Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 203

The Wikipedia:Welcoming committee—among other things—maintains a set of a set of welcome templates aimed at new users. Many of these templates include a list of helpful links. A proposal to drop links to Help:Your first article has been opened; your feedback would be welcome at WT:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#Proposal: drop 'first article' link from all templates. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like to share your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina#Merger proposal lists of dukes of Bosnia, that would be cool. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes it is appropriate to quote from multiple locations within a single source. There is currently no convenient way to do this. Possible solutions include

• Add parameters to {{sfn}}, e.g.,
  • |quote=
  • |section=
  • |section-url=
• Add, e.g., |quoten=, |section-urln=, to CS1 templates
• Provide templates for hierarchical citations

The last is the most desirable, but the first two would be easier to implement. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are looking for. Can you be more specific, maybe with a concrete example? {{sfn}} includes parameters for single page (p=), multiple pages (pp=), and location (loc=) which can be used for chapters, sections, etc. How would what you're suggesting differ from these? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

For the first option, |section-url= would eliminate the need to wikilink the location and |quote= is currently not available.

<ref> </ref>

{{sfn curIPCS
 | section     = Address processing parameters
 | section-url = https://www.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zOSV2R5sa231382/$file/ieac500_v2r5.pdf#page=41
 | page        = [https://www.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zOSV2R5sa231382/$file/ieac500_v2r5.pdf#page=44 24]
 | quote       = With read authority to facility class BLSACTV.SYSTEM, IPCS can look at the following storage (in addition to those storage areas it can access with no special authority): - • The ABSOLUTE storage - • Other ASIDs - • The data spaces owned by other ASIDs
 }}
...
{{sfn curIPCS
 | section     = Address processing parametersSETDEF subcommand - set defaults
 | section-url = https://www.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zOSV2R5sa231382/$file/ieac500_v2r5.pdf#page=257
 | page        = [https://www.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zOSV2R5sa231382/$file/ieac500_v2r5.pdf#page=259 239]
 | quote       = ACTIVE, MAIN, or STORAGE specifies the central storage for the address space in which IPCS is currently running and allows you to access that active storage as the dump source. You can access private storage and any common storage accessible by an unauthorized program.
 }}
...
{{cite manual
 | title        = z/OS 2.5 - MVS Interactive Problem Control System (IPCS) Commands
 | id           = SA23-1382-50
 | ref          = {{sfnref|curIPCS}}
 | date         = 2023-05-12
 | url          = https://www.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zOSV2R5sa231382/$file/ieac500_v2r5.pdf
 | publisher    = [[IBM]]
 | access-date  = April 6, 2022
 }}

For the second option,

<ref>{{cite manual
 | title        = z/OS 2.5 - MVS Interactive Problem Control System (IPCS) Commands
 | id           = SA23-1382-50
 | date         = 2023-05-12
 | page1        = [https://www.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zOSV2R5sa231382/$file/ieac500_v2r5.pdf#page=44 24]
 | page2        = [https://www.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zOSV2R5sa231382/$file/ieac500_v2r5.pdf#page=259 239]
 | quote1       = With read authority to facility class BLSACTV.SYSTEM, IPCS can look at the following storage (in addition to those storage areas it can access with no special authority): - • The ABSOLUTE storage - • Other ASIDs - • The data spaces owned by other ASIDs
 | quote2       = ACTIVE, MAIN, or STORAGE specifies the central storage for the address space in which IPCS is currently running and allows you to access that active storage as the dump source. You can access private storage and any common storage accessible by an unauthorized program.
 | section1     = Address processing parameters
 | section2     = SETDEF subcommand - set defaults
 | section-url1 = https://www.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zOSV2R5sa231382/$file/ieac500_v2r5.pdf#page=41
 | section-url2 = https://www.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zOSV2R5sa231382/$file/ieac500_v2r5.pdf#page=257
 | url          = https://www.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zOSV2R5sa231382/$file/ieac500_v2r5.pdf
 | publisher    = [[IBM]]
 | access-date  = April 6, 2022
 }}
</ref>

Suggesting |section= as an alias of |loc= is just for consistency with other templates. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC) -- Revised 13:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Can't all this be achieved with the existing |loc= as described here? Either way you may want to post at Template_talk:Sfn to make sure the people maintaining the template find your proposal. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of ugly hacks that will work, but I'm looking for something that is automated and doesn't require repurposing parameters. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The |ps= field was deprecated because it causes an issue when the {{

harv}} templates inside <ref> tags, and then include anything else outside the template but before the closing ref tag. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 20:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

{{r}} is pretty full featured and integrates well with existing template families. That might have the functionality the OP is seeking. Folly Mox (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That's actually a good fit, especially as there's no method for linking the short form ref and cite on the example given. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally I hate seeing the cryptic ^[1]:123 that {{r}} produces. I'm glad to see that m:WMDE Technical Wishes/extending references indicates someone is working on a real solution again. Anomie⚔ 11:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I hope they're planning some way of warning editors who try to remove a ref that has extensions, and how it will behave when transcluded. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that that is both ugly and un-intuitive. Every time I see it I first think something is broken until I realize what it means. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The {{r}} template has several issues, e.g., it requires manual construction of backlinks. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The <ref>...</ref> around {{sfn}} was a typo and I have removed it. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There are many cases where a character, e.g., =, {, }, [, ], |, cannot be used directly but must be wrapped in a template, e.g., inserting an = requires {{

What criteria did you use to determine which births and deaths were “significant” (and which were not)? Blueboar (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@

talk

) 11:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Meh… not a hard “no”… but I think that criteria is somewhat subjective, and will lead to endless arguments. It will be less contentious to just say: ALL births and deaths should go in the separate “births and deaths by year” sub-article. Blueboar (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The only deaths that may make sense would be the death of a prominent world leader (who was in office at the time of their death, i.e. Franklin Roosevelt, Queen Elizabeth). --Enos733 (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

But even then, those deaths would probably appear in the main timeline, not a separate section. - Enos733 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I remember Years articles being super contentious, and splitting birth and death events into separate articles having ameliorated that somewhat. I think if there's a standalone non-stub article about an individual's death, it could go in the main timeline per User:Enos733 above, but I doubt reintegrating a contentious subset of the birth and death subarticles into Year articles is likely to lead to positive outcomes. Folly Mox (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There's currently an ongoing move request that would benefit from wide community input and then a formal closure. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

My colleagues and I are increasingly coming across articles and parts of it that have the signature of being either produced by something like ChatGTP or a really inexperienced writer. What I mean are articles that are written in perfectly good English, but make only limited to no conceptual sense as well as lacking a clear logical structure. An example is the article on Vitellogenesis, Not sure AI produced articles are objectively detectable and can be flagged to avoid corruption of the information landscape. In fact this non-sense is self-amplifying since this non-sensical text will be added to the input to more "language" models. THIS IS A GREAT DANGER TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE WIKIPEDIA PROJECT! Gpwagner54 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Gpwagner54, I share your concerns about AI and Wikipedia, but the example you chose, Vitellogenesis, is not a good one. That article was first written in 2006, and at least ten separate editors have worked to expand it over the years. Cullen328 (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

