if:|style="{{{style}}}"}} {{#if:|title="{{{title}}}"}}>Support</strong>. Oh dear, that's a mess of wikimarkup, isn't it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Usually I eschew starting my comment with a bolded word, precisely to place emphasis on discussion over voting. Assuming the community is truly dedicated to making decisions through discussion, I do not favour having templates that give more prominence to votes. isaacl (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Isaacl: the opposite is that there are so many words in a section that prefacing the section with a bold helps you know what to expect, especially in confusingly worded arguments you know better what they're trying to get at. eg when closing RfCs I don't necessarily close based on vote, but knowing a binary yes/no before a comment helps follow the comment and get a general feel of where the discussion lies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  I wrote something similar once about how knowing where an argument is heading can help provide context and thus improve understanding. Nonetheless, it can be done with a thesis sentence, rather than a single bolded word. I appreciate many people like starting with a single bolded word. I believe, though, that it puts more emphasis on voting and tabulation of votes versus discussion. isaacl (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  ESL, inexperience with writing topic sentences) I personally struggle to summarise positions into a sentence for many reasons. It was also helpful to me as a new editor that there's a format which people are generally using to help me feel able to engage with discussions. --Xurizuri (talk

  ) 11:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  If someone can't, that's OK. Starting with "I support the proposal," is fine. If we're trying to encourage discussion amongst those who have opted to contribute to a writing project, though, I think it's reasonable to aspire for participants to craft a concise explanation of their viewpoint. Though it'll likely remain an ideal, it's a good target to aim for. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  The practice became widespread because editors felt it worked best. It has persisted because editors continue to feel it works best (for the most part, although many surely do it because they see others doing it). To my mind, there is no higher principle than that, and there is something to be said for consistency in formatting (some handle the variation better than others, and I'm in the latter group). But whether to use a bolded first word and whether to create templates for it are separate and independent questions. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, as I said, I appreciate many people like to start their response with a bolded word. isaacl (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'll support such templates, not because I'd use them myself, but I see no justification for preventing other people from using them. When instructions are given for how to participate in XFD discussions, a summary word in bold is suggested.[3][4][5][6][7] On the rare occasions when I take part in such discussions on other wikis I have to go round searching other people's comments for the appropriate syntax so I can sympathise with the difficulties of occasional !voters here. Thincat (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a good example of the failure to understand the cost of complexity in terms of barrier to entry. Multiple ways to accomplish the same thing is unnecessary complexity, unjustified by the perceived need to let every editor
  "have it their way" (apparently because they are unpaid). Anyway, the template syntax is no less prone to typing error than the markup. In the worst case the editor can omit the bolding and it may be fixed by another editor per TPO. To the extent that is not done, a few very rare cases of unbolded !votes are not a significant problem. ―Mandruss ☎
  11:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - The goal is simply to highlight what your opinion is. There are lots of ways to do this. As demonstrated here, ALL-CAPS works too. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• To disincentivise plain voting, we could adopt these templates, but ensure they only output an empty string :) – Uanfala (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is NOT a problem. No SOLUTION is necessary. GenQuest ^"scribble" 22:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - per User:GenQuest and User:Mandruss (and probably a few others that I agree with for other points). Or, if you wish for greater detail, why would we decrease inconsistency between multiple projects by increasing inconsistency in one project? Having the same method for producing bold "oppose" and "support" as is used for making other things bold throughout Wikipedia is beneficial to the general run of users on Wikipedia.--Khajidha (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Minimal implementation cost, minimal burden on other users, and well-defined use case. Thincat put it well. I understand the instinctual "no voting templates!" response, but there's no icon and no emphasis on the opinion. It would be a good idea to brainstorm ways to enforce current community norms around !voting if these templates are created, though. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sure. If there are no icons, {{
  on the go
