Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.
Hi Wikipedia editors and admins!
I am a new user in Khmer Wikipedia and I have a concern. I have seen that this Wiki appears with its writing system in Bold (dark letters), which previously didn't appeared. This is seen on the language list where the Khmer language appears, when viewing articles on the Khmer Wikipedia and on the search results on Khmer Wikipedia. Can you fix the issue and make the Khmer Wikipedia to appear in normal letters, in all its forms (where the Khmer language appears, when viewing articles on the Khmer Wikipedia and on the search results on Khmer Wikipedia), like the other Wikipedia editions are?
Thanks Cheni001 ( talk) 13:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm proposing that moving a page that's in draftspace to a target also in draftspace be an action that doesn't require being autoconfirmed. This is so if a draft is created in the wrong place by an IP, they can fix it themselves without going to RM, which they probably don't know exists. An example where this would have been useful is Moshe Mizrahi (basketball) which, according to its history, was created at Draft:Moshe Mizrahi ( basketball), moved to mainspace by an AfC reviewer at Moshe Mizrahi ( basketball) and only then moved to the correct title. This left behind a useless mainspace redirect that I had to RfD. If the IP could have moved the draft to the correct title, there is a good change they would have done so and the useless mainspace redirect would not have been created in the first place. Nickps ( talk) 14:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Reading the July 2024 global cyber outages article one notices in the infobox that the incident happened "0 days ago". Shouldn't that be "today" or "Today" instead? Nxavar ( talk) 10:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
There are 20 thousands of pages which refer to a movie's IMDB title page subsection. They can't use Template:IMDb title because the template doesn't document how to link to a subsection.
Even current template allows doing that via undocumented trick (although that produces a warning) - just add /section to the movie id. Example: test at IMDb.
So I propose - either document this trick and make it official, or add another parameter to the template. fuxx ( talk) 18:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Back in 2017, the community decided in this RfC that moved pages should be unpatrolled. The feature was stuck in Phabricator purgatory and was never actually implemented.
Does the community still want this feature implemented? (cc @ Pppery, @ Hey man im josh and @ Novem Linguae who participated in an initial discussion on the NPP Discord server, also see T370593) Sohom ( talk) 07:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose pending more information. I'm concerned about rushing into something that will potentially hugely increase the load at the already hugely-backlogged WP:NPP. How many pages are moved per day? How many more reviewers would we need to handle the extra load? What's the scale of this problem? Are there other solutions we could explore (e.g. marking pages that have {{ disambig}} removed as unpatrolled)?We have the answers to some of those questions above, and it's not looking good. Doing this would double the NPP workload in order to close a loophole that is apparently so small that nobody noticed it had been accidentally left open for the last seven years. Really bad idea. – Joe ( talk) 21:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
not for all article moves but for those by non-EC users which I think was 40 a day at the time. This somehow ended up not reflected in the 2017 RFC close and not reflected in the 2017 Phabricator ticket. We could go off on a tangent about whether that RFC was closed correctly or not, but I think it's a non-issue because we'll get a fresh consensus in this RFC that will override any lack of clarity about the previous close. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
There's a editor's notice right now on a really contentious page: "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted." My reaction was, "Good idea. Reverting a revert never seems to end well. Maybe that rule should apply to all pages."
Yes, I know, that's not going to happen. But we can nudge people in that direction. How about a feature detects this and makes the user confirm that's what they want to. "We see you want to revert a revert. This is often viewed with antagonism. Please consider using the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle instead."
And if the user still wants to revert, they can, but at least we've slowed down the madness a tad. Isaac Rabinovitch ( talk) 15:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted.Is that a thing? Or it's just an ordinary editor writing that? Selfstudier ( talk) 16:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
but at least we've slowed down the madness a tad- makes the goal explicit; if it's not appreciably slowing down a vandalism rerevert, it's not accomplishing its stated purpose anyway. — Cryptic 15:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Although I agree with the spirit behind the idea, I can't help but think that the existing policies rules and guides are sufficient. If an editor is intent on BRRD, for example, there is not much to be done about it except to take it up in talk, if an editor were continuously making use of BRRD to try and force through their view, then that's a behavioral problem and should be dealt with as such. One could ask an admin to impose WP:CRP if the issues were causing disruption. And so on. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
A recurring issue with page protection is that long-term protections are sometimes overwritten by shorter-term protections at a higher protection level. When the shorter-term protection expires, administrators need to manually restore the previous lower protection level. For example, Beyoncé is indefinitely semi-protected due to vandalism and was recently fully protected due to edit warring. When the full protection expired, semi-protection needed to be restored manually by an administrator (more examples: 162794559, 162856607, 162974964, 163272356, 163337925). In addition to this happening after full protection due to edit warring, it also happens with ECP being applied to previously semi-protected articles.
