Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 206

I propose that whenever a user clicks "Edit" on any article that has the Template:Refideas on its talk page, that the user will see a small yellow text box above the editing area that says "There are suggestions for sources on the talk page that you may find useful."

I brought this idea up at

I do support this idea and am unclear on the implementation details. Will this require a software change? Can it be implemented as an Editnotice? Would a bot-delivered usertalk message after an editor first edits the article, in the vein of User:Qwerfjkl (bot)#Task 17, be an acceptable fallback method? Folly Mox (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I imagine it working somewhat similarly to how users get a notification of an existing draft page when an article of the same name that does not exist. For example, pulling a random draft: [2] I would not want anyone to get a talk page notification for this idea I had. BOZ (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit I don't know much about how technical implementation works so I may not be able to answer questions about that. BOZ (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging two arbitrary very helpful technical users who seem to have a strong knowledge of the software: @PrimeHunter and Pppery: sorry to pick on yall, but what's the most realistic way this idea might be implemented? Folly Mox (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably via an edit to

Template:BLP editintro use JavaScript code instead - those should probably also be moved into Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main. * Pppery * _{it has begun...}

18:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate you, thanks.  :) BOZ (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Support: pretty clear benefit to the project.

talk

] 19:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I also support the idea, but have no insight on implementation. Donald Albury 20:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I can get behind this. Refideas is something I have made use of in the past, in order to mention that I found useful articles for other editors (who have more experience in the subject area) to use. It's a shame they're not super prominent, because it's a really great feature! SWinxy (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would suggest at this point creating a template {{Refideas editnotice}} to the effect of {{Editnotice | image = [[File:Nuvola apps package editors.png|35px]] | style = background: #FFFAEF | text = There are suggestions for sources on the talk page that you may find useful.}}. It can be trialed manually with several pages (rather than all 17,000(?) pages that transclude Refideas) to see if people find it helpful. Placing the editnotice on a limited number of pages (say, with an expiry of 30 days) would just require the assistance of a template editor, page mover, or admin.

There are suggestions for sources on the talk page that you may find useful.

SilverLocust 💬 07:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Ooh, I love how that looks. :) I'm also 100% open to suggestions if anyone can think of a better wording. BOZ (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I kind of wish that the normal talk page banners (the "coffee roll" color) was lighter/higher contrast like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the crudest implementation would be via a bot. Is there a way for an edit notice to read the content of the attached talk page? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Um I think that might be possible if {{

Template:Editnotices, like Template:Editnotices/Page/Cao Wei, so the act of adding the editnotice would just involve creating a subpage which calls a single template like User:SilverLocust's mockup above. I'm also not sure if this is what you're asking. I'm also not a particularly technical user, nor very smart in general. Folly Mox (talk

) 02:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Give yourself more credit, I wouldn't have even thought of those ideas. ;) Although it may be my idea as the genesis, it's really up to anyone in the community to find the best way for this to work for everyone. The example you gave makes a lot of sense; I also just recalled that we get a notice whenever we edit a BLP and I think the same could work when we edit an article with the Refideas template on the talk page. I feel this is coming together. BOZ (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Namely,

Template:BLP editintro BOZ (talk

) 16:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

So what is the next step for this proposal? BOZ (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

One other thought I had, if the technical implementation on this further point would be challenging we can skip it or make the change in the future, but we could have it where the actual refideas template shows on the editnotice but is hidden? So that someone who doesn't want to be bothered going to the talk page just to see what is there, could click "show" on the editnotice and see the transcluded contents of the refideas template to even more quickly see what sources are available for that article.

This is not in any way a priority in my opinion, just a "hey that would be nice", right now I just want to see if we can get this editnotice in place to begin with. :) BOZ (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Closure requested. Folly Mox (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! I was going to check with the Technical part of VPP if no one else here knew what to do next. BOZ (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion about adding an infobox to the biography of Georges Feydeau. Community feedback is welcome. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I realize that this is built into the automated nominations process, but it seems distasteful to me when I see a notice pop up on an indef-blocked editor's user talk page that an article or category they created has been nominated for deletion. Can this practice be changed? BD2412 T 03:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it's useful to me if I follow the person's userpage, since it lets me go and check if the nomination is vindictive BS (which a fair amount of the time it is). Silverseren^C 03:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