A spot check of the references shows that they are legitimate. Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you point out which part of the article that seems to be the problem? Have a good day! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Side topic -- We also need eyes open for bkf mirrors who have expanded to engaging in long discussions on borderline (ir)relevant topics on other boards. Can't make out those too. Lourdes 04:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The article had a substantial revision on 27 November 2022 (a few days before ChatGPT was released). Prior to that revision, the lead sentence described vitellogenesis as a process that occurred in "

lecithotrophic organisms". Now it is described as a process that occurs with "non mammalian vertebrates". Prior to that revision, as well as after, there is a little bit of content about vitellogenesis in insects (insects aren't vertebrates). There was also an unsourced sentence about vitellogenesis in mammals that was removed in that revision. Presumably that sentence pertained to monotremes (the only oviparous mammmals). The image in the article (both before and after the revision) depicts vitellogenesis in a flatworm (invertebrate). Given the timing, it's unlikely that AI is responsible for the content, but the article is now incorrect. Vitellogenesis is not a process that only occurs with non-mammalian vertebrates. Plantdrew (talk

) 16:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gpwagner54 Wikipedia:Large language models and its talkpage may be of interest to you. We've also encountered editors using ChatGTP or whatever on WP-discussion pages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I am proposing that we mass-create redirects for articles with titles ending in periods and some other punctuation characters, such as the one to

For background, and to give your views, please see or join the discussion at VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't really a proposal but I have no idea where to post this request. We really need a few more administrators and dozens of experienced editors to participate in article deletion discussions. Right now, there are a handful of regulars, who I appreciate greatly, but they have an outsized influence on what articles are Kept or Deleted on the project. An article can be deleted based on a nomination and one editor who agrees with the nomination. We really need to hear from more editors about what articles they believe deserve to be on the project. We also have seen a great many brand new editors and sockpuppets showing up to participate in AFDs and their lack of experience or their phoniness isn't always apparent to the closer. It's disheartening to see editors with a few dozen edits weighing in on an article's deletion when we have so many great content creators who know about the subjects under debate and the relevant sources. I know that AFDs can be a tense area to participate in and involves an investment of time and effort but we could really use your participation in a few discussions a week or more. Follow one of the deletion sorting topics to focus in articles of particular interest to you. Thank you for considering helping out in some capacity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I should specify that this appeal is just coming from me and is based on my experience participating in the AFD area since January 2022. It seems like there used to be many more editors involved in this area but they may have gotten burned out. We need them back as well as some new blood! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The existence of this thread has a certain irony given that, just a few sections up, there is a discussion about AfD discussions from which the takeaway seems to be that a broad swath of good-faith participants -- one of whom has been an administrator since 2005! -- need to "stop participating disruptively at AfD." (As far as I can tell, those people do not seem to have been alerted to the fact that their supposed "disruptive" behavior was under discussion.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, okay, I will transclude it soon. jp×g 07:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

should article deletion discussions involve everyone or simply the writers of the article Pastalavist (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@

articles for deletion nominations. Schazjmd (talk)

19:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• In response to this request I am breaking my self-imposed exile from AFDspace and am making a goal of opining in at least 5 relisted AFDs per day (or if I run out of relisted ones, at least 5 AFDs) for the next 30 days. We'll see if I make it, but it's already been educational for me. In particular, focusing only on relisted AFDs (rather than my earlier practice of zeroing in on the noms that make me say "they nominated what?") is having some interesting effects on my perspective. (I am apparently less of an inclusionist than some nominators these days.) -- Visviva (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• @
  b
  } 17:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• The night you posted this, I had begun my vacation xD So that wasn't doing any favors. I'll resume my participation shortly. SWinxy (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Side question Liz, have you noticed that relists and closures have been lagging behind the 7 day discussion period? I began closing and relisting at the start of June iirc, and there were a lot of articles that had not been closed or relisted for more than 8 days. SWinxy (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I've been a regular participant in AFD for the last year or so; the experienced editors that regularly participate has gone down in numbers. We see many that only show up when an article is being discussed that they were involved with creating. Any long-time editors are welcome to help, there are a few notability criteria to learn, but it's easy enough to get up to speed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Wikipediaers

I love wikipedia! One of the few things I think that needs fixed is the sole use of IPA style for pronunciations. I think that you should have both IPA and a usable style. When I say usable, I mean something like what is used in most dictionaries. I realize the IPA style is more precise and defined, but it is also mostly useless unless you are one of the one in a million folks who have bothered to learn it (that is my best guess using the order of magnitude estimation method, I would also be willing to accept one in one hundred thousand, in other words almost no one). Also, IPA is an imperfect system at best. So why solely use a fairly flawed system that almost no one understands?

Bill Hicks 2601:548:C203:1F70:54FA:7FFF:E5C3:5E80 (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the IPA can be sʌmwʌt kɹɪptɪk (somewhat cryptic, that is) but any simplified pronunciation would have to heavily regulated to ensure cohesiveness, not to mention actual usefulness. Interpretation of vowels varies widely not only between dialects, but between words themselves in the same dialects, (e.g., bit, bite), making any kind of simplified latin-alphabet pronunciation guide would be a very difficult task, to say the least.

talk

] 22:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

An IPA tool for speaking words is being worked on, but it is a hard project as it is relying on external pronunciations; some early mockups are at testwiki:Phonos. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this will be the best solution. People may not know IPA, but they don't need to if they're able to listen to a recording. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I would urge caution about the number of different things that aren't content that we put in the top inch of an article. Pronounciations, hatnotes ... all of which crowds the content further down the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.

talk

] 23:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. See

MOS:LEADCLUTTER. —David Eppstein (talk

) 19:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The IPA template should be linked to a chart that will explain, and its symbols shouldn't be unfamiliar to those who want to learn exact pronunciation and aren't far from symbols used in dictionaries. However, there is also Template:Respell, which is for English words only and can be a more accessible way to convey such important things as which syllables are emphasized. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a very American complaint. IPA is "what is used in most dictionaries" everywhere except the US and perhaps anglophone Canada, while Wikipedia is a global project. And as the table in

its own). Nardog (talk

) 23:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm someone who has never bothered to learn IPA, but I've also never had a problem following the link to Help:IPA/English and using the key to decode IPA symbols. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hovering over each character also helps, giving a tooltip such as "/æ/: 'a' as in 'bad'" without having to open and pore over a table. Certes (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

We also have Template:Respell which might be what you want. SWinxy (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Phhht. "its symbols shouldn't be unfamiliar to those [who are like me]". And ~2/3 of native English speakers are Americans. The IPA is gobbletygook to me and lots of other people. We're count too. But, the editor corps is kind of steeped in bourgeois snobbery, and it's heavy lifting to get editors to realize and correct for that. But we should should always try to improve. Herostratus (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Following about six weeks of intensive discussion, some changes have recently been rolled out to the WikiProject banner shell template. An example is shown below. The design is very much open for further changes and improvement and we would welcome any comments (positive or negative) from editors at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Discussion about new design

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Novels Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

For everyone not in the know, there have been a lot of complaints (including from me) since this was rolled out after a local consensus decision to deploy this across all Wikipedia pages was made at the above location by 10 editors. These complaints include the color of the sectioning (which was pure white originally and just an assault on the eyes) and how the entire format just doesn't look as professional or useful, especially when you have several projects with class, importance, and other features included. It becomes a color attack. Furthermore, as I just mentioned, there's been a lot of consternation that this was deployed without actually involving the community in the first place and was just a decision made by a few people on a small template talk page. The response from those involved has largely been along the lines of "that's how we've always decided on template changes" and "it's already deployed, so we're not going to do anything about it". I have a massive problem with this being how "consensus" is determined for such a change that impacts all of Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 16:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