Right now, administrators need to remember on their own, set a reminder, or rely on someone submitting a reprotection request on WP:RFPP. Unfortunately, disruption can be the result when the restoration of protection is delayed too long. Also, concerns about timely restoration can influence administrators to choose an approach other than protection when protection would have been their first choice in some situations.
The bot will not take any action if the duration of the higher protection level extends beyond the prior protection's expiration date, or if the protection level is the same or lower.
Following the requirements in WP:ADMINBOT, I'm requesting community approval before requesting approval at WP:BRFA. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 02:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and feedback, everyone. The request for approval of this bot is now posted on WP:BRFA. Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 22:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I've tried making the toolbar a bit more orderly: https://snipboard.io/12CV83.jpg. Infogiraffic ( talk) 09:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Blameand
Wikiblamediffer? Folly Mox ( talk) 17:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Many templates have shortcuts; e.g. {{ citation needed}} can be invoked by typing {{ cn}}. This produces the same result, and saves a great amount of time for editors by eliminating pointless busywork (especially those with arthritis, RSI, bad keyboards, mobile devices, or other impairments).
It improves the project for people to tag uncited statements, even if they do so without a perfect understanding of template syntax. The same is true of all inline maintenance templates (e.g. {{
dubious}}, {{
failed verification}}, et cetera). Indeed, while tagging articles is necessary and vital, many people who do it
don't know how templates work at all, and just type <sup>[citation needed]</sup>
-- I have an AWB task to fix this. This is fine. We want people to help out even if they are not programmers. This is why templates have documentation pages, which explain how the templates work and what to type into the edit box. Typing {{
dub}} instead of {{
dubious}} saves time for volunteer editors (which we already have a shortage of), and it is good and proper to tell them they can do this.
These shortcuts are made possible by "template redirects": a non-intuitive MediaWiki hack where " transcluding" a redirect is equivalent to "transcluding" its target page. Template:Cn is a redirect to Template:Citation needed, the same way United States of America is a redirect to United States. This behavior is an idiosyncratic quirk of the MediaWiki software, and there is no reason to think it would be obvious to someone unfamiliar with how the backend works.
The only way to get a list of these redirects is a very complicated, obscure set of actions that don't clearly indicate their outcome. Users must:
Since this is an extremely time-consuming and inconvenient task involving counter-intuitive workarounds, most editors are not going to be aware that it's possible, and they are definitely not going to be doing it every time they look at a template's documentation.
Nevertheless, because it saves a significant amount of time to be able to use these shortcuts, many commonly-used templates explicitly list them in their documentation. For example, since at least 2013 (see Special:Permalink/562463167), the documentation for {{ citation needed}} has featured a section listing redirects/shortcuts. However, after I spent a couple hours adding lists of shortcuts to other maintenance templates (like {{ dubious}}, I was reverted, and a request made for formal consensus that template documentation pages are allowed to list shortcuts.
I propose that the documentation pages for inline maintenance templates be allowed to mention their shortcuts, either by listing them (e.g. with a collapsible {{ list redirects}}) or by mentioning them in a hatnote.
These documentation pages are already quite long, often including sections that do not provide a whole lot of benefit to the average template user, as well as {{ Inline cleanup tags}} which is about 3 kilobytes and includes around fifty links. The specific templates which prompted this discussion are {{ According to whom}}, {{ Ambiguous}}, {{ Among whom}}, {{ Attribution needed}}, {{ Better source needed}}, {{ Buzzword inline}}, {{ By whom}}, {{ Circular reference}}, {{ Circular}}, {{ Citation needed}}, {{ Clarify}}, {{ Context inline}}, {{ Contradictory inline}}, {{ Disputed inline}}, {{ Dubious}}, {{ Example needed span}}, {{ Fact or opinion}}, {{ From whom?}}, {{ Importance inline}}, {{ Incomprehensible inline}}, {{ Inconsistent}}, {{ Like whom?}}, {{ List redirects}}, {{ Needs independent confirmation}}, {{ Nonspecific}}, {{ Opinion}}, {{ Peacock inline}}, {{ POV statement}}, {{ Promotion inline}}, {{ Relevance inline}}, {{ Speculation inline}}, {{ To whom?}}, {{ Tone inline}}, {{ Unbalanced opinion}}, {{ Unreliable source?}}, {{ Update after}}, {{ Update inline}}, {{ Update}}, {{ Vague}}, {{ Weasel inline}}, {{ Who}}, and {{ With whom}}. Failing this, I would alternately propose that a link to the properly-formatted WLH for the current page be included in the inline cleanup tag template. I will here embed this template, so that you can get an idea of the templates I'm talking about (this navbox currently appears at the bottom of all the templates' documentation pages it mentions).
