This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Project-independent quality assessments for discussion on this concept.
Quality assessments define how close we are to a distribution-quality article in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, wikilinks etc. Most projects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some large projects have specialized assessment guidelines. This is to propose adding a |class= parameter to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment, and letting project banner templates "inherit" this assessment. {{ WPBannerMeta}} will look after the details, so the project banner templates will not have to change.
Projects with specialized quality assessment approaches, which will be recognized by {{
WPBannerMeta}} using a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter, can continue to record these assessments on their project banners and link to their specialized quality assessment scales.
Importance assessments are project-specific, showing how important the article is in providing complete coverage of the project subject area. An article may be high importance for one project, low importance for another, and irrelevant to most projects. This proposal does not affect importance assessments.
Banners using article-level general quality assessment are illustrated below:
|QUALITY_CRITERIA=
has the value "custom", the project class will be displayed and used to create categories as at present. The project class will be displayed even if it is the same as the article class. Projects will be canvassed to set this parameter if they want to use custom quality assessment criteria.{{Template parameter value|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|WikiProject banner shell||class}}}}
Comments? Aymatth2 ( talk) 17:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
A list of the road's junctions and landmarks, if appropriate), can still do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
|importance=
can vary by project, |class=
is one parameter that should be universal across the board.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 06:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)|class=
value for opt-in projects when the same as the article-level |class=
value. The opt-in projects could also change their banner templates to stop passing the |class=
value to {{
WPBannerMeta}}, or this could also be done by a bot, but there is no urgency for such a change.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 14:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC){{ WikiProject Military history}} does not use it (maybe it should) and I don't know how many projects do or do not.see Category:WikiProject banner templates not based on WPBannerMeta. Only 3 WikiProjects don't use it. These should probably all be converted. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I think you can go ahead and implement this; I have removed it from WP:CENT as it's clear enough at this point. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 22:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Some boxes like notifications that an article may be merged or split might not be something a passing user would want to know. Perhaps having those contained within a pre collapsed box would be better. Or maybe a generic notification that there are administrative (or something) things to be aware of and going to the article talk page gives more information.
2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:B409:AC04:8255:CFA1 ( talk) 16:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The 'Possible backlinks' link (left sidebar under 'Tools') is very useful for helping to integrate new articles into the encyclopedia, as is recommended by the lead sentence at MOS:LINK and at WP:Orphan, but it doesn't work while an article is still in Draft space. I often develop in Draft space, and one part of my launch plan is the preparation of a set of articles from which backlinks should be added. I still use the tool anyway, but the default result set is always zero results, and I have to manually delete the 'Draft' prefix in two places. That shouldn't be necessary, and may leave some editors persuaded that there really are no useful article backlink candidates. Can we get this useful tool updated to drop the prefix, so users can more easily prepare their backlink article set? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello all. Myself and User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao have been adding 'Use ... English' maintenance templates (e.g. Template:Use British English) to articles that deserve them en masse utilising AutoWikiBrowser, however another admin has suggested that we gain consensus before continuing doing this. I believe the argument against was that it's [neither] necessary or desirable to place that tag on tens of thousands of articles (see this short discussion). A bot was suggested to carry out this purpose, however I believe that the nature of these tags, i.e. garnering context from the article itself, requires a human edit. Neither of us see anything undesirable about adding this maintenance template per se, however we both paused our efforts until some sort of discussion had been had. Any comments on this would be most welcome. Thank you and best wishes. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 ( Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 19:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
col(o|ou)r
, defen(se|ce)
, etc. were templated to conform to your ENGVAR regardless of the topic's ENGVAR. Number templates could default to lakh and crore instead of thousands and millions for our Indian readers. To me, that is more useful than slapping {{
Use British English}}
on top of a page. –
Fredddie
™ 01:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi dear Wikipedians!
I am a car fanatic and I have a request. Please can you make some car manufacturer logos available for use on different Wiki languages when creating articles:
Since these logos are the best logos for each of these companies and are with the highest quality and when an user of a different Wiki wants to create an article about these car manufacturers, which is missing on that Wiki and wants to use these logos, can't use them.
Thanks FLORIKRUJA ( talk) 19:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I wonder whether it is worth making a proposal for WikiProjects to make their assessments of list articles more specific? If one goes to the article "List of pastries", one can see it was rated "List class" by WikiProject Food and Drink. This tells us WHAT this article is, but does not tell us its quality. My proposal is to introduce the following ranking for Wikipedia lists:
Q. Contains Questionable Entries Start class. Needs to be more comprehensive C. Reasonably comprehensive and accurate, but still requires more work B. A very good list A. Contains accurate information, covers a good range of entries and provides parameters for information that would not normally be accessible from categories or articles.
I shall look forward to hearing thoughts on this proposal. YTKJ ( talk) 21:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you User:pythoncoder. I see that there are some lists, such as List of songs recorded by Adele or List of works by Dorothy L. Sayers that have been give the distinction of being "Featured Lists". This is a step in the direction of what I am proposing, but I wondered whether other lists should also be ranked. This might help WikiProjects see which lists require more work. YTKJ ( talk) 18:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Earlier this year, I opened up a discussion at the Idea Lab to create buttons that would automatically skip to the top or bottom of a page if you pressed them. It seemed that it should be made into a preference based on the discussion, and I think that this should now be made into a formal proposal, and that is to create a preference for skipping to the top/bottom buttons. Should this be made into a preference? Helloheart 01:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so for me, there's a lot not to like about the new layout.