"it's already deployed, so we're not going to do anything about it": I do not think this is true. White background and bright bubbles were deployed initially which were changed to cream background and pale bubbles, because in fact they did something about it. And so is here this notification. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

You're emphasizing my point. I didn't mean "do anything about it" to be changing minor aspects of the deployment. I meant "do anything about it" as in reverse the deployment. Even now, I'd guess that all of the 10 involved in the deployment have no inclination to even allow a reversal decision to be made or discussed. Which is one reason why y'all keep trying to make it about "what needs to be changed", rather than about the entire idea of allowing the deployment at all. Silverseren^C 17:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

A RfC on the new design has now been opened: RFC on WikiProject Banner shell redesign. All comments and suggestions welcome. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

A proposal has been made to enhance Template:Excerpt to improve the navigation between source and target pages for those using the 'edit' link at the source page. If you are a fan of {{Excerpt}} or its underlying module, your feedback would be appreciated at Module talk:Excerpt#Proposal: pre-load a helpful preview editintro notice on clicking 'edit' in hatnote. Just a friendly discussion, no Rfc or even disagreement; just looking for ideas and support (or not) or anything we may have missed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion about adding an infobox to the biography of Richard Wagner. Community feedback is welcome. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Currently wiki allows LaTeX within <math>...</math>. This works well as long as wiki does not support

Which wikis support MathML ? And do they do any sort of content validation to make sure they have not added massive security holes into the software ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

None that I know of. However, there have been discussions, and if it ever happens the current use of <math>...</math> will be an issue. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You know that the wiki math tag is already translated into mathml markup as part of the wiki-to-html conversion process, right? For instance <math>e^{2\pi i}=-1</math> gets translated into

<span class="mwe-math-mathml-inline mwe-math-mathml-a11y" style="display: none;"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" alttext="{\displaystyle e^{2\pi i}=-1}"> <semantics> <mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mstyle displaystyle="true" scriptlevel="0"> <msup> <mi>e</mi> <mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mn>2</mn> <mi>π<!-- π --></mi> <mi>i</mi> </mrow> </msup> <mo>=</mo> <mo>−<!-- − --></mo> <mn>1</mn> </mstyle> </mrow> <annotation encoding="application/x-tex">{\displaystyle e^{2\pi i}=-1}</annotation> </semantics> </math></span><img src="https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/4c00cccd54f9cd968b3daf626140ed85cef3fad6" class="mwe-math-fallback-image-inline" aria-hidden="true" style="vertical-align: -0.505ex; width:9.716ex; height:2.843ex;" alt="{\displaystyle e^{2\pi i}=-1}"></span>

By default the first span with the mathml is hidden and the second span with the fallback image is visible but you could easily swap that with some custom css. So what exactly would this proposal accomplish, beyond that? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to propose enabling a new gadget I'm developing. It basically adds a little pencil icon next to paragraphs, that when clicked, loads a small editor in place of the paragraph, without leaving the page. See mw:WikiEdit for the central documentation including a demo video, or add the following to your common.js or your global.js to test it out:

mw.loader.load( '//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:WikiEdit.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );

The gadget is already enabled in the Spanish Wikipedia. In future versions, I'd like to extend it to edit list items, table cells, image captions and talk replies. Support? Objections? Sophivorus (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it may be superfluous considering we already have an option to add a button to edit a specific section, but I could be wrong. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sophivorus for example: article. == career == has 3 paras: para1, para2 & para3. Do you mean this gadget will add pencil button for all 3 paras in career section/heading? i believe right now, there is only one pencil button for career section/heading. హరుడు (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@హరుడు @AquilaFasciata Yes, but the new pencil icons don't load the section edit interface. That'd be superfluous indeed. Instead, they load a small editor in place of the paragraph, without reloading the page. Check out the video at mw:WikiEdit or add the code to your common.js or global.js to see for yourself. Sophivorus (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Brilliant idea! In that case I'm on board! - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Reminds me of User:BrandonXLF/QuickEdit. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sophivorus Do you mean this gadget will add pencil button for all 3 paras in career section/heading? See screenshot [ what i meant is expressed in picture ]:

@Qwerfjkl Does quickedit do same thing? హరుడు (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@హరుడు, see File:QuickEdit screenshot.png. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@హరుడు Yes, the gadget will add a pencil button for all 3 paragraphs in the section, as your screenshot shows. @Qwerfjkl The gadget is indeed similar to QuickEdit (in fact I thought of naming it QuickEdit first) but allows to edit with more precision (per paragraph instead of per section, and soon per list item, per reply, etc). Sophivorus (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I've tried it for a few days now, and I quite like it! It speeds up minor fixes and has a simple interface.

talk

] 22:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems like it would be a great tool for people like me who make a ton of spelling errors which they have to then correct... Will get back with feedback once I use it a bit. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Preliminary Feedback - This works fine, but it would be much better if you were to add it to Talk page comments as well. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@

Factotum and CD — Qwerfjkltalk

10:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl, Thanks a lot! Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Unlike section-edit, sounds like this idea allows editing of just a high-level section that has subsections, not also including the subsections. The standard editor is poor in that regard because it loads too much and therefore clutters the edit box and the preview. I know we've discussed that limitation years ago, can't find it:( DMacks (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I decided to check this out, and while I do like the idea, could it be modified to allow syntax highlighting as well? Otherwise, very nice, very tidy. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a really cool tool – I read through the code too and it is really clean and easy to follow. I would like to report a bug though: the first paragraph of a random article I clicked contained a <br/> tag in the wikitext, and the edit window truncated the paragraph to that point. I haven't tried saving it, but I presume it would replace the paragraph with what is shown in the edit window. Here's the page I found the bug on: 2011 Challenger Banque Nationale de Granby – Women's singles (first paragraph). I believe the bug is due to getParagraphWikitext() only returning a single match, but I don't have a suggestion on how to fix it. Excellent concept though, and I'll probably keep using this despite this bug (just watch out for <br> tags!) – bradv 02:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting tool, but with me it only shows the pencil in the first section/or lead of an article. In the following sections not. I'll still use it though, as it is a pretty nice way of editing and I hope you can figure out why it only shows the pencil in the lead. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like it interferes with the prosesize gadget (

talk

] 16:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sophivorus I removed some scripts I don't really know when or if I use them and now it works also for me in all sections. Great script, thanks. If anyone has a similar concern as mine (I could only use it in the lead or first section of an article), this might be the answer. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for all the feedback and support! @

So, there is User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum, there is User:BrandonXLF/QuickEdit, and there is now WikiEdit. Leave it to Wikimedians to implement the same thing thrice :-) For the record, I am not formally voting, since I am not really active in English Wikipedia, but I really don’t see how this tool is more useful than other alternatives to warrant its addition to Special:Gadgets. If anything, it is a really poor alternative to QuickEdit (since, for some reason, it loads far slower than that script). stjn 01:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I too see little reason why this one in particular needs to be a gadget out of hundreds listed at

WP:USL, some of which have far more users. Nardog (talk

) 02:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not really fair to compare userbases between established solutions and newly released ones. Folly Mox (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That's my point. We should consider making it a gadget when it proves popular as a user script. Nardog (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense, thank you. Folly Mox (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

there is User:BrandonXLF/QuickEdit, and there is now WikiEdit
And there is also wikt:MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxEdit.js... JWBTH (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think I like to see a script get some adoption as an user script to show its utility, popularity, and quality. The usefulness of the "Gadgets" list is inversely proportional to how many gadgets are there, so only more useful and popular scripts should be there. Also once something gets added as a gadget it needs to be maintained for all of eternity, so it's good to show that the script has maintained utility for a while. The script does look neat though, but it would probably be better to wait for more adoption, and to see if people like it more than some of the alternatives mentioned.

