Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
Before creating a new section, note:

• Discussions of technical issues belong at Village pump (technical).
• Discussions of policy belong at Village pump (policy).
• If you're ready to make a concrete proposal and determine whether it has consensus, go to the Village pump (proposals). Proposals worked out here can be brought there.

Before commenting, note:

• This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
• Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

« Archives, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

Some kind some revive to the WP:ADCO

I was looking around some pages, and found the now defunct WP:ADCO. I thought that this would be a great idea to bring back in a way, as the amount of RFAs is dwindling, and I believe there is many Wikipedians who would want to start a RFA, but would find it too daunting. I am aware of programs such as WP:RFAPOLL, but believe we need something more. Now I don’t believe we can revive WP:ADCO in its entirety, but I think we can come up with something similar. Thanks, Lordseriouspig 05:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

My take on this is that anyone who needs coaching will not make a good admin. The quality needed (besides honesty, which I hope goes without question) is to "get" Wikipedia, which is very difficult to teach someone. The problem that we have with RfA goes much deeper than this. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Make UI more user-friendly

As a regular, I find the UI honestly dull. In an age where the Olympics has a webpage for the purpose of quizzes and games. I find that maybe Wikipedia would be touted as a technological marvel in 2015, but the year is 2024 and, in all honesty, Wikipedia is quite uninspiring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamesenior (talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

So, your title is "Make the UI more user-friendly", but your actual interest is "make the website something other than an encyclopedia"? Remsense诉 19:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 Cremastra (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is a technological marvel. There's a lot going on behind that UI. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a marvel that in 2024 there is a high-profile mainstream website that isn’t filled with ads, flashy junk, and trendy design churn. Well, as long as you think Vector 2022 was an improvement… Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 Folly Mox (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a great deal of potential in the notion of supporting a quiz/game interface with Wikipedia. It would not be part of Wikipedia per se, but would draw on and depend upon wikipedia. This could be, potentially, the 21st Century Trivial Pursuits. --03:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There is also a potential for interfacing generative AI into article enhancements in the following way ... Given Wikipedia Article X and Source Y, what propositions would be suitable to pursue for enhancement of the Wikipedia article (X) based on the newly propositioned citation (Y)? The beauty of this is that it provides suggestions to editors about how to contribute rather than working toward AI-based article revisions. Thoughts? --03:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a nice idea. I suppose people can already do this albeit in a clumsy, high friction way now that LLM context windows are large enough to cope with the entire contents of Article X and Source Y. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

But that's not that hard for a human to do. I think the effort of building that infrastructure for mediawiki would outweigh the total effort of doing it the way we do now. Cremastra (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No, a big part of the appeal of Wikipedia is being what it is, an encyclopedia, without tons of flashy distractions like games and stuff. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 Donald Albury 16:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

My favorite Wikipedia game is https://redactle.net/ It picks a random page from Wikipedia:Vital articles, blanks most of the words, and leave you to fill in the blanks by guessing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Then maybe you'll like Pedantle better still! Thincat (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Bot to block Proxy/VPN IPs (ST47ProxyBot replacement)