jp× g 🗯️ 19:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Dub
rather than the fact that it exists. It might be helpful if someone wants to set up a page with a master list of all template redirects that are used in more than, say, ten articles. Template documentation could link to that master list. But there is no benefit from the churning that would occur when one editor adds {{Dub}} to save typing four characters and another changes it to {{Dubious}} to make the wikitext comprehensible.
Johnuniq (
talk)
02:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[citation needed]
into articles (if anyone wonders, it is nearly 100% accurate use of the tag, just zero understanding of how templates/markup work).
jp×
g
🗯️
21:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
{{fact}}
instead of having to spell out {{citation needed}}
every time is "how to use the template".
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
16:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Can we rename Articles for deletion to Articles for checking/Reviewing notability which will give a positive impression than the present one. 103.66.169.3 ( talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Pretty self explanatory, but for folks like me who find that Dark Mode is too dark to be readable on most apps, Twitter got it right with a 3rd option of "Dim Mode" which is not as dark as their "Lights Out" Mode, the equivalent to Dark Mode everywhere else.
Wikipedia is the website that I do the most reading on, it would be awesome if you implement options for folks with various visual impairments.
Hopefully you guys can consider! 2603:900A:1106:2DB9:1C37:85E1:CE71:D2BB ( talk) 21:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe that Wikipedia:Pokémon test would be better marked as a historical page. It is not really about an editor's viewpoint, but about a former argument used in Articles for Deletion that lead to a mass deletion of Pokémon related articles. The article is still used in AFDs, but only when referencing this time period. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 21:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.
Hi Wikipedia editors and admins!
I am a new user in Khmer Wikipedia and I have a concern. I have seen that this Wiki appears with its writing system in Bold (dark letters), which previously didn't appeared. This is seen on the language list where the Khmer language appears, when viewing articles on the Khmer Wikipedia and on the search results on Khmer Wikipedia. Can you fix the issue and make the Khmer Wikipedia to appear in normal letters, in all its forms (where the Khmer language appears, when viewing articles on the Khmer Wikipedia and on the search results on Khmer Wikipedia), like the other Wikipedia editions are?
Thanks Cheni001 ( talk) 13:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm proposing that moving a page that's in draftspace to a target also in draftspace be an action that doesn't require being autoconfirmed. This is so if a draft is created in the wrong place by an IP, they can fix it themselves without going to RM, which they probably don't know exists. An example where this would have been useful is Moshe Mizrahi (basketball) which, according to its history, was created at Draft:Moshe Mizrahi ( basketball), moved to mainspace by an AfC reviewer at Moshe Mizrahi ( basketball) and only then moved to the correct title. This left behind a useless mainspace redirect that I had to RfD. If the IP could have moved the draft to the correct title, there is a good change they would have done so and the useless mainspace redirect would not have been created in the first place. Nickps ( talk) 14:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Reading the July 2024 global cyber outages article one notices in the infobox that the incident happened "0 days ago". Shouldn't that be "today" or "Today" instead? Nxavar ( talk) 10:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
There are 20 thousands of pages which refer to a movie's IMDB title page subsection. They can't use Template:IMDb title because the template doesn't document how to link to a subsection.
Even current template allows doing that via undocumented trick (although that produces a warning) - just add /section to the movie id. Example: test at IMDb.
So I propose - either document this trick and make it official, or add another parameter to the template. fuxx ( talk) 18:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Back in 2017, the community decided in this RfC that moved pages should be unpatrolled. The feature was stuck in Phabricator purgatory and was never actually implemented.