(acknowledging that I've gotten two gadgets added, but one was IIRC the most popular user script to not be a gadget and the other had at least gotten >100 installs) Galobtter (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

As many others have said, wait until it has a clear user base. Also, would you consider changing the name? "WikiEdit" is a little vague, and could cause confusion with

talk

] 12:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Also with WikiEditor. Nardog (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

We could choose a name which reflect the USP of editing a paragraph: ParaMedic, ParaPet, etc. Certes (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I like the name MiniEdit, and I agree it's more telling and less confusing than WikiEdit. Changing names is quite a pain because I have to go around renaming so many things, but I'm willing to do so one of these days. @Certes Good to see you around! As to your name suggestions related to paragraphs, I should mention that the limitation to paragraphs is only temporary. The tool will soon be expanded to edit talk page replies, list items, image captions, perhaps table cells. Kind regards, Sophivorus (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sophivorus, sorry for the late reply. I use skin Vector2022 and the browsers Firefox and/or Safari. Interestingly in this very discussion I can apply the wikied/minied only to your first edit and the one, where you pinged me. For your last edit just above I can not perform a Miniedit ː). But then I also had some (a few) articles where the tool worked throughout the article. But usually it works only in the lead for me. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment That does seem like a cool gadget, used when you only want to update a specific paragraph (spelling or adding a small bit of info). Good idea.Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong#Request for comment for Hong Kong or Hong Kong, China? for an RfC regarding how to phrase the place of birth for people born in Hong Kong after the Handover of Hong Kong on 1 July 1997. Cunard (talk) 05:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong#Request for comment: British Hong Kong or Hong Kong? for an RfC regarding how to phrase the place of birth for people born in Hong Kong before the Handover of Hong Kong on 1 July 1997. The RfC also discusses a bot request to modify all affected articles to comply with the new guidance. Cunard (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion about adding an infobox to the biography of Felix Mendelssohn. Community feedback is welcome. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: is it really appropriate that this is going on at the same time as the exact same question at Richard Wagner. If the truth is that some people like infoboxes in composer articles, others don't, for consistency shouldn't these two RfC's be amalgamated into one, addressing the underlying question properly? Otherwise we run the risk of misleading new editors who will fail to appreciate that the landscape they see is shaped by a multitude of long-forgotten individual debates, and that for magic reasons it is acceptable to give Bach an infobox, but not Gibbons. Elemimele (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele, the section header might be misleading. This is notification to the community that there is an RfC at Talk:Felix Mendelssohn, not an RfC here. Schazjmd (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, I wasn't sure where to point out that it's unhelpful to hold multiple small, near-identical RfC's when I felt this might be part of a larger dispute. Is there a better place to mention it? Elemimele (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

A recent attempt at creating a general guideline closed as no consensus; a lot of people felt that this should be decided on a case-by-case basis, which does necessitate a lot of near-identical RfCs. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele, my bad for not reading properly, sorry about that. Schazjmd (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Many of these RfCs have editors pro/con that vote in a consistent block. To help break this deadlock it's helpful to get more community feedback. I spent a considerable amount of time attempting to create a modest guideline and many of the same editors opposed it. So unfortunately, this is the bureaucratic process necessary to find consensus. Nemov (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes I get bored and I like to go onto Wikipedia and find a random article, but it's hard to actually get a random article that I am interested in. 2601:600:877F:1530:29:D645:40AD:6935 (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are on a laptop, there is a random article link in the main menu on the the left (unless you've removed with some personal setting I guess). If you're on mobile view like [1], it's under the top-ish left hamburger. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The keyboard shortcut (see Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts) of Alt-Shift-x (depending on browser and assuming you have a keyboard and not a mobile device) can also be useful for being able to more easily go through multiple random pages. Skynxnex (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're struggling to luck into articles you find interesting from the standard functionality of Special:RandomPage, you might want to try out Special:RandomInCategory. Someone has also written a user script with even more functionality. If you register an account, you'd be able to install the user script, although I don't remember what it's called at the moment. Folly Mox (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I always have to scroll down to get to the most recent policies and proposals in the Village Pump, and also to get to the new policy or proposal typing box. Could someone add a scroll down and scroll up button to the Village Pump sections so I can quickly get to the most recent section (similar to the Teahouse)? 2601:600:877F:1530:4C53:4962:C485:D7E5 (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Better would be for someone to create a user script or gadget so interested users can have it on all pages, and then for you to create an account so you can use it, rather than forcing big ugly buttons on everyone. Anomie⚔ 10:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I would love this as a gadget and specifically for pages of a certain thresshold, so large pages like ANI, VPs, Teahouse etc.. on other hand for Teahouse specifically, requiring it to be installed as a gadget would mean most users without an account/default wouldn't benefit from it. So if it was made as a gadget, I'd support it as a default setting with option to opt out. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Whilst a gadget would be useful, IP users wouldn't be able to use it, so it wouldn't help the thread poster. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The new Vector skin also won't help IPs, but it does have this function via the left-hand ToC -- one of the reasons I've stuck with the new skin. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, I'm curious, what do you mean by The new Vector skin also won't help IPs - help with what? — Qwerfjkltalk 22:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood the OP, but they seem to want a quick way to do vertical navigation on a long page. I don't know what interface a logged out user sees, but now I think about it I guess they get Vector 2023, so they should have the left-hand ToC. That allows for very quick vertical navigation. As far as immediately scrolling to the top and bottom, though, there are even faster ways. I'm on an iPad at the moment using Chrome; to get to the top of any web page one just has to tap the bar above the tabs. There's no equivalent way to get to the bottom quickly, as far as I know. On a PC there are keystrokes for top and bottom; I don't recall them at the moment but my fingers know when I'm at the keyboard. Probably Ctrl-End and Ctrl-Home. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I quite like that left-panel situated ToC feature in Vector 2022. It's just the literally almost everything else about it that I don't care for! In all seriousness, does anyone know if there's a script for getting that effect with the other skins? I'd love to have it for my ride-or-die Monobook! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

There are three separate proposals here, based on feedback from my Village Pump (idea lab) to improve understanding/reduce mistakes when moving pages across different name spaces.

1. Within the move page dialogue interface rename the displayed namespaces. The motivation is to make it more clear what each namespace does. A common mistake is to mix up Wikipedia and Mainspace, because publishing on Wikipedia is not same thing as publishing in Wikipedia namespace.

• (article) -> (article / main space)
• Talk -> (article Talk page)
• Wikipedia -> Wikipedia (project)
• Wikipedia Talk -> Wikipedia Talk (project)

2. On mobile, when a user is moving a Draft to Article space, they need to scroll very high up, and are more likely to select wrong namespace then. So a solution would be to always move the highlighted option to the top OR move Draft / Draft talk options higher up, so that when someone is publishing a Draft they don't need to scroll up 18 different options before finding (Article) and Talk namespaces.

3. In the move dialogue, make a visual separation (by regrouping, as well as having a thick black line between the groups) between Project and Public facing pages. Project pages include Wikipedia, Wikipedia Talk, Categories, Categories Talk, Portal, Portal talk and public facing pages include (Article), Talk, File, File talk, Template, Template talk.