On Twinkle, there is only a checkbox for "notify page creator if possible" and not any information about who the editor is. Twinkle should show their names, plus some warnings if certain conditions are met that would make notifying inappropriate (user is indef-blocked, user hasn't edited in X years, user in Category:Deceased Wikipedians, etc.). Maybe the notification box could even be unchecked by default if one of the conditions is true. Pinguinn 🐧 13:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I dunno, user talk pages have a secondary purpose as a sort of record of discussions and decisions related to that user. If a user was blocked for issues related to article creation, for example, it's pretty useful for an admin reviewing an unblock request to see how many articles of theirs have been nominated for deleted recently. – Joe (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence about the appropriatness of maintaining talk pages as memorials for deceased/retired/indeffed editors, especially when it comes to curating them by keeping notes from well-wishers, deleting routine notifications and even chiding those who leave them. It becomes a
  WP:OWN
  issue. User talk space exists primarily for the benefit of building the encyclopedia and it can be useful to see previous AfD nominations, so perhaps we could compromise by archiving, instead of deleting, these notices or setting up automatic archiving so that everything is handled neutrally.

If there's community consensus to do so, Template:Bots has an option to block AfD notices specifically. –dlthewave ☎ 15:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this merits a larger community discussion. It often comes up as an emotionally-charged continuation of whatever deletion-related dispute led to an editor being blocked in the first place (think Lugnuts), so it would really help to have clear guidance that we can point to in these situations. I would also remind folks to assume good faith: Deleting articles that an editor left behind (and sending the associated notices) is part of maintaining the encyclopedia, not a vindictive attempt to erase their legacy. –dlthewave ☎ 03:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of auto-archiving, so long as it is done in a way that does not affect the content of the user talk page as it stood prior to the block (or, since it has been brought up, disappearance or death). BD2412 T 19:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Pppery filed a bug report with Twinkle the other day asking for this to be changed in Twinkle. Bug report. My analysis at the time was that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors states that talk page notifications are optional, so I was going to go ahead and move forward with the change. Will watch this discussion in case a different consensus emerges. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• It is fair enough to notify. Perhaps the blocked / dead / retired user does not care, but those that watch the talk page can then see what is going on, and argue the case for whatever should be done with the article or page. I have rescued several pages through being informed this way. (mostly abandoned drafts) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The practice is helpful for Wikipedia, as the page will often be watched by others who can act on the nomination. I'd like to see a more convincing argument to change it than gut feeling. —Kusma (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• No, these notifications are good. First, as other people have said, the talk page may be watched by others. This is good because it reduces one of the drawbacks of a block - we risk leaving everything the blocked editor was watching and working on unwatched. While of course sometimes they were blocked precisely because of that work, often they had a bunch of unrelated stuff they were doing that was good and helpful and unrelated to what got them blocked - and the fact that it's now left up in the air can be bad; completely unwatched, untracked things are dangerous, since they invite vandalism and other problems. Anything that (even indirectly) can call attention to the detritus they left behind and ties it into the network of the remaining active users is good; basically, when an editor is blocked, we want everything else to continue without disruption, and notifications being seen by other people who communicated with them helps with this. And second, even an indefinite block does not necessarily last forever. Sometimes it is appealed or reversed quite quickly. Omitting notifications would in those situations create an irreversible gap. And we want everything about indefinite blocks to be reversible, because the system isn't perfect; if they appeal successfully, or if it's determined that whoever blocked them screwed up, they shouldn't have to deal with additional issues from missed notifications or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• As noted above watchers watch those respective talkpages and also to note editors in the past have nominated pages userspace pages on the basis they're indeffed (can't remember the user but can remember they were blocked/indeffed and then an MFD starting soon after) so in that respect talkpage notices are helpful. Personally I don't see a problem with an indeffed user getting notifications about XFDs. –Davey2010^Talk 10:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: My most immediate concern is that indeffed users will be receiving emails noting the talk page discussion, and this will be rubbing salt on the wound. I can see this sort of thing spurring them to return under a sockpuppet account to address the nomination. BD2412 T 19:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    • If that's a concern, then what of the "well wishers" expressing regret that the user was blocked? By giving the impression that the block was wrong/unfair, wouldn't they likewise be encouraging the user to return as a sockpuppet? –dlthewave ☎ 19:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• This seems to be an ongoing issue at User talk:BrownHairedGirl, where editors are asking how to prevent these notifications and deleting them without archiving. It's kind of bizarre to see this after such a fuss was made about removing personal attacks from this editor's talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 18:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• At BrownHairedGirl's user page, there have been tens of notifications of categories for discussion since she was indef-blocked, only a few weeks ago. There will be literally hundreds of such notifications over the next few years, as she was, I think, the second most prolific editor on WP, ever, and created thousands of categories over the past couple of decades. I would suggest anyone interested in seeing if the CfDs are genuine/need another opinion/etc. should probably just watchlist the main CfD page. The purpose of a userpage isn't to act as a proxy-notification that someone else might notice on their own watchlist, but having these pop up on one's page, with possible email notifications, and no way to stop them, might well indeed be rubbing salt in the wounds. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  If BHG is receiving unwanted emails then she could simply log into her account and disable notifications, no? –dlthewave ☎ 00:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Over at ANI there's a