But someone else can start that eventual RfC : )
I just want to focus on one very specific thing: the talk link being moved to a drop down.
Hiding the talk link is a very very bad idea.
We operate on the consensus model here.
Hiding the talk link just reinforces that edit-warring is the way to go.
And no, I really don't care what some off-site discussion was - so I don't need to hear an WMF employee breezily tell me that a talk page link was determined to not be important on Wikipedia. I'm happy to engage in discussion, but don't blow us off by referring elsewhere as if this project does not matter please. (As an aside, and this goes far beyond this simple RfC - But just thought I'd mention that while I respect the WMF in general - I think it's very important - but I'm really not happy about how things seem to be being pushed through, with fewer and fewer discussions being allowed to be "open" for anyone to participate.)
Anyway, if we weigh importance, I think it's easy to agree that the talk link is more important than the watchlist link. So if space really is the issue argued, then swap them. Or maybe combine "alerts" and "notices" to save space. Or whatever other ideas people may have.
Whatever the case, un-hide the talk link. - jc37 19:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
You also don't want it to be more prominent than the Edit button.Yes I do. Levivich ( talk) 16:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has
announced that January 17 begins voting on a second attempt to obtain approval of Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct. There has been no such voting on the content of the Universal Code of Conduct itself.
Does the community Endorse or Oppose approval of Enforcement Guidelines prior to, or in the absence of, any community approval of a Code of Conduct itself?
This RFC is intended to determine and communicate a consensus position. Editors may consider this during current or future Enforcement Guideline votes, and the Wikimedia Foundation may consider it when evaluating how to proceed if the second Guideline vote turns out worse than the first vote. Alsee ( talk) 07:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics...like...race( m:Universal Code of Conduct § 3.1 – Harassment). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
It's long past time for English Wikipedia to grow up and start behaving like the rest of the world and not like the wild west... which means a UCOC, and at least some method of UCOC enforcement by impartial professionals rather than volunteer members of the community.this is going to come off like snark, but I mean this sincerely: if you believe this you should vote against the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines. The Enforcement Guidelines have the Principle of subsidiarity as a major tenet which means that nearly all enforcement, including all new enforcement enabled on other projects that don't have policies and guidelines that already cover the tenets of the UCoC (unlike us), will continue to be done by volunteers (both in the sense that it's people willing to enforce the UCoC and that they are not impartial professionals). There's a path not taken where professional enforcement of the UCoC is what happens but that was not what either of the committees that drafted the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines chose. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The U4C’s membership shall be reflective of the global and diverse makeup of our global community.True, the current "such as but not limited to" list is only in connection with the building committee, but I'd be surprised if they didn't wind up with basically the same thing for the committee itself. Anomie ⚔ 10:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
allow, and have always allowed, things like the aggressive promotion of fringe theories or even "dogwhistle" racism, sexism, transphobia, blatant trolling and so on as long as it doesn't trip one of the few red lines they've setis how I'd describe Wikipedia ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't really think that Twitter or Facebook (or any other social media, or reddit, or 4chan, etc.) is any better or worse than Wikipedia, especially not Wikimedia as a whole. I don't have any statistics or way of measuring it, but in my admittedly anecdotal experience, I just don't perceive a difference between the people here, the people on any other social media I've used, and the people out there in "the real world". It's all filled with racism, sexism, -phobias, etc. If anything, I think we're a little bit worse, because we let people vote other people off the website, which gives Wikipedia more of a Lord of the Flies vibe than other sites, IMO...and I say that as a participant in many such votes. It's a YMMV situation I think. Levivich ( talk) 04:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
UCoC violations that happen on a single wiki: Handled by existing enforcement structures according to their existing guidelines..., from the revised enforcement guidelines) have a way to influence the process. isaacl ( talk) 04:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
In the end this is a non-neutrally worded advisory RfC about a Wikimedia wide advisory vote to the Board who will make an actual vote.Also I'm somewhat skeptic about how to interpret whatever result comes out of this RFC, given there is a community consultation about EG approval via vote, which I'd expect to have higher participation than this RFC. MarioGom ( talk) 20:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Note: There was a previous version of this RFC, above, with non-trivial discussion. Pinging previous participants: Joe Roe Certes Andrevan Barkeep49 Isaacl Andreas North8000 Red-tailed hawk FunIsOptional HouseBlaster Alsee ( talk) 08:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
House Blaster talk 23:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)As of late, the relationship between the WMF and "the community" has improved drastically (see Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022 banners and Wikipedia:Page Curation/2023 Moderator Tools project). We had the first vote on the enforcement guidelines because we made a politely-worded request. This prompted a detailed response from the BoT, including a commitment that
[b]oth the UCoC and the enforcement guidelines (after ratified), will also be open for review and voter-endorsed amendments annually. When we voted last year on the enforcement guidelines, it passed. The board responded by convening a revisions committee to address the concerns of the minority of people who opposed the guidelines, and they changed the UCoC itself based off of similar concerns. They have already shown plenty of good faith. I think an open letter requesting the promised amendment process on the UCoC itself followed by a ratification vote on the entire document is the most productive way forward. One final note: one of the recommendations from the Enforcement Guidelines Revisions Committee was that the UCoC be added to the Terms of Use. A consultation with legal about this (and some other modifications) is scheduled to begin on February 21.