Feel free to vote on each of these separately and or use common sense to modify original proposal. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read the former discussion so I don't fully understand why #1 and #2 are being proposed and what they do, but I would support a visual separation between Project pages and non-Project pages. However, I think we need a concrete proposal for what that visual separation would be; perhaps a slightly darker shade of a grey as the background? BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal thanks! I have edited original proposal to clarify that. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are proposing now. I still support a general visual separation between project and public facing pages (it seems sensible to me), but considering your suggestions limited as they are to the move system they seem sensible and likely to make the system more intuitive and thus I would support them. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Something I forgot about at the VPI discussion is that people commonly publish from User: as well as from Draft:, so I'm not sure moving only "Draft" in the namespace destination list will fix enough of the issue. I do like the idea of always targeting the top namespace (mainspace) in the selection dialogue, which I think can be done in CSS or at least JavaScript.

As to the other two ideas / subproposals, a few words of explanation disambiguating namespaces 0 and 4 couldn't hurt, but I'm not sure grouping the namespaces can be accomplished technically using the current setup, although maybe it's possible to put an unselectable horizontal rule into a selection dialogue – I been outta the web dev game for decades.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm somewhat partial to my own never responded to proposal to separate out the tasks on Special:MovePage into rename (same namespace as before), publish (namespace 0), and all other cross-namespace moves. Folly Mox (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Categories should be considered public-facing pages; plenty are used for navigational purposes. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Shushugah At alternative idea - why don't we use an edit filter to warn non-extendedconfirmed editors moving pages from draft/user space to wikipedia space that they should check that they've got the namespace correct? 192.76.8.66 (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I can support these changes. Instead of renaming projectspace, changing the wording of the page mover is a better idea. SWinxy (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see:

When I read articles that include transcription from Hebrew, I see many different transcriptions. For example, the letter ח is sometimes h or ch – both are wrong, and we should usually use H̱, ẖ, according the the Rules of Transcription!

My first suggestion was to change Holon to H̱olon, however, no answer was received.

As I kept reading English articles that involve Hebrew words, the inconsistency appeared more and more.

In the article about the Hebrew IPA, the letters and the names of our Nikkud (that is spelt Niqqud, which is wrong in this context) symbols are written weirdly, and should be changed to the Rules of the Simple Transcription.

Unless the article or the paragraph talks about a Hebrew word (its etymology, for example), we should use the Simple Transcription, not the Scientific Transcription. מושא עקיף (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

You need reliable sources for the transcriptions you want to change. Otherwise it's original research. Andre🚐 03:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I created

Pinging participants @Amakuru @UtherSRG Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Every essay should be considered disputed by default. That's why there's a warning banner on the top that says it's not a policy or guideline. The problem isn't that some essays are disputed, but that some people seem to think that if you have a WP:FANCYLINK and you use it a zillion times, you can pretend it's official. And I'm not assuming bad father here. I've seen numerous discussions where someone says "Sure it's an essay, but it's been used a lot. So that's basically consensus." And then the other person is treated like a dummy for pointing out that that's not really how consensus works. It could very well just mean that there's a core group of people who really like that essay. GMG^talk 11:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  There are unpopular essays that may present only a minority view. And there are essays that tell its readers to go against established

  WP:PAG. Such essays should be userfied or modified. Essays are of low significance, but there are truly terrible essays that require changes. I believe my template is great for notifying potential editors of the discussion. Ca ^{talk to me!}

  15:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Try as you might, that pointy template will not end up on

  b

  } 18:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please assume good faith. I stopped caring about that essay close to a month now. And

  WP:NJOURNAL is not what I meant by "truly terrible" essays. Ca ^{talk to me!}

  00:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is a pointy template and it will not end up on WP:NJOURNALS. Also, this template would be redundant if placed on an essay and therefore needless per Wikipedia is not a

bureaucracy. ---Steve Quinn (talk

) 19:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, please note, there are plenty of places to notify people of a discussion such as Project talk pages, for instance, and some noticeboards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Modification

I took the "POINTY" concerns and I modified the template so that it looks less hostile. I'll be happy to hear what people think. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

First of all, I would like to introduce myself, I'm Laura Fernández, a postdoctoral researcher of the Women & Wikipedia project at the University of Barcelona, Spain (https://www.ub.edu/wikiwomen/).

Our research group is currently working on the analysis of the Wikipedias in English, Spanish and Catalan's Main Page. In the case of Wikipedia in English, we are currently in a phase of interviews to learn more about the mechanisms that exist for the selection of the Main Page and we would like to interview Wikipedia volunteers (particularly those who are more familiar with the Main Page). We are sure some of you can guide us specifically on the subject, given your involvement in the community and your knowledge of the functioning of Wikipedia in English. We would like to delve deeper into the processes and mechanisms behind the programming of the main page from the point of view of communication theories.

I hope you find it interesting and have availability to participate with us. In that case, We will of course adapt to your needs, availability and time (we could do a written interview, call or videocall). Our ultimate goal in any case is to contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia through data and scientific knowledge, so we think we can learn a lot from the people who work continuously and are committed to Wikipedia.

If you prefer to continue this conversation by email, you can send an email to my university email address: laurafernandez[at]ub[dot]edu or get in touch with me through my Wikipedia user page. Do not hesitate to let us know if you have any doubts or questions about the research.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you very much in advance and best regards, Laura. Lauferagui (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• @
  WP:DYK, etc. — Qwerfjkltalk
  20:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you very much, @Qwerfjkl for your recommendation! Lauferagui (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I referenced List of tallest buildings and added a map to List of tallest towers.

The map shows the location of towers over 400 meters tall.

However, I think I mislabeled the location of the towers.

Can someone please correct the label correctly? Ox1997cow (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The best place to request assistance is at the

Help Desk. This page is for discussion about proposing changes to Wikipedia itself. 331dot (talk

) 16:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I see. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It's sometimes a bit hard to navigate to the proper discussion on a Talk page from a wikilink that uses "Rfcid", if the Rfc header has been removed; you end up stuck at the top of the page, staring at a "missing section" notice. Your feedback would be appreciated at User talk:Legobot#Proposal: add anchor with Rfc id when removing Rfc header. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi dear Wikipedia users and admins!

I have a proposal. Can you add Low German Wikipedia to the bottom of the main page of English Wikipedia in the section of 50,000+ articles? This Wikipedia has 84K+ articles for now and is a huge Wiki. It is the Wikipedia edition of a West Germanic language spoken in most of Northern Germany and a large part of Netherlands.

I would thank you so much if you will take my request into consideration.

I have noticed that some Wikipedia editions in different languages have been added recently to the bottom of the main page of English Wikipedia and Low German Wiki, which is an important Wiki for a majority of people in Germany and Netherlands, is still missing.