Hey folks, I'd like to get some thoughts on an adminbot that monitors RecentChanges and reactively blocks VPN/open proxy IPs it encounters. We used to have ST47ProxyBot which preemptively blocked such IPs, however the bot's operator, ST47, has indicated that they are no longer interested in running this bot. Long story short, there is a plethora of VPN/open proxies on the internet with new operators coming online every day; it has become technically unfeasible to identify and block all of these. Bad actors have been attacking our admin noticeboards with these VPNs/open proxies which has resulted in them being semi-protected for extended durations of time. That said, I'm interested in building an adminbot that monitors RecentChanges (or just the administrator noticeboards) for edits from VPN/open proxy IPs and blocks them (can optionally revert the most recent edit made by these IPs too). Noting for the record that some discussion on this has occurred here (permalink). Courtesy ping for @Robertsky. -Fastily 21:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have strong feelings against this one way or another. I share the concerns of others that, especially with developments in internet infrastructure over the past decade or two, it is much less simple to block open proxies now. But if an admin bot can accurately evaluate (with a sufficient level of accuracy) and block/revert, so what if it only catches 1% of the actual open proxies? I also think this should be evaluated as a “continuation” of the prior adminbot - even if it has slightly different code, from what I can see there was consensus for this type of adminbot before so absent significant new concerns about the stability/false positives now, should be fine for Fastily or another admin to take over the *task* even if doing it with different code. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thus far the disruptive IP addresses that have been blocked on the admin boards has proxy-like behaviours stated in the user information tool (that can be seen on the Contributions page). That can be a likely reliable signal/condition to revert and block such IP addresses if they touch on the admin boards. – robertsky (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Berchanhimez that this task doesn't seem like it should require a second consensus for approval, but if it does I support it. Folly Mox (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe for full transparency when this bot is activated, User:ST47ProxyBot should get -sysop at the same time, with each bot's user rights log message linking the other account. Folly Mox (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI: the removal is already  Done, simply per request of the operator. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

A bot that monitors recent changes and reactively blocks VPN/open proxy IPs rather than preemptively may be a useful compromise. We already have a bot that monitors recent changes and logs VPNs/proxies at WP:OPD; it seems to log very many but perhaps not all, that will be dependent on the database. As an aside, I’ve never see so many blocked 'anonymizers' on that log, which is almost entirely due to the current disruption.

The current disruption is using a very particular anonymizing network so perhaps a focus on blocking that one preemptively would be helpful in the short term. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

we may need to fix wp:or

initial ideas

I think we may need to look at some possible ways to fix WP:OR. Apparently, one editor thinks it means you can't use any news media coverage for articles. i think their point is maybe that you can only use peer-reviewed articles to cover current events, since those are published findings? i think.

this whole thing kind of doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to me. anyway, I am trying to decide what to add to WP:OR. i have a few possible drafts, but i wanted to get this section started now. i hope to work on some possible drafts, and then post them soon. However, please feel free to comment now. Sm8900 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If the issue is just one editor misunderstanding the existing content then the solution is to explain to them what it actually means. If they cannot or will not understand that then the solution is to take action against that user to prevent their misunderstanding disrupting the encyclopaedia. Only if the misunderstanding is widespread is a rewrite of WP:OR likely to be needed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, that sounds pretty good. i could use a little heelp, actually. would you be willing to please add some input? you can find the article talk page easily, in my contribs history today. Sm8900 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If we want a misinterpretation that's so wide-spread it has been written into the policy, how about we get rid of most of Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources? As far as I've ever seen, the distinction between "primary" and "secondary" is often unclear and seldom actually useful versus the nutshell of WP:OR itself, Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Even much of what's said in the PSTS section is just as true if you only read "source", ignoring the adjectives. Mostly the section seems a vehicle for people to reject a source for being "primary" (i.e. the opposite of the essay Wikipedia:Primary does not mean bad) instead of having a harder discussion about WP:RS and WP:DUE and the other parts of WP:OR. But I doubt this will go anywhere, too many people value exactly that vehicle. Anomie⚔ 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

section break 1 for comments, re wp:or

@Anomie Agree Sm8900 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anomie I agree too. I've lost count of the times that I've had to argue that for objective facts primary sources are often the most reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

well this is helpful. I definitely suggest we think up some small options for revising WP:OR. Sm8900 (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree too. Secondary sources are fine when we have them, but the current wording seems to disfavour primary ones more than they deserve. Gawaon (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC

here is the kind of comment i have to deal with in opposiition to using perfectly good factual data, from perfectly reliable good sources from newspapers: The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or point. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported.