I am not sure what this vote is about
-
Ymblanter. I'll try to clarify for anyone unsure what this is about. The issues are (1) the Code of Conduct itself has not been approved by the community, with the predictable result that (2) many people have issues with the contents of the Code of Conduct. It is impossible to "fix" either of those issues by revising the Enforcement Guidelines. The contents of the Enforcement Guidelines are irrelevant here. An "Oppose" vote here presumably indicates an intent to vote against any version of Enforcement Guidelines unless&until we have an approved Code of Conduct. That essentially says to the Foundation that it needs to back up and get an approvable and actually-approved Code first.
Alsee (
talk) 01:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Chris_troutman I suspect your confusion/misunderstanding may be sarcasm, but in case it wasn't: The WMF took charge of producing the Code, the Board accepted it, and neither the WMF nor Board felt there was any need for community approval. I believe(?) it was pressure from various ArbComs that persuaded the WMF to graciously grant us permission to vote on the Enforcement Guidelines. They weren't originally planning on that. Praised-be the WMF, for they have so vastly improved relations and respect for the community as a partner. Oops, I think I just sarcasmed. Alsee ( talk) 04:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
this removes a requirement for admin to agree to the UCoC at risk of losing their adminship
Again with the proviso that I have not looked at this in any real depth, that something like this was included to begin with is, I think, concerning, and makes me even less disposed to approve the guidelines. If anyone thinks that not approving them is misguided because of a lack of understanding/appreciation for the situation, I would appreciate a pointer to the relevant material.
Selfstudier (
talk) 13:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
all advanced rights holdersshould be required to
affirm [that] they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct. There's nothing in there about what would happen if someone refused to affirm it. – Joe ( talk) 07:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@
Levivich: - continuing this discussion on the effectiveness of Wikipedia's community-based moderation vs. Facebook and Twitter's from-above, since it seems central. Maybe we (or the WMF) should focus on producing those statistics, since we need to understand the problem we're trying to solve. But there's definitely massive volumes of studies on the problems Facebook and (even pre-Musk) Twitter have:
[1]
[2]
[3] - in comparison, multiple studies have praised Wikipedia's community-based approach - caveat that many of them focus more on content, because that's what we're famous for, but:
[4]
[5]
[6] Generally speaking, sources that discuss Wikipedia, Twitter, and Facebook's handling of content moderation together describe Wikipedia as a model for getting it right. I think the reason why it feels, anecdotally, like we don't is partially because our community-based system (the "Lord of the Flies" process you mentioned) tends to be loud, especially when dealing with longstanding editors - we just had that a massive incident with Athaenara, say. But that's partially because we do these things out in the open, which IMHO is necessary to catch things that more top-down systems don't and for the moderation system to scale in a way that keeps up with our size. I also think that, as "power-users" who are deep within Wikipedia, we're more familiar with the details of the places where it does fail. My concern is that if we shift to relying more on top-down rules, we'll have less big discussions like that, yes, but that will be because a lot of things slip through the cracks - I think that top-down approaches don't actually work at the scale we operate on. The sometimes riotous discussion is actually necessary for us to consider context and nuance and handle edge-cases that eg. a list of forbidden words wouldn't capture. It's also easier for a blunt top-down system to be abused - yes, sometimes we have issues here where someone is harassed and then snaps and gets in trouble themselves, but at least our processes give us some leeway to observe and understand that context; boomerangs are not uncommon. A more blunt and rigid code of conduct won't necessarily allow for that, leading to victims getting reported and banned by the very people abusing them (not uncommon on Facebook and Twitter.) --
Aquillion (
talk) 20:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The results of the vote across all projects has been posted on meta.
76% of editors voted in favor with 3097 editors participating in this second vote. In terms of enwiki participation While 1007 voters had their homewiki registration set to English Wikipedia, only 803 voters had their most edits there.
Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 19:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While the Wikimedia Foundation does not offer web hosting services, it does provide free and open source software, including the MediaWiki platform, which powers Wikipedia and many other wikis. Anyone can download and install MediaWiki on their own web server or hosting provider, allowing them to create their own wiki.
Additionally, there are many web hosting companies that specialize in hosting MediaWiki and other wiki software. These hosting providers often offer one-click installs and other tools to make it easy to set up and manage a wiki.