Thanks FGRADO (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

We cannot do anything here. You need to raise this issue at Template talk:Wikipedia languages, where that template is maintained. Donald Albury 22:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that the content portals link on the main page needs to go since it is more focused on collections of articles rather than individual articles. I think a much better replacement would be the vital articles since they are Wikipedia's most important articles and I find that page to be easier to navigate than the portals page. If you think there are much better replacements for this one, please let me know. While I'm on the subject of Other areas of Wikipedia, the WP:News page should probably go as well since it is just a collection of sources discussing Wikipedia news. I would love to hear your thoughts on the Main Page and how we can improve it. Interstellarity (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I would link Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews over a Wikiproject list that is just a random list over topics. Moxy- 17:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Why not have both? Portals have already been severely marginalised last year after a long and bloody fight, mainly on the pretext of needing the space for something else (it remains blank to this day), and with a promise to move the link to the portals contents page to the Other areas of Wikipedia section lower on the Main Page as a pacifier. It seems inappropriate to kick portals in the teeth yet again. Certes (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we could add WP:Contents where it's an overview of everything. The problem with WP:Contents/Overviews page is that it is more of a general outline rather than specifics. About a quarter of our articles are biographies, and I think putting something in there that captures Wikipedia's most important biographies would help a lot and I think vital articles fits the bill well. Overviews is just a general overview of some Wikipedia articles, but if you include vital articles, you can get specific articles like Isaac Newton, one of our most important biographies, and historical events, like the French Revolution. I think if we can't decide between the two, why not list both? That way we can capture both the generals and specifics of Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Problem with vital articles is that it seems just random....Kingston, Jamaica level-4 vital article? Where Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews simply links to our parent articles without kids graffiti. Moxy- 01:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know about this. I personally jump straight to my watchlist articles, random article, VPPR, RFCs, and AFDs whenever I'm editing. I don't use the content portals as much. However, I do see that some people may absolutely need portals. I think this would be better reformed as a customizable Main Page for logged in users, where people can change what's in all four boxes, from ITN, DYK, TFA, OTD, AFD, RFC, CD, and every alphabet soup acronym we have. Not sure how we could technically pull it off, or if it would be worth it in the end though. We all know what happened to iGoogle. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I suspect most viewers of portals are not registered editors, so we'd need to take care to maintain a good default for those not logged in. Certes (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

At this time the following US topics are on the main page:

• the featured article
• the first four DYKs, of eight
• the featured list
• the first, second and forth OTDs, of five

Only the featured picture is exclusively non-US and ITN gives a good summary of the major global news events right now. I appreciate that the largest number of volunteers by nationality are from the US and this is English Wikipedia, but can some processes can be put into place to reflect the rest of the world on the main page? 1.145.204.163 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK has rules which limit the number of US topics per hookset to no more than four, and no two of them adjacent. Looking at today's hooks, we didn't come close to breaching that quota, and certainly not "the first four". Perhaps we're not looking at the same set? I'm looking at Special:Permalink/1171087214. RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

If you see this balance being violated, please report it at

WP:ERROR if it's currently on the main page or scheduled to be there in the next couple of days. RoySmith (talk)

00:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, our comments crossed just as we rolled over to the next 24 hour set. You must have been looking at Special:Permalink/1170916769, which did indeed violate both of the rules I cited above. Our bad. RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, perhaps yesterday was just an unfortunate coincidence. I think the new page is beyond criticism. I understand it is complicated by each aspect being coordinated independently, perhaps someone could run their eye over the whole with the authority to shuffle the order of constituent parts a little. 1.145.204.163 (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that OTD and ITN are not movable - in the sense of "this day is the relevant day". FA and FL (to a much more limited degree) may have specific days most relevant to that content. So speaking as a non-American, days will come that just happen to have a significantly higher load. Nosebagbear (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that while OTD can to an extent choose which items to feature when there are many notable happenings on a given day in history, ITN has no such control. Sometimes all the major news relates to the US, sometimes none of it does. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

IP user, in terms of ITN you are welcome to participate and nominate articles about events from other parts of the world, and support other nominations. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll second that. DYK suffers from an oversupply of US-centric and biographical articles. The folks who are building preps would love to have a greater supply of other topics, so the best thing folks can do to avoid overly US-centric hooksets is to contribute non-US nominations. RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually the DYK set Special:Permalink/1170916769 was worse than that! 4 all-American hooks, plus an American footballer who plays for Jamaica internationally, plus John Oliver, British-born but long resident (and pretty exclusively known) in the US. That's 6 out of 8. I'm dubious this was caused by a lack of non-US noms. Not to mention a really boring US picture was chosen, when others were available. In fact the hooks seem given in reverse order of interest, especially from a global perspective. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Self explanatory. I cannot see any benefit to having an all-text special page. 47.188.17.45 (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. Special pages don't have talk pages, it would be better to move to Help namespace as it would allow editors to modify and discuss wording. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Admins can already modify MediaWiki:Captchahelp-text to change the contents of that page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Which is a vastly higher level of "protection" just about all information pages on Wikipedia have (other than templates) Mach61 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

We can't do anything here to get rid of it, no matter what we do it will still be in the code.

FYI, it appears the special page serves two purposes: it is used to display the captcha image and it is used as the help link from various messages. Even if we change the English messages to point the help links somewhere else, it would still be used for other languages (e.g. a page viewed with uselang). Anomie⚔ 10:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Rescinding proposal. Mach61 (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The messages need something that works in all languages and all instances of mediawiki installed globally. And that is why this uses Special:Captcha to link to this highly critical information. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Huh, I guess my IP got unblocked Mach61 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks EDASHI (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi EDASHI, you should post these comments and the accompanying sources that you got these quotes from on the relevant article talk pages, where it is more likely that editors engaged with those topics will see them. Best, CMD (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

A recent article in Vulture describing both the manipulations of Rotten Tomatoes by film studies and the shifts in the review aggregation policies raises some serious questions about the site as a barometer of critical success. At the very least, the site that established itself widely on Wikipedia operates differently today and would have prompted very different conversations about its inclusion. Given how central these aggregators are to the "Critical Response" section of film wikipedia pages, is it time to rethink the idea that it is a reliable source? If so, what is an alternative? Infocidal (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:VPI or Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Film. It's not really fit for purpose at this venue. Folly Mox (talk

) 17:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard might be the appropriate venue for this. - jc37 17:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions! I'll move it there. Infocidal (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I was going through the requests for

• Support in theory but I would be concerned that this might become a springboard further down the line for giving NPR reviewers automatic wider page mover rights, which would be a Bad Thing. Ingratis (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'm unsure. Included in suppressredirect is the ability to do
  round-robin moves, move editnotices, and do non-draftification-related redirect suppression, all of which are quite complex and unrelated to NPR; so I personally think the extra step of bureaucracy and the minor inconvenience of R2 nominations is warranted here. Curbon7 (talk
  ) 09:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's fair, and one of the reasons why I will sometimes decline requests like these. The current guidelines for granting definitely focus more on those aspects as well, as draftification was clearly not something that this was initially intended for. NPRs asking for the perm right now won't be using it in any of those manners either, though. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  An extendedmover's ability to move edit-notices should not be related to suppressredirect, but rather tboverride, since they're protected by MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps I'm confused.

  WP:PMRC#8 suppressredirect also lets you Move an editnotice to a subpage of Template:Editnotices to marry the editnotice with its appropriate page, unless I am misunderstanding what that is referring to. Curbon7 (talk

  ) 01:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Moving/editing an editnotice requires tboverride.

  WP:PMRC#8 is just saying that if you do move an editnotice, you're allowed to use suppressredirect and suppress the redirect. Extraordinary Writ (talk

  ) 03:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ah thanks, scratching that part. Curbon7 (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Just wondering, noting most draftifications are slow pseudo-deletion, should draftification be wound into a draftprod process matching WP:PROD. With suppressredirect, draftification will be completely unilateral for the lowest level NPR. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose, wrong direction, to make unilateral draftifications easier and quieter. Instead, propose WP:PROpDraftify, to work the same as WP:PROD. Currently, new article writers are not given enough information, such as AfC and DraftSpace are optional, and their right to

  WP:DRAFTOBJECT

  . I believe that their is no indication of bad intent by any current NPReviewer, but their were poor reviewers in the past, and but their are indications that the NPR draftification standard is different to the AfD standard, which I think is a bad thing.