  ) 16:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• {{Support}} The cognitive dissonance of people typing '''Oppose''' in this discussion is remarkable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As one of the several people who have explained why a template producing the same output as '''Oppose''' is not desirable I find this ad hominem to be in rather bad taste. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: Andy has a point here about how people comment regardless of the existence of the template, it's not an ad hominem. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Effectively calling everyone idiots, without explaining why they're being called idiots, sort of looks like an ad hominem, doesn't it? – Uanfala (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @Mike Peel: if Andy has a point other than insulting the intelligence of people with a different opinion on these templates to him then I am at a loss as to what it is. I can't prove it, obviously, but the impression I get is that he has read only the bolded words (which would be rather ironic for this discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Competent editors can see that Andy's comment was 100% insult and 0% argument, and therefore a "not-not-vote" of no consequence. A competent closer, if there is a closer, would simply discard it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• weak support I would not use it, but why not have such a template if it makes it easier for some? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tends to encourage voting rather than discussion aimed at generating a consensus. Solution looking for a problem. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• OPPOSE per Thryduulf, isaacl and Stifle. Those who can't write bold should use the workarounds mentioned above, address their shortcomings (which would help in a far wider range of applicability) or simply write all caps, as Blueboar suggested. ◅ Sebastian 11:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnuniq, Mandruss and GenQuest - This really is a solution looking for a problem. I appreciate Commons etc use {{Support}} however we're not Commons, Every project has their own way of doings things and "'''Support'''" is our way of doing things. Personally I use "'''Support'''" on all projects as it's what I'm used too (unless it looks out of place which I then change it after (ie with RFAs etc)). –Davey2010^Talk 11:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support: trivial implementation, no disruption of previous practices, no migration cost, aligns well with other Wikimedia projects, probably slightly less chance of unbalanced markers (e.g. 2x2 vs 3x3). --MarioGom (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• As much as I myself mostly start comments with a bold oppose text, I don't think this a template necessary. Firstly, per there being a wide range of commonly used !vote strings and having a template for each is a massive overkill. Will we be needing {{Option|2}} for Option 2 or something? This proposal fails to list (even as example) the actual templates, there are surely more than the two mentioned. And having only a few of these will just create extra differences in markup. I would want to see some statistics of the commonly bolded terms in discussion first. Furthermore, the non-existent complexity of the output does not warrant a template, it is unnecessarily convoluting what is a simple text message, nor is having (even more) templates in text helpful when it's literally default bold syntax. Then there's grammar -- what if I want it lowercase or add other words that need bolding? These just feel like ballot checkboxes rather than a summary of the opinion to follow. Finally, pretty sure this will just make using visual editor way more complicated needing to insert a template when one could have clicked/tapped bold like is standard in every other text editor. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  This is a good point - the common recommendations at current discussions are: "allow recreation", "containerize"/"containerise", "convert to an article"/"write an article", "delete", "disambiguate", "draftify", "dual merge", "endorse", "keep", "listfy", "merge", "move", "oppose", "overturn", "purge", "redirect", "refine", "relist", "rename", "rename", "restore", "retarget", "reverse merge", "revert", "setindexify", "soft redirect", "split", "subst", "support", "upmerge", "userfy", "wrap"/"wrapperify" and "wrong venue". Then you have modifiers like "all", "don't", "for now", "in principle", "leaning", "speedy", "strong", "weak" and "without prejudice" and non-recommendation bolds like "comment", "note", "question" and "update". Covering all these would need between 40 and 50 templates. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: We're only talking about the most common uses of such templates, which are also used on other wikis, like those mentioned in the proposal. There's a latin phrase you could use to explain your comment if you want, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  These are the the recommendations used multiple times in a current discussion and/or in multiple current discussions on en.wp (AfD, RfD, CfD, TfD, MfD, DRV, MRV and RM; although there were none exclusive to MfD). To be useful to editors at en.wp they will need to cover the !votes they will commonly make otherwise they will frequently have to use the standard ''' markup which negates the whole point of having templates in the first place. What other wikis do is not relevant to discussions on the English Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Why not I would never use them, but that doesn't mean that others wouldn't find them useful. Most of the oppose votes are people who have no personal use for them. Why is this even a vote? The OP could have saved themselves some trouble by just creating them. I am struggling to figure out why we needed to even have this discussion/vote. --Jayron32 15:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  No trouble would have been saved by doing that, because (a) the templates are salted and (b) I would have tagged than as {{db-g4}} if I had noticed them being recreated. We would have ended up here anyway after a few more rounds of bureaucracy. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's quite apparent that this is controversial. Sure, people often slip in new templates that would be controversial if discussed beforehand, but I don't consider that good faith practice. Editors are less likely to challenge by