It would be nice if Wikimedia Foundation had a commercial web hosting division that allowed one-way direct wikilinking to Wikipedia's articles. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Proposal: Apply extended-confirmed restriction and one revert restriction through general sanctions to all topics relating to gender identity, including transgender and non-binary gender
There are currently ARBCOM sanctions on topics related to gender and sexuality as described at WP:GENSEX. This allows uninvolved administrators to apply and enforce restrictions on related articles and editors in this topic area. Unfortunately, it seems that this is not sufficient to prevent widespread disruption in the topic area. Gender identity is highly contentious and causes significant disruption, and that's unlikely to change any time soon. Furthermore, this topic area is among those most capable of causing real world harm. For these reasons, I'm proposing the creation of community-authorized WP:ARBPIA-equivalent restrictions for this subject. This would entail:
It would not replace or change the ARBCOM GENSEX sanction, but it would supplement it in this specific area with ECR and 1RR. To my understanding, this is the highest level of restriction in use under general sanctions, and it currently applies to Palestine–Israel, the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, and cryptocurrency. Before any RfC is created, I'm posting this proposal here to determine:
If there is support for this proposal, then the next step would be to create an WP:AN RfC to formally authorize these sanctions. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Within articles covered by WP:WikiProject LGBT studies:
BilledMammal ( talk) 01:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Table of results
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hello everyone, I have dealt with spams on newly created pages for a while. I believe they are in the likely patterns,
Could we add a filter for tagging them with specific edit summary? For example, new users adding links contain their own usernames or new users adding links on their subpages. It will be better for us to deal with spams. -Lemonaka 18:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Per MASSCREATION and WP:SEMIAUTOMATED, I request permission to mass-create articles pertaining to villages and municipalities in Turkey, including templates and categories. After creating many articles, was advised to seek permission for such semi-automated creations. Discussion here here. Semsûrî ( talk) 17:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Table of articles created by Semsûrî on villages and municipalities in Turkey, between December 2022 and February 2023 (2010 articles)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.(emphasis added) Maybe we should update that to say that non-bot semi-automated mass creation should be approved at VPR, if BAG doesn't want semi-auto to go to BRFA. Levivich ( talk) 20:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
all mass-created articles (except those not required to meet WP:GNG) must cite at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG, so I think if you are including the secondary source in "Further reading" then that's good enough (even if the source isn't yet cited for prose). That way, anyone looking at the article knows the village has at least one GNG source (the one in Further reading), plus anyone else who wants to expand the article will have at least one source listed they can use to expand it, so I think it would encourage expansion. Levivich ( talk) 21:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that English Wikipedia would benefit massively for a bot to create missing populated settlements which are near start class upon creation and consistentIn theory I would support this; I suspect it can be done well, and if it is the result would be both the creation of new articles and the improvement of existing articles. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
"The center-village model is best understood against an administrative background. Administration in Turkey is strong in centers, but weak in peripheries. The villages are formally headed by the village-chief ( muhtar), who is supposed to implement the law in village affairs and act upon directives of the governor and district officer. In practice, the governor and district officer do not take much notice of village affairs (as long there is no urgent need), and the village headman does not take much notice of the law (so long as he is not forced to), particularly if village custom already provides an accepted alternative method of dealing with a problem". The administrative status of the hamlets, which outnumber villages by almost a third, is unclear. In some occassions the muhtar of a neighboring village has authority over a hamlet, but at other times a formal administration is absent, and administration takes place through customary law.
I am writing to request the promotion of the WikiShootMe.js user script as a Gadget on Wikipedia. The WikiShootMe.js user script is a useful tool that allows users to quickly access the Wikishoot tool page, which displays Wikidata items, Wikipedia articles, and Commons images with coordinates on the same map, won the Coolest Tool Award in 2021.
The user script takes latitude and longitude coordinates from a Wikipedia page and redirects the user to the Wikishoot tool page. This can be very useful for editors who need to quickly locate images and other media related to a particular location.
The WikiShootMe.js user script has been developed and tested by myself and other users, and we believe it meets the criteria for promotion as a Gadget on Wikipedia. I have provided a link to the script below, along with an installation guide for interested users:
Script link: User:Gopavasanth/UserScripts/WikiShootMe.js Installation guide: User:Gopavasanth/UserScripts More about the tool: WikiShootMe on Meta-Wiki.
Thank you for your consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely, Gopavasanth ( talk) 05:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history's assessment criteria can be viewed at WP:MHA#CRIT. Their C-class criteria are:
The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria.
I am proposing we adopt this for WP:ASSESS's C-class criteria. B6 would not be required for C-class; note that some projects don't use B6.
Rationale:
DFlhb ( talk) 13:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi all! I'm planning to undertake a task that would involve creating a large number of redirects to point the ISO 3166-2 country subdivision codes to the relevant articles on that country's subdivisions. Unless an page with a title matching a country subdivision code already exists, this process would create a redirect at that title to point the relevant subdivision. Some of these already exist as redirects (e.g. the subdivision codes for Argentina), but that set of redirects is currently incomplete. I realize that I could probably do this manually without issue, but it would take quite a while. I would hope to eventually semi-automate the process of creating these, since creating 5000 redirects and adding tags can be tedious if done manually. For that reason, I am asking for consensus around whether this sort of redirect creation is looked upon favorably by the community before I go ahead with mass creation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
ok so i think that vote "options" (idk what's it called in enwiki) such as Support, Oppose, Comment should have a little icon that represents the options. so like Support ; Oppose; Comment and Meh. tynjee 02:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Project-independent quality assessments for discussion on this concept.