  Where this proposal generates more problems than solutions, junk in mainspace sitting a seeker longer, I think the answer is to remove the ability of nonautoconfirmed editors to make new mainspace articles. Or, overwrite a redirect.

  Having a COI is a reason to mandate use of AfC and Draftspace or userspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Instead of creating a whole new process and all the associated bureaucracy that entails, wouldn't it be easier and nearly as effective to add some version of the italicized text in {{

  Cryptic

  23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think it is a very positive feature for an article writer to be given seven days to respond to a criticism before the article is draftified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  remove the ability of nonautoconfirmed editors to make new mainspace articles - this has been a thing

  since 2018. Primefac (talk

  ) 07:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. I didn’t know it was actually implemented.

  Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation#ACPERM is now live. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• CAT:R2 never seems to be significantly backlogged, so I'm not sure the slight increase efficiency is worth losing the sanity check from an admin. As Smokey alludes to, there is already a distinct lack of oversight of articles being moved to draft and then autodeleted. – Joe (talk
  ) 09:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  If that's the case (and I do suppose this is a question to ask at PERM) - should we (admins) be declining requests from NPR who are asking for Page Mover purely because they want to draftify without leaving a redirect? Primefac (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Good question. – 

  talk

  ) 19:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think so, but we shouldn't be as quick to grant such requests when there is less experience (generally speaking) in knowledge of page titles demonstrated by particpation in

  RMTR or in {{db-move}} requests etc. Sdrqaz (talk

  ) 01:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Moving an article to an obscure place outside mainspace can be a seriously abusive action. Does some bot or filter look for this? Without an attentive admin spotting it before R2 there can be problems. Thincat (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  JJMC89 bot

  CAT:R2 for more than five minutes. I refuse on principle to delete those which I believe are inappropriate draftifications, but I think that's rare. I try to hold people accountable, but there is simply too many R2s and speedy deletions in general to be sufficiently comprehensive. Sdrqaz (talk

  ) 01:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Meh, they can just ask for both if they want it. Perhaps if there are some stats of how many patrollers are actually using move, vs just doing the other patrol functions? Just did a random check of 10 patrollers that are not xmovers, only one made a main->draft move in the last year. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've made several in the last couple of weeks alone. I think in general NPP is reluctant to use draftification because of the issue of 'it's a back door to deletion' but right now the queue is rising fast and some harder decisions need to be taken. PROD is next to useless and AfD is overloaded, FWIW. There's a lot of stuff in the queue that really doesn't belong in mainspace and arguably isn't even fit for an AfD... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  PROD is next to useless? Can you say more? If de-PRODed, do you take it to AfD where it gets kept? If so, this means that NPR is a tougher bar than AfD, which would be the root problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's an additional step - an article will almost invariably be de-PRODed unless the creator has been blocked or hit by a bus. AfD is, as I said, overloaded and you have the nagging issue of AfDs closing with no/minimal participation. AND you can only really send so many articles to AfD every day - with >10,000 articles (and rising fast) currently in the NPR queue... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think I understand the use here. But as "leaving no redirect" is essentially a form of deletion, I'm hesitant to group it with "new page reviewer". I also think, having it grouped with a "mover" user-right, makes clear what policies that the user is accountable to. While I have no doubt that you are thoughtful in giving these out, at rfp, how do we know that some random admin, merely looking at the user-right name, is going to know? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just would like to avoid unintended accidents and consequences. - jc37 10:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Question. I often see the claim that draftification is a form of deletion. Do we have any numbers for how often an article moved to draftspace is G13ed versus moved back to mainspace or deleted for some other reason, like spam or copyvio or G5? Folly Mox (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure there is a number, but speaking as someone who frequently checks the G13 queue, it is at least a significant majority. Curbon7 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  As an example, see Draft:Ladislav Karel Feierabend, a draftified article of an entirely notable person (cs:Ladislav Karel Feierabend) that is about to G13 expire. Curbon7 (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Does a minister of a government in exile pass NPOL? Personally, I'm not sure. If you're sure they do, feel free to move it to mainspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  I was thinking more in terms of

  WP:NPOL. I just happened to see this particular example in today's User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon. Curbon7 (talk

  ) 02:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oh my gosh, can anyone who is good at formatting somehow apply a minimum width to the columns in the table at User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon? On my device, every column but "Excerpt" was squished down to the narrowest width allowable to display the sort arrows next to the column header (functionally, two to three characters). It's entirely illegible, and I still have to do a sidey scroll to see either the first or the last column, since exactly one is always outside the browser edge. Folly Mox (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• This is relevant reading on this issue. I think I still stand by my previous concerns about how outside the context of frequent draftifiers (who can simply apply for page mover), the fairly small benefit (saving admins time on R2s) is probably outweighed by the risk (handing out a right that can be used for much more than draftifications) in most cases, particularly given Xaosflux's comment above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think it's really necessary. I mean, it's not like R2 is always on the brink of overflowing.
  talk
  ] 20:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• No, I don't think so. I got extendedmover before patroller, but I got it mainly because of my draftifications instead of RM experience. I would be more receptive to this idea if we could (somehow – not holding my breath) make MediaWiki distinguish between mainspace moves to draftspace and other types, but I would still be against because often people use draftification as a means to just lower the backlog and to sequester things that they don't believe are notable (see
  implausible redirect is rather poor, and as people with suppressredirect can effectively unilaterally carry them out, widening the pool of people with that ability – when they aren't necessarily intimately aware of these policies – would not be a good thing. Sdrqaz (talk
  ) 01:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Pro: Less work for admins having to delete CSD R2s resulting from draftification (and there's a decent number of these, and they just seem like admin busywork to me). Con: Slightly less oversight during the draftification process (I don't think reviewing the appropriateness of the draftification is required by WP:R2, but some admins like to do this anyway). Con: Potential for NPPs using this ability to suppress non CSD R2 redirects inappropriately.
  Weighing the efficiency of not clogging the R2 queue with the possible cons, I personally think it'd be worth it. It's good to make workflows more efficient. I understand if others arrive at a different conclusion though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe that redirects tagged for R2 can continue to benefit from a second set of eyes prior to deletion, as I have seen instances in which draftification was not appropriate or the criterion was used out of process. Also, in my experience,
  CAT:R2 is not a backlog for admins. Users trusted to handle potentially contested moves should have no issues requesting extendedmover separately. ^Complex/_Rational
  01:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• ComplexRational sums up my thoughts on this perfectly.Our usernames also sound somewhat similar! casualdejekyll 02:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's similar (IMHO) to autopatrolled - if an editor/patroller is experienced and has had no behavioural issues, and conferring the right reduces rote-work, I can't see the issue. I'm on my second 3-month trial through Primefac - surely the bar is high enough to stop badge collectors and troublesome editors but also let NPP send articles to Draft as part of the discretionary toolset that comes with the job? I'm already cautious about draftifying and would argue we should be sending more, not less, to draft actually... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per ComplexRational. We should not be making incorrect use of draftication (whether intentional or otherwise) harder to detect, and there seems to be no evidence that R2s are causing any problems while there is evidence they can provide an additional level of checks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The nuclear "back door" to deletion is already available to millions of editors.....conversion to a redirect. Draftification is milder than this and AFD, it preserves the article and gives the editor to develop it. I'm really tired of seeing the volunteers who are doing the soul-crushing NPP work get insulted by making it sound like they are "up to no good" when they choose this mildest of the three main possibilities. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose and oppose the practice of routinely granting PMR for this purpose. I have more I can write on the NPP-to-PMR pipeline -- PMR is an unbelievably janky right, easily the most awkwardly gerrymandered of the unbundles. The substantial proportion of people with it who use it primarily to draftify rather than to move pages obscures this by moving it away from its primary and most complex use case; this inhibits discussions about why PMR is like this, how to resolve it, and how we can move forward. (Examples of PMR Jankiness: it is very possible and not even especially rare to get tangled into multi-layered multi-page misplacements if two PMRs attempt to respond to a move request at once; it's impossible for PMRs to independently perform "move a draft to a redirect with significant (i.e. previously BLARed) history" without losing that history entirely, so admin workload does not decrease; PMRs cannot move through protection, so some substantial share of RMs at any given time are unclosable without added bureaucracy and admin work, because PMR-era RM has negligibly few admin patrollers.)