• I think this sounds reasonable. Overwriting a redirect with a content page is essentially identical to new article creation, which is not open to unregistered editors. So if there's a way to enforce this technically, it seems like a natural extension of existing consensus. Folly Mox (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support this idea. I think an appropriate abuse filter would be something like ! "autoconfirmed" in user_groups && page_namespace == 0 && old_text irlike "#redirect" && ! new_text irlike "#redirect" or something similar. The action taken could be "disallow" and the error message could be something like this:

  {{mbox
  |text='''Alert''': You cannot change this redirect to an article with your current user rights. An automated filter has detected that you have attempted to convert this page to an article.
  * If you want to create the article {{FULLPAGENAME}}, you need to be [[WP:AC|autoconfirmed]]. Alternatively, you can start the draft page using [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]].
  * If you believe this message is being displayed in error please report this to [[Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives]].
  Thank you.
  }}

  I am opposed to any big stop hands as that can turn out to be harsh. But an information message would be helpful while stopping this
  WP:GAME behavior. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis
  ❄️ 23:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's time we have consistent standards, not technology dodges. Expanding a redirect into an article, however, AFAIK doesn't evade new page patrol. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support as easy to implement.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The logic of ACPERM applies with identical force in this context, and it seems this shouldn't be too difficult to implement from a technical perspective. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support The proposal is sound and relatively easy to implement. – robertsky (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support. As someone who once came across one of these that went unnoticed for 8 years and had to go to
  RFHM, I think this is necessary. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE}
  04:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've noticed the uptick in opposes, and would like to double down, albeit not strongly anymore. Restoring a long standing redirect can be done via edit requests and creating articles can be done via AfC. I understand the concerns about being lulled into being able to do the edit, but think that's an unfortunate side effect that outweighs the positives. And if, at the end of the day, the opposers are right, and this does end up being a pain in the... erm... buttocks, there can always be another discussion to revert it. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 04:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  Wouldn't object to a bot, but I don't think it's necessary.

  KISS! CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE}

  20:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• With my
  WP:EFM hat on, can someone provide examples of log actions the edit filter is supposed to catch? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me
  ) 04:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  You could try this, or indeed most IP edits to

  canary for detecting that particular LTA). Certes (talk

  ) 11:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  This is pretty close. We'd also want to prevent registered-but-not-autoconfirmed users, not just unregistered ones. —