  WP:TFD because it's such a hassle (and, for some, because they aren't aware of TfD or don't have the time to learn how to use it correctly). If the creation of a template were as easily challenged as an ordinary edit, standard BRD process would work fine, but that is unfortunately not the case. I commend the proposer for "discussing first" in this case, despite the fact that it likely would have been easier to get forgiveness than permission. ―Mandruss ☎

  16:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

My primary concern is that templates (in general) too often shift from being “optional” to being “preferred” ... and then to “expected” and finally to essentially “mandatory”. I know this is not the intent here, but I have seen this shift occur too many times with other templates to be comfortable with it now. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Definitely not the intent here. I can't say that this won't happen, but if it does, then presumably it would be accompanied by discussions that you and others (including myself) could object to. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

My experience with “template creep” is that there often isn’t any discussion in which to state an objection. So I am objecting NOW, while I have a chance to do so. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Orz... can we have "Strong Meh" as well? But really we already have Template:Done/See_also and we also don't have a problem with people actually typing "Support" so I really don't care if a template does it as well, however I don't want to see a proliferation of media like File:Symbol confirmed.svg on every discussion, less concerned if it is stylized text (even check marks that are not image files). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Sadly {{meh}} already exists as . We would probably want {{weak meh}} as well — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Even without images, we can still run into problems with a page's transclusion limit which could end up breaking the village pumps or ANI where there are lots of proposals with lots of bolded !votes. Not worth the trouble just to save two keystrokes. I'm also worried about what Blueboar points out with templates going from "optional"->"preferred"->"required" over time. In this case, it would threaten to undermine the already weak "discussion-not-vote" consensus process which worries me per
  WP:NOTAVOTE and meatball:VotingIsEvil. — Wug·a·po·des
  ​ 22:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  We could always have a bot auto-subst them (although it would clutter the page history). Enterprisey (talk!) 08:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Enterprisey: I suggested that in the proposal. I could code up a bot to do so if needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  I left it vague, but to be clear, I think that's a worse idea for precisely the reason Enterprisey hints at. The last thing I want is a

  WP:COSMETICBOT roaming around making non-visible changes to markup and cluttering discussion diffs just to help powerusers save 2 keystrokes. It would probably also make people think they themselves ought to be substituting it which actually costs them 4 keystrokes compared to just using bare markup. — Wug·a·po·des

  ​ 02:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support without the icon and with substitution to avoid transclusion limit. As other projects have implemented it, I have found myself trying the template before realize that here doesn't work. Alexcalamaro (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• O - or a bold S is simple enough or better yet, separate the sections like we do at RfA. Atsme 💬 📧 15:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Atsme: Great, let's support more options for commenting, like this proposed template? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: or alternatively doing it properly, Hell no. I despise bolded words as a substitute to discussion and the lack of nuance of just going support or oppose is not to be encouraged.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  19:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @
    Spartaz: But you just used bold words in your comment? This proposal is for a convenience template to make it easier for other editors to comment, not a substitute. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk
    ) 21:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The convenience factor does not outweigh the barrier to newcomer participation created by use of excessive templates in simple discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I support anyone making and using almost any template, and the creation of templates rarely requires a vote or discussion. I must be misunderstanding something here. As noted above, we already have {{agree}} and {{meh}} which are similar templates that people can use or ignore. Why the opposition? No one is proposing to force or require the use of this template, so most people would either not know it exists or not care. Other Wikimedia projects like Commons use these templates, so it is understandable to me that if some people want to use it, then they might look for it across projects. In 2005 the template was deleted for use of images, but no one is proposing that right now. To a typical reader they would not know a template is being used at all.