unbelievable!! Sm8900 (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

so this comment is saying that absolutely no data can be gleaned from primary sources such as newspaper accounts, firsthand accounts, etc. really!! this is unbelievable!! is there anything we can do???!!! Sm8900 (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

so by this logic, even a published book would not be able to serve as valid source for self-efident objective facts, such as the book plot etc!!! this doesnt seem reasonable!!! Sm8900 (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Without more context, that's a discussion that probably needs to happen on the page where it's happening rather than here. "The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument" is something one cannot judge without knowing the text in question. Gawaon (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gawaon, the talk page is at Talk:Iraq War. they are simply refusing to let me use newspaper articls that clearly show that major national leaders expressed opposition to the war years later. the question of whether that topic is needed is not the focus of the comment above; they are literally rejecting any use of newspaper articles, as clearly shown in the comment above. Sm8900 (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Instead of "getting rid of" PSTS, I suggested splitting it to its own policy page a while ago (1, 2, 3, probably others). It did not go well. We had really fundamental I-can't-believe-we-are-all-native-English-speakers-here levels of failure in communication. The most frustrating was trying to convince people that if we put the PSTS ==section== on a different page ►with a {{policy}} tag at the top, it would still be a policy. Editors thought that giving PSTS its very own {{policy}} page would be a demotion that would somehow make it stop being a policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

ok. @WhatamIdoing, that info is truly helpful. i was not aware of any of that. you are truly helping me to gain more knowledge on this. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow, yeah. Looks like you had two people there who had things absolutely backwards, seemingly convinced that whether a source is "primary" or "secondary" is critical to determining whether something is WP:OR or not rather than that WP:OR#PSTS is a (somewhat poor) heuristic for "source that will probably have the kind of analysis we need for a good article". Anomie⚔ 01:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

really fundamental I-can't-believe-we-are-all-native-English-speakers-here levels of failure in communication

Many such cases! jp×g🗯️ 04:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe that news sources are good for basic facts, but their use should mostly end there. It's not that you should never use news articles as sources, but at a practical level the key is contemporary versus retrospective coverage. Real time contemporary sources definitely shouldn't be used to determine notability, provide analysis, explain effects or significance, etc. They lack the scope and context to make that possible. To avoid bogging down discussions every time this comes up, I wrote my full thoughts at User:Thebiguglyalien/Avoid contemporary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien ok, but the problem here is that we have people who are refusing to use newspaper articles at all. Sm8900 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

by this logic, you would never be able to write articles about opinions of major public figures at all. you would not be able to use a newspaper article to glean a public figure's opinions on anything, and you would need to someohow search for some complex thesis article when writing even about the most minor issues. Sm8900 (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's kinda the point? If no one else has ever written about the views of some major public figure on some topic in e.g. a book about the topic or the public figure, and the only place we can find that information is in some contemporary news article, then it's probably not important enough to include in an encyclopaedia article. Folly Mox (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

on the contrary, most historical statements get completely missed by secondary soruces. this is wikipedia. the historical coverage here is ten times more broad and more complete than any other reference works that are published. Sm8900 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your impression of our historical coverage is roughly the reciprocal of my impression, ± a few orders of magnitude. And I'd posit that most historical statements are deliberately unmentioned by secondary sources, not "missed" during the research phase. Folly Mox (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, so then wikipedia is the repository for such statements, which most historical works and journal articles would otherwise miss entirely. Sm8900 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and is WP:NOT. In all these years, has no one ever nudged you in the right direction and told you that you're supposed to be summarizing information from reliable secondary sources, proportional to how it appears in these sources? That you can't string together primary sources to support an argument? The historical works and journal articles have already decided what's significant enough to cover. We don't get to act like we know better than them; that would be original research and it would deviate from a neutral point of view. Surely at some point your work has seen scrutiny through a process like GAN or PR where a problem like this should have been noticed? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

ok sorry, i truly don't understand. so if a natural disaster, or an election, or a major coup, or a major government appointment occured within the last week or so, what sources should be used, other than newspaper articles? could you please clarify?