  Cryptic

  11:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  @0xDeadbeef: I've listed a sample of 100 recent IP creations in User:Certes/Reports/IP replacing redirect. Certes (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Try Special:BlankPage/FilterDebug/mode/recentchanges/limit/100/namespace/0/tag/mw-removed-redirect/show/anon. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  ...if you have User:Suffusion of Yellow/FilterDebugger.js installed Certes (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support as a natural extension to ACPERM. Non-autoconfirmed users should not be able to create articles by using technical loopholes. Although patrols (NPP and AV) can find these hijacks in some cases, this would remove the root problem. All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• Not convinced . This won't do much to stop vandals who have autoconfirmed socks, so we would still need a way to detect this type of vandalism. —Kusma (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose per below, won't solve the problem of autoconfirmed vandals (who will just need two autoconfirmed accounts instead of one for the issue in the OP) and will make it difficult for users to revert such problems. —Kusma (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Can someone post some example diffs please? Normally NPP will catch a redirect being converted to an article thanks to how PageTriage is programmed, so maybe I am missing something. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose due to lack of diffs. I suspect that mw:Extension:PageTriage already flips these pages to unreviewed, and without diffs, I will assume this is what is happening. Just because NPP doesn't come in and fix these instantly, doesn't mean they are slipping through our review system. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Concerns: (1) This will also prevent non-autoconfirmed users from restoring a long-standing page that has been turned into a redirect. There's no way for an edit filter to "see" the old revisions of a page, apart from the timestamp of creation, a list of recent contributors, and the name of the first contributor. Best we could do exclude summaries containing "undo", etc., but that could be trivially exploited by bad-faith users, and won't help people who try to manually revert.
  (2) Edit filters (as opposed to page protection, the title blacklist, or the hard-coded ACPERM restriction) lead the user down the garden path of thinking their edit will save, until they actually click "publish". I am thinking about the user who discovers some notable subject is a redirect, spends hours composing a carefully referenced page, then clicks "publish", only to be told "nope". Yes, their edit is saved in the filter log, and we can recover it for them at
  WP:EFFP, but they may be so dispirited at that point that they just give up. Most filters either deal with actual abuse, in which case this is a feature, or are warn-only, so they can still click "publish" and fix the problem later. This problem could partly mitigated, I guess, by putting a big shouty message wrapped in <div class="unconfirmed-show">{{#invoke:Page|isRedirect| ... }}</div> in Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main, but editnotices are easy to miss, and I'm not sure if that hack will even work in every editor. Suffusion of Yellow (talk
  ) 21:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah. I don't think this is a good idea per your concerns. I was a bit confused by what this was proposing when I asked for examples above. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, what about a bot that reverts these kinds of edits? We can ask the bot to look at the tags/history of the page of the edit to check for #1, while resolving #2. The bot would be subject to the usual bot requirements (no warring i.e. reverting someone twice) and leave a message to someone's talk page. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  A bot is just plain worse than an edit filter, and, as you acknowledge, adds even more tech dodges. And I'm not convinced by any of the opposition. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think this is a significant problem, as others have noted these don't bypass NPP anymore. The main reason from what I saw with ACPERM was to prevent users creating articles that ended up being deleted, restoring a redirect and reverting redirection is a lot easier/less offensive to the author that deletion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I also would be concerned about longstanding articles getting redirected or even having #REDIRECT [[Target page name]] added and then other users not being able to revert it. If a new user or IP redirected an article and then realize they have made a mistake they should be able to revert it. If disruptive users are creating inappropriate articles on redirects this should be dealt with through normal measures such as blocking. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Crouch, Swale and Suffusion of Yellow's concerns. I'm not at all convinced that the benefits of this will come close to outweighing the side effects. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Can we log and tag instead of disallow ? Interested editors can then watch and filter for these edits, and revert the bad ones and let the good ones slide ? -- Sohom (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Its already tagged, see Special:Tags which can be searched in the recent changes or user contributions, it used to be at Special:AbuseFilter/342 which was deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Suffusion of Yellow's concerns.
  talk
  19:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support As a natural extension of Wikipedia's longstanding policy of not letting IP editors create articles. I've seen this lead to numerous problems regarding the repeated re-creation of articles on non-notable people. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per technical concerns. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 23:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Question: Am I missing something here, or does overwrite of a redirect not trigger NPP review? My understanding is that when redirects are overwritten with an article that they are then subject to the NPP queue. And the same thing would go for the newly created post-move redirect: wouldn't that also be subject to NPP review? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. As a frequent page mover, I definitely know the leftover redirect needs patrolling, as I get an auto-patroll bot message. I have also seen pages made from a redirect go into the NPP queue using the really old date when the redirect was first created. -2pou (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now... What is the problem we are trying to solve here? I dont understand how the fist description would get out of the NPP queue:
  1. Sock moves redirect Foo1 to Foo2. Foo2 (already patrolled when created or grandfathered) needs no action, but Foo1 redirect is added to NPP queue.
  2. IP changes Foo2 from a redirect to a new article, and now both Foo2 and Foo1 are in the NPP queue. Foo2 because a page created from a redirect is added to the queue near the oldest dates (depending on the original age of the redirect), as far as I am aware.
  3. IP changes Foo1 to point back to its original target, but it is still in the NPP queue as a newly created redirect.