I think the point of this discussion is that this template has been deleted ~10 times since 2005 because of prior use of images, but I see no harm or cost in having the template available for those who want to use it now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• {{weak strongest possible oppose}}
  talk!
  ) 18:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: (1) It's not that hard to type the non-templated equivalent (2) It encourages !voting without !vote rationale, (3) It only increases the number of templates transcluded on discussion pages. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Plastikspork, you don't ever edit from a smartphone, right? We have editors above who say that it actually is "that hard" for them to type straight apostrophes ('). I think we can trust them that they struggle with this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Then type in all caps (as suggested above), which is even easier than finding the {} symbols. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  That's a good point. On my bog-standard Android keyboard ' is on the first page of symbols, { and } are on the second page. Additionally, when editing using the Wikipedia Android app there is a single button that automatically inserts the markup for bold text, there is no equivalent for templates. Unless iOS works very differently (I own no Apple products so can't check) then it seems very likely that templates being easier to insert than bold markup for smartphone users looks fallacious. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: Checking on an iphone (in a text application not in a Wikipedia app), ' is on the first page and { is on the second, but if I enter ' then the characters go back to the alphabet, while if I enter { then it stays on the second page, so it's easier to add a second {. Does android behave the same? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  I just tried editing in the Wikipedia app on iPhone, and I see the same keyboard behavior there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  If there is a consensus to try to make it easier to enter bold or italic text without using a straight single quote, then I'd prefer it be done in a generic way for all text, not just specific words. Let's extend wikitext markup in some way, for example. Maybe something like @‘’’, @’’’, and other combinations of typographical quotes can be supported. isaacl (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is a textbook example of a solution looking for a problem. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed. It's quite sad to see the amount of attention this is getting, while much more significant issues get crickets. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's a simple solution to a problem I and others encounter regularly. I know others don't have this problem, but I am surprised at how many have gone out of their way to oppose this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  Mike Peel, perhaps we are not simply going out of our way, but instead many more people than expected felt strongly about this. (Similarly, User:Sdkb perhaps what you feel is significant is not the same as for others.) That does however not mean that its not a real problem, but perhaps instead that this is not the best solution. Personally, I wish I could have a panel of formatting/template shortcuts that I could customise to address a related problem I have with often forgetting specific template names (even if I use them regularly). --Xurizuri (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  Xurizuri, significance is not some wishy-washy subjective value. Yes, assessments differ, but there are objectively things that have a big impact on readers and things that don't. The size of this discussion is perfectly indicative of our worst navel-gazey tendencies. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Likely to encourage voting behavior which would not harmonize well with enwp's consensus-based culture. -FASTILY 01:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose because this method of bolding is very simple. As someone that recently began editing, the vast numbers of templates have frankly been barriers to me engaging with some parts of WP thus far, particularly when there's no immediately obvious consistency in when people use one method or the other. And trying to remember all the templates and their parameters, and type them out correctly, is one of the biggest barriers from editing resulting from my ADHD that I've had. I would greatly prefer to not have more of either of those issues. The bolding and italicising are, to me, the simplest/easiest type of formatting we've got and making that more confusing is frankly not worth it. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• If the arguments about how very difficult it is to type straight apostrophes with a smartphone were being made in good faith, this would be a discussion about undeleting
  Cryptic
  15:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• (Restored from archive as the RfC is still active. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC))
• Oppose as a solution in search of a problem, and seconding Cryptic on the matter of bolding templates. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per SmokeyJoe's comments. On Apple mobile devices such as iPhones or iPads, it defaults to ‘, and a good half-second press is needed for ', which is very tedious and seemingly time consuming, much more than typing {{}}. This would solve all the mistakes when mobile editors try to bold text. Using <b></b> isn't any better, as you would need to switch from the default keyboard to the symbols keyboard for the "<", then go back to the default for "b", then go back for ">", then back to default for text, then rinse and repeat with an additional "/". D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 04:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)