I think this discussion will go much better if we are simply open to asking questions, or expressing constructive ideas and opinions, and getting useful information. ok, so please feel free to clarify. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If a simple fact needs updating like who holds a government office, then yes, a news article is fine to verify that. News articles might also be useful for basic facts, like if one mentions someone's date of birth for example. It's not that primary sources can never be used. It's that they don't dictate content. Like I said under section break 2, WP:PROPORTION lays it out plainly. An event or an opinion simply appearing in the news on its own isn't enough to say it needs to be in an article (let alone have its own article); millions of things appear in the news. But if a subject matter expert includes it in a journal, a book, or any sort of analysis, that's an indication that it might be WP:DUE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

ok. thats a valid reply. but then, why do we have articles on elections , coups, natural disasters, new laws, changes in government, etc? if no secondary soruces exist for such event when they are only two or three weeks in the past, then how can such articles exist? Sm8900 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Political stuff like elections and coups get analyzed pretty much right away. There's already extensive analysis of the upcoming U.S. elections, and those are still months away. But in my opinion, people often jump the gun on creating articles about events like disasters or crimes, and they often have to get deleted eventually. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, so now wait a second friend. the title of this is maybe we need to fix wp:or, remember? so now maybe we are finally coming around to the actual topic here. ok, so you vote in the column for not using newspapers as sources too often. ok, fair enough. now can we discuss the fact that we already do use them, and then maybe consider what would be some logical constraints or ideas, for how to actually do so properly? Sm8900 (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please remember, both of you, that newspaper articles are secondary sources. Gawaon (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree !! Sm8900 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I would actually say that they are often secondary. Sometimes they are primary sources, like if you wanted to source an editorial for someone's opinion. Loki (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Gawaon This is a common misconception, but it makes a huge difference when it comes to OR and NPOV. When we're considering newly reported content like we are here, they are primary sources. This is the case both in academic historiography and on Wikipedia. Per WP:RSBREAKING: All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution. WP:PRIMARYNEWS also gives a little explainer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, but "breaking news stories" are totally different from articles pblished in an actual print newspaper. "breaking news" refers to stories that can only exist online, as they would need appear immediately after the event. and also, to quote that page: Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources. Sm8900 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Breaking news comes out of radio and television: they would "break into" normal programming (e.g., interrupt a soap opera) to make an announcement. The older equivalent is a Newspaper extra (if you have enough to fill a page) or just a last-second article added at press time (or after it, in the case of a stop press order). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what they are saying. News reports are not secondary sources for the content they are reporting. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox, if the only place we can find that information is in some contemporary news article, then thats why we would use the news article as the source for that, actually. Sm8900 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

section break 2, re wp:or

• Sm8900, I took a Quick Look at the text you would like to add, and immediately saw why other editors are saying that it violates WP:OR. The text starts with a sweeping statement about the world’s view of the war and then attempts to support that statement by giving examples of politicians sharing that view. The examples are individually (and appropriately) supported by citing news sources, but… what is missing is a source that sums up these examples to reach the initial sweeping statement (a conclusion, even though it is written first).

This is classic original research. We can not take examples A+B+C and state conclusion D … unless we have a source that explicitly states A+B+C=D. This is precisely why WP:PSTS warns that primary sources must be used with caution. It is very easy to misuse them to inappropriately support original research. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, i will change it simply to "some notable political leaders." Sm8900 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That does not resolve the Original research… the problem is that you (a Wikipedia editor) are the one combining these individual statements by various politicians to form a conclusion. What you need is a reliable secondary source that combines the statements by various politicians to reach some form of conclusion.

Weasle wording “some” also introduces DUE WEIGHT issues: why were the statements by these specific politicians chosen? Do they represent the majority view or are they cherry-picked outliers? Are there politicians who have contrary views?