Quality assessments define how close we are to a distribution-quality article in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, wikilinks etc. Most projects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some large projects have specialized assessment guidelines. This is to propose adding a |class= parameter to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment, and letting project banner templates "inherit" this assessment. {{ WPBannerMeta}} will look after the details, so the project banner templates will not have to change.
Projects with specialized quality assessment approaches, which will be recognized by {{
WPBannerMeta}} using a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter, can continue to record these assessments on their project banners and link to their specialized quality assessment scales.
Importance assessments are project-specific, showing how important the article is in providing complete coverage of the project subject area. An article may be high importance for one project, low importance for another, and irrelevant to most projects. This proposal does not affect importance assessments.
Banners using article-level general quality assessment are illustrated below:
|QUALITY_CRITERIA=
has the value "custom", the project class will be displayed and used to create categories as at present. The project class will be displayed even if it is the same as the article class. Projects will be canvassed to set this parameter if they want to use custom quality assessment criteria.{{Template parameter value|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|WikiProject banner shell||class}}}}
Comments? Aymatth2 ( talk) 17:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
A list of the road's junctions and landmarks, if appropriate), can still do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
|importance=
can vary by project, |class=
is one parameter that should be universal across the board.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 06:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)|class=
value for opt-in projects when the same as the article-level |class=
value. The opt-in projects could also change their banner templates to stop passing the |class=
value to {{
WPBannerMeta}}, or this could also be done by a bot, but there is no urgency for such a change.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 14:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC){{ WikiProject Military history}} does not use it (maybe it should) and I don't know how many projects do or do not.see Category:WikiProject banner templates not based on WPBannerMeta. Only 3 WikiProjects don't use it. These should probably all be converted. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I think you can go ahead and implement this; I have removed it from WP:CENT as it's clear enough at this point. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 22:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Some boxes like notifications that an article may be merged or split might not be something a passing user would want to know. Perhaps having those contained within a pre collapsed box would be better. Or maybe a generic notification that there are administrative (or something) things to be aware of and going to the article talk page gives more information.
2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:B409:AC04:8255:CFA1 ( talk) 16:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The 'Possible backlinks' link (left sidebar under 'Tools') is very useful for helping to integrate new articles into the encyclopedia, as is recommended by the lead sentence at MOS:LINK and at WP:Orphan, but it doesn't work while an article is still in Draft space. I often develop in Draft space, and one part of my launch plan is the preparation of a set of articles from which backlinks should be added. I still use the tool anyway, but the default result set is always zero results, and I have to manually delete the 'Draft' prefix in two places. That shouldn't be necessary, and may leave some editors persuaded that there really are no useful article backlink candidates. Can we get this useful tool updated to drop the prefix, so users can more easily prepare their backlink article set? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello all. Myself and User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao have been adding 'Use ... English' maintenance templates (e.g. Template:Use British English) to articles that deserve them en masse utilising AutoWikiBrowser, however another admin has suggested that we gain consensus before continuing doing this. I believe the argument against was that it's [neither] necessary or desirable to place that tag on tens of thousands of articles (see this short discussion). A bot was suggested to carry out this purpose, however I believe that the nature of these tags, i.e. garnering context from the article itself, requires a human edit. Neither of us see anything undesirable about adding this maintenance template per se, however we both paused our efforts until some sort of discussion had been had. Any comments on this would be most welcome. Thank you and best wishes. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 ( Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 19:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
col(o|ou)r
, defen(se|ce)
, etc. were templated to conform to your ENGVAR regardless of the topic's ENGVAR. Number templates could default to lakh and crore instead of thousands and millions for our Indian readers. To me, that is more useful than slapping {{
Use British English}}
on top of a page. –
Fredddie
™ 01:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi dear Wikipedians!
I am a car fanatic and I have a request. Please can you make some car manufacturer logos available for use on different Wiki languages when creating articles:
Since these logos are the best logos for each of these companies and are with the highest quality and when an user of a different Wiki wants to create an article about these car manufacturers, which is missing on that Wiki and wants to use these logos, can't use them.
Thanks FLORIKRUJA ( talk) 19:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I wonder whether it is worth making a proposal for WikiProjects to make their assessments of list articles more specific? If one goes to the article "List of pastries", one can see it was rated "List class" by WikiProject Food and Drink. This tells us WHAT this article is, but does not tell us its quality. My proposal is to introduce the following ranking for Wikipedia lists:
Q. Contains Questionable Entries Start class. Needs to be more comprehensive C. Reasonably comprehensive and accurate, but still requires more work B. A very good list A. Contains accurate information, covers a good range of entries and provides parameters for information that would not normally be accessible from categories or articles.
I shall look forward to hearing thoughts on this proposal. YTKJ ( talk) 21:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you User:pythoncoder. I see that there are some lists, such as List of songs recorded by Adele or List of works by Dorothy L. Sayers that have been give the distinction of being "Featured Lists". This is a step in the direction of what I am proposing, but I wondered whether other lists should also be ranked. This might help WikiProjects see which lists require more work. YTKJ ( talk) 18:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Earlier this year, I opened up a discussion at the Idea Lab to create buttons that would automatically skip to the top or bottom of a page if you pressed them. It seemed that it should be made into a preference based on the discussion, and I think that this should now be made into a formal proposal, and that is to create a preference for skipping to the top/bottom buttons. Should this be made into a preference? Helloheart 01:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so for me, there's a lot not to like about the new layout.