  Both pages need patrolling, so I don't see how NPP is bypassed. Attribution history is indeed a problem, but It seems like what is now Foo1 can be

  WP:G6 speedy deleted by resetting Foo2 to the redirect and moving it back in place. This does require administrator action though with more than a single edit in the redirect history. -2pou (talk

  ) 06:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  I just realized… did you mean to say that AfC (or just draft space creation) is being bypassed instead of NPP? Because an IP cannot create in main space, they must create from scratch in Draft space, and AfC or some other editor with a login must move it to main space; whereas, creation from a redirect is possible by the IP. Another way to game the system would be to get a redirect created at

  WP:AFC/R (if plausible), and then just creating from there as well, but the NPP net would still catch it for review. -2pou (talk

  ) 13:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support the necessary measures to prevent this type of vandalism. This is one case where a few bad apples ruining the bunch doesn't ruin a bunch of apples of core interest. IP editors should be permitted to Request Moves and comment on Requested Moves, but I do support the necessary measures for us to cut the crap. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Suffusion of Yellow's concerns, -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

We have the random article feature, but given how many stubs we still have (3.8 million, over half of our articles), I wonder if it might be a productive thing to introduce a random stub or article needing improvement/cleanup feature and try to encourage more people to edit. We currently have 4400 odd articles destubbed as part of the Wikipedia:The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge I started in March 2020. 50,000 is very ambitious, but I think could be achievable if we ramped something up and got more people on board. If anything I wish we could be running a long term 1 million article destubbing drive with thousands of regular contributors! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This basically already does that. From what I gather, destubbing is usually done at the level of WikiProjects or similar entities (e.g Women In Red). Mach61 (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, both this tool and Special:RandomInCategory are heavily biased to new articles. Mach61 (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it would need to be biased if anything to old articles, a random tool spanning the whole encyclopedia rather than a defined category, and be a visible feature in the side panel to expose the masses to it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The “stub” metacat includes most articles IIRC. Mach61 (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: The tools only use articles located in the supercat, not to a subcat. Category:All stub articles must be used Mach61 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Structured tasks, enabled by default for all new users, and manually by toggling "Display newcomer homepage" at User profile in Preferences, already provides the infrastructure for a "random article needing cleanup" feature. It does break things down into separate tasks, which we're able to configure locally at Special:EditGrowthConfig.

I don't have stats on how many edits are made using this feature, although each task has a bespoke tag that can be viewed in page feeds and revision histories. There's probably a bit of stigma attached due to the name "newcomer homepage", and a bit of an adoption curve given that when the system was deployed all existing editors were automatically opted out, but it's a functional, powerful tool with dev support and a communicative team, so it's probably a good approach vector for this. Folly Mox (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is currently a policy that a source should be published by a 3rd party, not a source closely related to the subject themselves. And if we talking about documenting what a subject *did*, then yes "I did xyz" from the subject is not a good source.

But if we talking about documenting a stance/speech that a subject took/said, then I would suggest that an audio or video file of the subject taking-that-stance / giving-that-speech would not only be an acceptable source, but would be a *better* source than a 3rd party report from a journalist about what the subject said.

For example, on the subject of Robert H. Meneilly (an often outspoken social justice advocate), if the page about him were to indicate that he gave a speech about Separation of Church and State, then the following audio file would be a valid source for that claim: https://soundcloud.com/villagepres_heritage/february-2-1986-separation-of-church-and-state

Or if the page were to claim that Robert H. Meneilly said "XYZ" while receiving the Harry S. Truman "Good Neighbor" award in 1995, then the following video file would be a valid source for that claim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5jZojLJfsc

TDinKS (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much verifiability as it is establishing content is DUE and PROPORTIONAL. If material is only supported by a primary source directly documenting something a subject did, then that material is almost certainly not warranted in an article. JoelleJay (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If the page in question is about someone who was a social advocate and the page wants to give the reader a more full understanding of what that person advocated/said, there very will might be AV recordings that would aid the reader in that understand which at the same time were not reported by a 3rd party. TDinKS (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If they weren't reported by a third party, then how would we write the text these sources would be supporting? JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

To write the text, the Wiki editor would merely listen to the audio and type what the subject said.

Perhaps to aid in verification, such an AV cite would need to include a timeframe during the recording from when the reference comes. Of course, that added feature for cite AV media would be helpful whether the media contained content from the subject themselves or a 3rd party report on the subject. TDinKS (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

But what would you be using this primary source to actually say in the wikipedia article? It would be OR to take some video of the subject speaking and say "X has voiced the opinion that..." unless a secondary source has actually made that characterization with regards to that video (or the source at least references a general group of media from the subject that could reasonably be considered to include that video). You might be ok citing a video of the subject for simple statements they make about themselves, but evaluating an argument they are putting forth would not be. JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the

WP:OR

concern is is true whether we're referencing the subject directly or referencing a 3rd party take on the subject. Either (a) the editor can merely quote the references (direct or 3rd party) verbatim or (b) the editor can paraphrase what the reference (direct or 3rd party) said.