Does the community still want this feature implemented? (cc @ Pppery, @ Hey man im josh and @ Novem Linguae who participated in an initial discussion on the NPP Discord server, also see T370593) Sohom ( talk) 07:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose pending more information. I'm concerned about rushing into something that will potentially hugely increase the load at the already hugely-backlogged WP:NPP. How many pages are moved per day? How many more reviewers would we need to handle the extra load? What's the scale of this problem? Are there other solutions we could explore (e.g. marking pages that have {{ disambig}} removed as unpatrolled)?We have the answers to some of those questions above, and it's not looking good. Doing this would double the NPP workload in order to close a loophole that is apparently so small that nobody noticed it had been accidentally left open for the last seven years. Really bad idea. – Joe ( talk) 21:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
not for all article moves but for those by non-EC users which I think was 40 a day at the time. This somehow ended up not reflected in the 2017 RFC close and not reflected in the 2017 Phabricator ticket. We could go off on a tangent about whether that RFC was closed correctly or not, but I think it's a non-issue because we'll get a fresh consensus in this RFC that will override any lack of clarity about the previous close. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
There's a editor's notice right now on a really contentious page: "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted." My reaction was, "Good idea. Reverting a revert never seems to end well. Maybe that rule should apply to all pages."
Yes, I know, that's not going to happen. But we can nudge people in that direction. How about a feature detects this and makes the user confirm that's what they want to. "We see you want to revert a revert. This is often viewed with antagonism. Please consider using the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle instead."
And if the user still wants to revert, they can, but at least we've slowed down the madness a tad. Isaac Rabinovitch ( talk) 15:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted.Is that a thing? Or it's just an ordinary editor writing that? Selfstudier ( talk) 16:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
but at least we've slowed down the madness a tad- makes the goal explicit; if it's not appreciably slowing down a vandalism rerevert, it's not accomplishing its stated purpose anyway. — Cryptic 15:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Although I agree with the spirit behind the idea, I can't help but think that the existing policies rules and guides are sufficient. If an editor is intent on BRRD, for example, there is not much to be done about it except to take it up in talk, if an editor were continuously making use of BRRD to try and force through their view, then that's a behavioral problem and should be dealt with as such. One could ask an admin to impose WP:CRP if the issues were causing disruption. And so on. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
A recurring issue with page protection is that long-term protections are sometimes overwritten by shorter-term protections at a higher protection level. When the shorter-term protection expires, administrators need to manually restore the previous lower protection level. For example, Beyoncé is indefinitely semi-protected due to vandalism and was recently fully protected due to edit warring. When the full protection expired, semi-protection needed to be restored manually by an administrator (more examples: 162794559, 162856607, 162974964, 163272356, 163337925). In addition to this happening after full protection due to edit warring, it also happens with ECP being applied to previously semi-protected articles.
Right now, administrators need to remember on their own, set a reminder, or rely on someone submitting a reprotection request on WP:RFPP. Unfortunately, disruption can be the result when the restoration of protection is delayed too long. Also, concerns about timely restoration can influence administrators to choose an approach other than protection when protection would have been their first choice in some situations.
The bot will not take any action if the duration of the higher protection level extends beyond the prior protection's expiration date, or if the protection level is the same or lower.
Following the requirements in WP:ADMINBOT, I'm requesting community approval before requesting approval at WP:BRFA. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 02:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and feedback, everyone. The request for approval of this bot is now posted on WP:BRFA. Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 22:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I've tried making the toolbar a bit more orderly: https://snipboard.io/12CV83.jpg. Infogiraffic ( talk) 09:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Blameand
Wikiblamediffer? Folly Mox ( talk) 17:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Many templates have shortcuts; e.g. {{ citation needed}} can be invoked by typing {{ cn}}. This produces the same result, and saves a great amount of time for editors by eliminating pointless busywork (especially those with arthritis, RSI, bad keyboards, mobile devices, or other impairments).
It improves the project for people to tag uncited statements, even if they do so without a perfect understanding of template syntax. The same is true of all inline maintenance templates (e.g. {{
dubious}}, {{
failed verification}}, et cetera). Indeed, while tagging articles is necessary and vital, many people who do it
don't know how templates work at all, and just type <sup>[citation needed]</sup>
-- I have an AWB task to fix this. This is fine. We want people to help out even if they are not programmers. This is why templates have documentation pages, which explain how the templates work and what to type into the edit box. Typing {{
dub}} instead of {{
dubious}} saves time for volunteer editors (which we already have a shortage of), and it is good and proper to tell them they can do this.