But someone else can start that eventual RfC : )
I just want to focus on one very specific thing: the talk link being moved to a drop down.
Hiding the talk link is a very very bad idea.
We operate on the consensus model here.
Hiding the talk link just reinforces that edit-warring is the way to go.
And no, I really don't care what some off-site discussion was - so I don't need to hear an WMF employee breezily tell me that a talk page link was determined to not be important on Wikipedia. I'm happy to engage in discussion, but don't blow us off by referring elsewhere as if this project does not matter please. (As an aside, and this goes far beyond this simple RfC - But just thought I'd mention that while I respect the WMF in general - I think it's very important - but I'm really not happy about how things seem to be being pushed through, with fewer and fewer discussions being allowed to be "open" for anyone to participate.)
Anyway, if we weigh importance, I think it's easy to agree that the talk link is more important than the watchlist link. So if space really is the issue argued, then swap them. Or maybe combine "alerts" and "notices" to save space. Or whatever other ideas people may have.
Whatever the case, un-hide the talk link. - jc37 19:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
You also don't want it to be more prominent than the Edit button.Yes I do. Levivich ( talk) 16:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has
announced that January 17 begins voting on a second attempt to obtain approval of Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct. There has been no such voting on the content of the Universal Code of Conduct itself.
Does the community Endorse or Oppose approval of Enforcement Guidelines prior to, or in the absence of, any community approval of a Code of Conduct itself?
This RFC is intended to determine and communicate a consensus position. Editors may consider this during current or future Enforcement Guideline votes, and the Wikimedia Foundation may consider it when evaluating how to proceed if the second Guideline vote turns out worse than the first vote. Alsee ( talk) 07:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics...like...race( m:Universal Code of Conduct § 3.1 – Harassment). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
It's long past time for English Wikipedia to grow up and start behaving like the rest of the world and not like the wild west... which means a UCOC, and at least some method of UCOC enforcement by impartial professionals rather than volunteer members of the community.this is going to come off like snark, but I mean this sincerely: if you believe this you should vote against the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines. The Enforcement Guidelines have the Principle of subsidiarity as a major tenet which means that nearly all enforcement, including all new enforcement enabled on other projects that don't have policies and guidelines that already cover the tenets of the UCoC (unlike us), will continue to be done by volunteers (both in the sense that it's people willing to enforce the UCoC and that they are not impartial professionals). There's a path not taken where professional enforcement of the UCoC is what happens but that was not what either of the committees that drafted the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines chose. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The U4C’s membership shall be reflective of the global and diverse makeup of our global community.True, the current "such as but not limited to" list is only in connection with the building committee, but I'd be surprised if they didn't wind up with basically the same thing for the committee itself. Anomie ⚔ 10:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
allow, and have always allowed, things like the aggressive promotion of fringe theories or even "dogwhistle" racism, sexism, transphobia, blatant trolling and so on as long as it doesn't trip one of the few red lines they've setis how I'd describe Wikipedia ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't really think that Twitter or Facebook (or any other social media, or reddit, or 4chan, etc.) is any better or worse than Wikipedia, especially not Wikimedia as a whole. I don't have any statistics or way of measuring it, but in my admittedly anecdotal experience, I just don't perceive a difference between the people here, the people on any other social media I've used, and the people out there in "the real world". It's all filled with racism, sexism, -phobias, etc. If anything, I think we're a little bit worse, because we let people vote other people off the website, which gives Wikipedia more of a Lord of the Flies vibe than other sites, IMO...and I say that as a participant in many such votes. It's a YMMV situation I think. Levivich ( talk) 04:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
UCoC violations that happen on a single wiki: Handled by existing enforcement structures according to their existing guidelines..., from the revised enforcement guidelines) have a way to influence the process. isaacl ( talk) 04:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
In the end this is a non-neutrally worded advisory RfC about a Wikimedia wide advisory vote to the Board who will make an actual vote.Also I'm somewhat skeptic about how to interpret whatever result comes out of this RFC, given there is a community consultation about EG approval via vote, which I'd expect to have higher participation than this RFC. MarioGom ( talk) 20:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Note: There was a previous version of this RFC, above, with non-trivial discussion. Pinging previous participants: Joe Roe Certes Andrevan Barkeep49 Isaacl Andreas North8000 Red-tailed hawk FunIsOptional HouseBlaster Alsee ( talk) 08:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
House Blaster talk 23:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)As of late, the relationship between the WMF and "the community" has improved drastically (see Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022 banners and Wikipedia:Page Curation/2023 Moderator Tools project). We had the first vote on the enforcement guidelines because we made a politely-worded request. This prompted a detailed response from the BoT, including a commitment that
[b]oth the UCoC and the enforcement guidelines (after ratified), will also be open for review and voter-endorsed amendments annually. When we voted last year on the enforcement guidelines, it passed. The board responded by convening a revisions committee to address the concerns of the minority of people who opposed the guidelines, and they changed the UCoC itself based off of similar concerns. They have already shown plenty of good faith. I think an open letter requesting the promised amendment process on the UCoC itself followed by a ratification vote on the entire document is the most productive way forward. One final note: one of the recommendations from the Enforcement Guidelines Revisions Committee was that the UCoC be added to the Terms of Use. A consultation with legal about this (and some other modifications) is scheduled to begin on February 21.