If Wiki wants to have a policy of *absolutely* no original thought by editors, then Wiki should have a "verbatim quotes only" policy. Note: That even with such a verbatim policy, an editor could use an AV file as long as they quote it verbatim. TDinKS (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I was editing a different page and took concern about W:OR to heart and so I merely quoted the 3rd party source ... a Wiki administrator User:Diannaa deleted all of those additions that I had made because "For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words."

So ... if I "must write using your own words", then I'm not sure where that leaves us with the W:OR concern over:

a) An editor using their own words to convey a stance the Subject took after listening to an AV file of the Subject vs

b) An editor using their own words to convey a stance the Subject took according to a 3rd party who listened to an AV file of the Subject. TDinKS (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to directly quote a source, you should review Wikipedia:Quotations for how to do it properly. Including the guidance on when direct quotation is appropriate. Anomie⚔ 21:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Understood ... please see User:JoelleJay comment about regarding this discussion about using AV sources of a Subject:

"But what would you be using this primary source to actually say in the wikipedia article? It would be W:OR to take some video of the subject speaking and say 'X has voiced the opinion that...' unless a secondary source has actually made that characterization with regards to that video"

My point most recently is that we are *supposed* to paraphrase a source anyway whether a 3rd party report of an AV file of the subject at hand. TDinKS (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

See my comment below about some editors being excessively paranoid about "primary" sources. IMO the comment you refer to is an example. If the person expresses an opinion in plain words in a recording then it's not OR to say they expressed that opinion. Just make sure you're not trying to "read between the lines" of what they said to determine what the opinion is. Yes, the line between paraphrasing and OR can be fuzzy in some cases, and you'll sometimes run into editors who take that fuzziness to extremes.

WP:3O or other routes for getting more opinions on a specific content dispute (versus vague references on this noticeboard) might help. Anomie⚔

12:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Tangential to the main discussion here regarding when if ever primary sources are preferred, User:TDinKS from the way you write I'm not sure if you're aware of {{Cite AV media}}'s |time= parameter, which allows for specification of a timeframe in an audio / video source. Folly Mox (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of the |time= parameter, thank you! TDinKS (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are several different concerns involved.

• Yes,
  WP:V
  can be satisfied in the case mentioned by a reliably published video. Keep in mind deepfakes and clips-out-of-context though.
• WP:WEIGHT
  doesn't require any particular kind of sourcing in the article, but "coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" is the usual signal that something is worth covering rather than being fringe or minutiae. On the other hand, sometimes an article does require information that most "secondary" sources assume anyone interested already knows or consider irrelevant for news purposes even though an encyclopedia article should still include it. This can be a point of contention, particularly if a fan or a detractor of the subject is involved.
• Then, too, many editors are fairly paranoid about "primary" sources, to the point where they've gotten this paranoia written into some policies and guidelines. If you see someone quoting
  WP:WEIGHT
  ".

It seems like you're fishing for support in some dispute. Perhaps you should link to it? Anomie⚔ 17:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Regarding WP:V and deepfakes and out-of-context, I think that's a valid concern no matter what the source of the reference.
• Regarding WP:WEIGHT, I can see the response that "this person advocated XYZ, who cares that they said this" but again that weight issue is a valid concern no matter what the source of the reference.
• I would also point out that an AV file would give the reader a "tone" or "body language" that the subject used instead of merely the text.
• Regarding a dispute, I'd rather not get into the weeds too much on this, I think this is a policy that would improve Wikipedia across the board in this narrow application (i.e. A social advocate said XYZ. Reference: Here's an AV file of them saying it). But if a concrete example would help, there could be a situation where someone in a normally conservative position (e.g. Presbyterian preacher) gave sermons using very strong language (e.g. "This is your Mother Earth speaking today ... I'm speaking particularly to you Christian Americans today. You along with other citizens are raping me.") about a social justice issue:
  "Restoring God's Creation". That social advocacy stance can't be sourced anywhere else, but (a) is clearly valid as the reader can hear the subject speaking that stance and (b) would give the reader a fuller understanding of the subject. If we merely say, subject was born here, died here, and did these physical things, that wouldn't give the reader the all important "why" is it important that the subject did these physical things.

TDinKS (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)