These shortcuts are made possible by "template redirects": a non-intuitive MediaWiki hack where " transcluding" a redirect is equivalent to "transcluding" its target page. Template:Cn is a redirect to Template:Citation needed, the same way United States of America is a redirect to United States. This behavior is an idiosyncratic quirk of the MediaWiki software, and there is no reason to think it would be obvious to someone unfamiliar with how the backend works.
The only way to get a list of these redirects is a very complicated, obscure set of actions that don't clearly indicate their outcome. Users must:
Since this is an extremely time-consuming and inconvenient task involving counter-intuitive workarounds, most editors are not going to be aware that it's possible, and they are definitely not going to be doing it every time they look at a template's documentation.
Nevertheless, because it saves a significant amount of time to be able to use these shortcuts, many commonly-used templates explicitly list them in their documentation. For example, since at least 2013 (see Special:Permalink/562463167), the documentation for {{ citation needed}} has featured a section listing redirects/shortcuts. However, after I spent a couple hours adding lists of shortcuts to other maintenance templates (like {{ dubious}}, I was reverted, and a request made for formal consensus that template documentation pages are allowed to list shortcuts.
I propose that the documentation pages for inline maintenance templates be allowed to mention their shortcuts, either by listing them (e.g. with a collapsible {{ list redirects}}) or by mentioning them in a hatnote.
These documentation pages are already quite long, often including sections that do not provide a whole lot of benefit to the average template user, as well as {{ Inline cleanup tags}} which is about 3 kilobytes and includes around fifty links. The specific templates which prompted this discussion are {{ According to whom}}, {{ Ambiguous}}, {{ Among whom}}, {{ Attribution needed}}, {{ Better source needed}}, {{ Buzzword inline}}, {{ By whom}}, {{ Circular reference}}, {{ Circular}}, {{ Citation needed}}, {{ Clarify}}, {{ Context inline}}, {{ Contradictory inline}}, {{ Disputed inline}}, {{ Dubious}}, {{ Example needed span}}, {{ Fact or opinion}}, {{ From whom?}}, {{ Importance inline}}, {{ Incomprehensible inline}}, {{ Inconsistent}}, {{ Like whom?}}, {{ List redirects}}, {{ Needs independent confirmation}}, {{ Nonspecific}}, {{ Opinion}}, {{ Peacock inline}}, {{ POV statement}}, {{ Promotion inline}}, {{ Relevance inline}}, {{ Speculation inline}}, {{ To whom?}}, {{ Tone inline}}, {{ Unbalanced opinion}}, {{ Unreliable source?}}, {{ Update after}}, {{ Update inline}}, {{ Update}}, {{ Vague}}, {{ Weasel inline}}, {{ Who}}, and {{ With whom}}. Failing this, I would alternately propose that a link to the properly-formatted WLH for the current page be included in the inline cleanup tag template. I will here embed this template, so that you can get an idea of the templates I'm talking about (this navbox currently appears at the bottom of all the templates' documentation pages it mentions).
jp× g 🗯️ 19:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Dub
rather than the fact that it exists. It might be helpful if someone wants to set up a page with a master list of all template redirects that are used in more than, say, ten articles. Template documentation could link to that master list. But there is no benefit from the churning that would occur when one editor adds {{Dub}} to save typing four characters and another changes it to {{Dubious}} to make the wikitext comprehensible.
Johnuniq (
talk)
02:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[citation needed]
into articles (if anyone wonders, it is nearly 100% accurate use of the tag, just zero understanding of how templates/markup work).
jp×
g
🗯️
21:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
{{fact}}
instead of having to spell out {{citation needed}}
every time is "how to use the template".
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
16:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Can we rename Articles for deletion to Articles for checking/Reviewing notability which will give a positive impression than the present one. 103.66.169.3 ( talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Pretty self explanatory, but for folks like me who find that Dark Mode is too dark to be readable on most apps, Twitter got it right with a 3rd option of "Dim Mode" which is not as dark as their "Lights Out" Mode, the equivalent to Dark Mode everywhere else.
Wikipedia is the website that I do the most reading on, it would be awesome if you implement options for folks with various visual impairments.
Hopefully you guys can consider! 2603:900A:1106:2DB9:1C37:85E1:CE71:D2BB ( talk) 21:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe that Wikipedia:Pokémon test would be better marked as a historical page. It is not really about an editor's viewpoint, but about a former argument used in Articles for Deletion that lead to a mass deletion of Pokémon related articles. The article is still used in AFDs, but only when referencing this time period. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 21:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)