I am not sure what this vote is about
-
Ymblanter. I'll try to clarify for anyone unsure what this is about. The issues are (1) the Code of Conduct itself has not been approved by the community, with the predictable result that (2) many people have issues with the contents of the Code of Conduct. It is impossible to "fix" either of those issues by revising the Enforcement Guidelines. The contents of the Enforcement Guidelines are irrelevant here. An "Oppose" vote here presumably indicates an intent to vote against any version of Enforcement Guidelines unless&until we have an approved Code of Conduct. That essentially says to the Foundation that it needs to back up and get an approvable and actually-approved Code first.
Alsee (
talk) 01:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Chris_troutman I suspect your confusion/misunderstanding may be sarcasm, but in case it wasn't: The WMF took charge of producing the Code, the Board accepted it, and neither the WMF nor Board felt there was any need for community approval. I believe(?) it was pressure from various ArbComs that persuaded the WMF to graciously grant us permission to vote on the Enforcement Guidelines. They weren't originally planning on that. Praised-be the WMF, for they have so vastly improved relations and respect for the community as a partner. Oops, I think I just sarcasmed. Alsee ( talk) 04:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
this removes a requirement for admin to agree to the UCoC at risk of losing their adminship
Again with the proviso that I have not looked at this in any real depth, that something like this was included to begin with is, I think, concerning, and makes me even less disposed to approve the guidelines. If anyone thinks that not approving them is misguided because of a lack of understanding/appreciation for the situation, I would appreciate a pointer to the relevant material.
Selfstudier (
talk) 13:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
all advanced rights holdersshould be required to
affirm [that] they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct. There's nothing in there about what would happen if someone refused to affirm it. – Joe ( talk) 07:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@
Levivich: - continuing this discussion on the effectiveness of Wikipedia's community-based moderation vs. Facebook and Twitter's from-above, since it seems central. Maybe we (or the WMF) should focus on producing those statistics, since we need to understand the problem we're trying to solve. But there's definitely massive volumes of studies on the problems Facebook and (even pre-Musk) Twitter have:
[1]
[2]
[3] - in comparison, multiple studies have praised Wikipedia's community-based approach - caveat that many of them focus more on content, because that's what we're famous for, but:
[4]
[5]
[6] Generally speaking, sources that discuss Wikipedia, Twitter, and Facebook's handling of content moderation together describe Wikipedia as a model for getting it right. I think the reason why it feels, anecdotally, like we don't is partially because our community-based system (the "Lord of the Flies" process you mentioned) tends to be loud, especially when dealing with longstanding editors - we just had that a massive incident with Athaenara, say. But that's partially because we do these things out in the open, which IMHO is necessary to catch things that more top-down systems don't and for the moderation system to scale in a way that keeps up with our size. I also think that, as "power-users" who are deep within Wikipedia, we're more familiar with the details of the places where it does fail. My concern is that if we shift to relying more on top-down rules, we'll have less big discussions like that, yes, but that will be because a lot of things slip through the cracks - I think that top-down approaches don't actually work at the scale we operate on. The sometimes riotous discussion is actually necessary for us to consider context and nuance and handle edge-cases that eg. a list of forbidden words wouldn't capture. It's also easier for a blunt top-down system to be abused - yes, sometimes we have issues here where someone is harassed and then snaps and gets in trouble themselves, but at least our processes give us some leeway to observe and understand that context; boomerangs are not uncommon. A more blunt and rigid code of conduct won't necessarily allow for that, leading to victims getting reported and banned by the very people abusing them (not uncommon on Facebook and Twitter.) --
Aquillion (
talk) 20:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The results of the vote across all projects has been posted on meta.
76% of editors voted in favor with 3097 editors participating in this second vote. In terms of enwiki participation While 1007 voters had their homewiki registration set to English Wikipedia, only 803 voters had their most edits there.
Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 19:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While the Wikimedia Foundation does not offer web hosting services, it does provide free and open source software, including the MediaWiki platform, which powers Wikipedia and many other wikis. Anyone can download and install MediaWiki on their own web server or hosting provider, allowing them to create their own wiki.
Additionally, there are many web hosting companies that specialize in hosting MediaWiki and other wiki software. These hosting providers often offer one-click installs and other tools to make it easy to set up and manage a wiki.