Data on draftspace and its impacts on article creation is sparse and difficult; the overlap between what research occurs on the Wikimedia Movement (sic) and what research is directly relevant to enwiki editors and readers is unspectacular. However, we have data from the early-mid-2010s changes (which substantially increased the prominence of AfC and draftspace) at m:Research:AfC processes and productivity. I've transcluded the image, because it's striking; there is an immediate, major falloff of articles by new editors surviving for a month when the Article Wizard begins strongly-implying or outright-saying you need to use AfC. This is not a consequence of AfC backlogs, at the time, because the same data says that back then they were short (we can expect that stats are much worse now). The issue is primarily some quality of draftspace itself.

It's not clear what part of draftspace drives this effect. The effect (we can trace from anecdata after our data ends) remains evidently the case, and several factors (e.g. AfC wait times) have gotten far worse. The hidden/"storage bin" status of draftspace seems clearly an element, as do the "another word for GAN" tendencies that come up at AfC sometimes. (SmokeyJoe alludes to the NPP equivalent re. "PROD is an extra step". I note my first article was prodded by a prolific NPPer, removed with a paragraph-long explanation, and taken to AfD with an identical justification to the prod. It was unanimously kept upon reposting of that explanation.) Other elements are more complicated. It's highly nonobvious to new editors that draftification is disputable, or that AfC is optional in the first place. PRODs are obviously disputable -- new editors are told clearly they can remove them -- but we do what I suspect is an intentionally poor job at telling people they're able to move a draftified page back (and that it can be reasonably taken as dispute grounds for an AfD, in the same sense as PROD). I suspect many people develop a preference for draftifying over prodding because it's less likely to be disputed. It is difficult to remember, sometimes, that disputes are a sign of a healthy process.

One sub-issue is that while R2 prescriptive-should be checked to make sure draftifications are at least defensible, it descriptive-isn't. Most "simple" CSD categories are processed rapidly (sometimes within seconds) by a small number of admins. R2 is generally treated as a "simple" category for these purposes, which is arguably a misplacement. There's a tricky problem here where many actions that should have some kind of external review, and are set up to permit some kind of external review, consistently fail to have it at multiple steps.

There's also another sub-issue that our inclusion standards are completely inside-out. "Notability" is a good enough concept for enough cases, but the

written in a way that by Wikipedia's policies can only be written from notability-passing sources, where the nominator thinks on some technical grounds it might not 'actually' be notable). This makes disentangling problematic and nonproblematic draftification difficult, and in general complicates the whole practice. It's not an argument against oversight, though -- if anything it's one for it. Vaticidalprophet

11:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Just noting that I was briefly confused as to why National Public Radio had any rights at all. I'm already a donor. I don't care about your fund drive. I just want to hear Scott Horsley tell me about changes to the interest rate! GMG^talk 12:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I also find myself thinking "
    National Public Radio" every time I read the section heading. Anomie⚔
    12:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

    True story: Peter Sagal is actually a bunch of seagulls wearing a human suit. Wake up sheeple!" GMG^talk 12:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who keeps reading it as National Public Radio instead of New Page Review. ~

    problem solving

    19:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support For reasons noted. Plus why should only draftifications require two reviews by two NPP'ers? This would solve that problem. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean by why should only draftifications require two reviews by two NPP'ers? Don't PRODs and AfDs have to be reviewed by administrators too, before they are deleted? Sdrqaz (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  I was mostly referring to deletion by conversion to redirects which get zero reviews. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  BLARs are a bit more visible, since they leave the article history intact rather than deleting it after six months assuming no one notices, after which point it's a whole RFU just to see whether the draftification was appropriate or not. Also the four– and five-digit red negative numbers tagged with "page blanking" and "new redirect" tend to stand out a bit more on watchlists and Special:RecentChanges than cross-namespace moves, at least in my experience. Folly Mox (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Thryduulf. KatoKungLee (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and oppose giving page mover rights to NPPs for the sole purpose of R2 noms. — Karnataka ^talk 22:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose User groups should not have rights tangentially-related to their intended purpose, because they will end up being used in manner completely unrelated to that purpose and nobody (other than sometimes me) will care. See, for instance, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 86#Restoring to Account Creators the Ability to Edit Editnotices * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Reflecting @North8000:'s comment almost exactly. Simply no reason for this. scope_creep^Talk 13:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think North8000 supported. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose (see reply). If deleting these draftify redirects takes considerable admin time, I would suggest having an adminbot task to delete NPRs' draftify redirects. Requesting CSD for these should be no bother to the NPRs themselves if they use
  WP:DRAFTIFY, and shows familiarity with article title policy. -- SilverLocust 💬
  14:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify what is being proposed, would NPRs have a different set of

  WP:CSD#R2)", then I would prefer this over continuing to grant extendedmover for use in new page patrol. SilverLocust 💬

  23:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  The intention is to allow NPRs to draftify without the need for a secondary R2, and without needing to ask for Page Mover to do so. If that means the language of NPR is amended to state that this is the only proper use of the suppressredirect flag, that's fine too. Primefac (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  On further consideration, I would conditionally support if it is clearly limited to draftifying (and provided that there are conduct expectations that the draftifies follow

  WP:DRAFTIFY). But my main preference is to limit NPR being associated with significant tangential permissions (whether through NPR or PMR-for-NPR). SilverLocust 💬

  16:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support conditional (1) on wording that makes it clear about when a NPP should use the right, and (2) on draftification being accompanied by some text to the article's editor(s) explaining that they can contest this and request AfD instead. Perhaps there should even be a direct, automated route from draft-space to AfD?? The route from inadequate article (NPP) to draft-space, to AfD, to deletion is certainly a valid pathway. Alexandermcnabb made some valid points about AfD, but those should be fixed separately. We need to find a way to encourage editors to feel happier about entering a place where they can wade through wannabe film directors, unsuccessful footballers and railway sidings in Ohio while enduring the occasional stream of bludgeoning and toxicity. It's great fun, honest. And if you never want to be an AfC reviewer, you can even say what you think without fear of fouling up your statistics... Elemimele (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  I thought similarly, and decided that this would be more easily achieved by pushing NPR draftifications under the

  WP:PROD process. SmokeyJoe (talk

  ) 02:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't like this idea; I have a feeling it will lead to more articles that should not be draftified being draftified and ultimately deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support conditionally upon only being used for draftification. Uses outside of this should be grounds for revocation. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)