It would be nice if Wikimedia Foundation had a commercial web hosting division that allowed one-way direct wikilinking to Wikipedia's articles. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Proposal: Apply extended-confirmed restriction and one revert restriction through general sanctions to all topics relating to gender identity, including transgender and non-binary gender
There are currently ARBCOM sanctions on topics related to gender and sexuality as described at WP:GENSEX. This allows uninvolved administrators to apply and enforce restrictions on related articles and editors in this topic area. Unfortunately, it seems that this is not sufficient to prevent widespread disruption in the topic area. Gender identity is highly contentious and causes significant disruption, and that's unlikely to change any time soon. Furthermore, this topic area is among those most capable of causing real world harm. For these reasons, I'm proposing the creation of community-authorized WP:ARBPIA-equivalent restrictions for this subject. This would entail:
It would not replace or change the ARBCOM GENSEX sanction, but it would supplement it in this specific area with ECR and 1RR. To my understanding, this is the highest level of restriction in use under general sanctions, and it currently applies to Palestine–Israel, the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, and cryptocurrency. Before any RfC is created, I'm posting this proposal here to determine:
If there is support for this proposal, then the next step would be to create an WP:AN RfC to formally authorize these sanctions. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Within articles covered by WP:WikiProject LGBT studies:
BilledMammal ( talk) 01:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Table of results
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hello everyone, I have dealt with spams on newly created pages for a while. I believe they are in the likely patterns,
Could we add a filter for tagging them with specific edit summary? For example, new users adding links contain their own usernames or new users adding links on their subpages. It will be better for us to deal with spams. -Lemonaka 18:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Per MASSCREATION and WP:SEMIAUTOMATED, I request permission to mass-create articles pertaining to villages and municipalities in Turkey, including templates and categories. After creating many articles, was advised to seek permission for such semi-automated creations. Discussion here here. Semsûrî ( talk) 17:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Table of articles created by Semsûrî on villages and municipalities in Turkey, between December 2022 and February 2023 (2010 articles)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.(emphasis added) Maybe we should update that to say that non-bot semi-automated mass creation should be approved at VPR, if BAG doesn't want semi-auto to go to BRFA. Levivich ( talk) 20:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
all mass-created articles (except those not required to meet WP:GNG) must cite at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG, so I think if you are including the secondary source in "Further reading" then that's good enough (even if the source isn't yet cited for prose). That way, anyone looking at the article knows the village has at least one GNG source (the one in Further reading), plus anyone else who wants to expand the article will have at least one source listed they can use to expand it, so I think it would encourage expansion. Levivich ( talk) 21:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that English Wikipedia would benefit massively for a bot to create missing populated settlements which are near start class upon creation and consistentIn theory I would support this; I suspect it can be done well, and if it is the result would be both the creation of new articles and the improvement of existing articles. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
"The center-village model is best understood against an administrative background. Administration in Turkey is strong in centers, but weak in peripheries. The villages are formally headed by the village-chief ( muhtar), who is supposed to implement the law in village affairs and act upon directives of the governor and district officer. In practice, the governor and district officer do not take much notice of village affairs (as long there is no urgent need), and the village headman does not take much notice of the law (so long as he is not forced to), particularly if village custom already provides an accepted alternative method of dealing with a problem". The administrative status of the hamlets, which outnumber villages by almost a third, is unclear. In some occassions the muhtar of a neighboring village has authority over a hamlet, but at other times a formal administration is absent, and administration takes place through customary law.
I am writing to request the promotion of the WikiShootMe.js user script as a Gadget on Wikipedia. The WikiShootMe.js user script is a useful tool that allows users to quickly access the Wikishoot tool page, which displays Wikidata items, Wikipedia articles, and Commons images with coordinates on the same map, won the Coolest Tool Award in 2021.
The user script takes latitude and longitude coordinates from a Wikipedia page and redirects the user to the Wikishoot tool page. This can be very useful for editors who need to quickly locate images and other media related to a particular location.
The WikiShootMe.js user script has been developed and tested by myself and other users, and we believe it meets the criteria for promotion as a Gadget on Wikipedia. I have provided a link to the script below, along with an installation guide for interested users:
Script link: User:Gopavasanth/UserScripts/WikiShootMe.js Installation guide: User:Gopavasanth/UserScripts More about the tool: WikiShootMe on Meta-Wiki.
Thank you for your consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely, Gopavasanth ( talk) 05:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history's assessment criteria can be viewed at WP:MHA#CRIT. Their C-class criteria are:
The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria.
I am proposing we adopt this for WP:ASSESS's C-class criteria. B6 would not be required for C-class; note that some projects don't use B6.
Rationale:
DFlhb ( talk) 13:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi all! I'm planning to undertake a task that would involve creating a large number of redirects to point the ISO 3166-2 country subdivision codes to the relevant articles on that country's subdivisions. Unless an page with a title matching a country subdivision code already exists, this process would create a redirect at that title to point the relevant subdivision. Some of these already exist as redirects (e.g. the subdivision codes for Argentina), but that set of redirects is currently incomplete. I realize that I could probably do this manually without issue, but it would take quite a while. I would hope to eventually semi-automate the process of creating these, since creating 5000 redirects and adding tags can be tedious if done manually. For that reason, I am asking for consensus around whether this sort of redirect creation is looked upon favorably by the community before I go ahead with mass creation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
ok so i think that vote "options" (idk what's it called in enwiki) such as Support, Oppose, Comment should have a little icon that represents the options. so like Support ; Oppose; Comment and Meh. tynjee 02:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)