Again… what you need to look for is a secondary source that notes what various politicians have said about the war, puts what they said into context and sums it up. Doing it yourself (even hedged by weasel wording) is where you engage in the original part of NOR. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Those kinds of secondary sources don't always exist, depending on the topic. And when reporting politicians positions and views, then published news articles seem totally acceptable as sources. Sm8900 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That's the point. If those secondary sources don't exist, then it should not be in the article. To quote WP:PROPORTION from the NPOV policy: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That sounds vastly exaggerated and non-proportional. Especially for recent events, it'll take years, if not decades, until they (maybe) get reliable coverage in secondary (later insertion: academic) ssources. Academics don't work so fast. Plus many films, series etc. may well get next to no coverage in secondary sources at all, despite meeting our notability criteria. If there are secondary sources, it's best to chiefly rely on them. If not, primary and tertiary sources may well come to the rescue, and that's a good thing. Gawaon (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC), edited 07:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If there's next to no coverage in secondary sources at all, then it is not notable. Per WP:GNG: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. If you think that means Wikipedia would have to ignore most current events, then you're correct. Wikipedia doesn't exist to document news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I got confused a little bit. Generally I tend to think of secondary sources as academic sources, and I'd say those are indeed among the best sources we have. But I had somehow mentally classified newspaper coverage and such as tertiary sources. However, it seems they are generally considered secondary too. WP:NOR#Reliable sources even says that "magazines, journals ... published by respected publishing houses" as well as "mainstream newspapers" are among "the most reliable sources". So sure, a topic needs sufficient coverage in secondary sources, newspapers included, to get its own article, per WP:GNG. I absolutely agree on that. But note that the GNG is about whether a topic gets its own article, it's not about the article content at all. See WP:NNC. Here we're mostly talking about content, so the GNG doesn't apply. Gawaon (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

But WP:DUE certainly does apply to content. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources don't have to be academic. An analysis published in a newspaper is a secondary source for example and these are not uncommon. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gawaon Agree Sm8900 (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

section break 3, re wp:or

While some changes might be needed, I think I would be against "getting rid of most of Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources." In editing historical topics, I have found WP:PRIMARY useful. Users have, for example, tried to argue that Nathan Bedford Forrest wasn't actually racist or involved with the KKK, tried to argue that Mehmed II committed rape on the floor of the Hagia Sophia, etc., using primary sources. If accounts like these (memoirs, diaries, travel literature, ancient histories, etc.) aren't reinforced or repeated by scholars, they usually don't belong in there. I am definitely not arguing for a blanket ban on journalistic sources; the user you're telling about was clearly misinterpreting it. I am just saying how it has been useful for me.--MattMauler (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@MattMauler, thats very useful input. your statement here is very useful: I am definitely not arguing for a blanket ban on journalistic sources; the user you're telling about was clearly misinterpreting it. Sm8900 (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I would make two points. Firstly many editors seem to think that the distinction between primary and secondary sources is something that was made up by Wikipedians. It was not. It has long been used by historians and rather more recently by scientists. And secondly I get the impression that there is a generational divide here between us oldies, who grew up in the days before Wikipedia (and even the World Wide Web) existed, and remember encyclopedias that existed before Wikipedia supplanted them and that were nothing like newspapers, and the youngsters who seem to think that every web site has to be up-to-the-minute with breaking news. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Although our definitions of "primary" and "secondary" seem to match that about as well as WP:NOTABILITY matches wikt:notability. Anomie⚔ 20:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

without newspaper sources, half of wikipedia articles for events in the last 25 years wouldn't even exist. Sm8900 (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Good. Wikipedia isn't a news hosting service for random irrelevant stories that have no historical significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

thats ridiculous. countless articles use newspapers as sources and it is totally vital that they do so. Sm8900 (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Question re secondary sources

I'm finding it completely baffling to understand the objection to secondary sources. where is the secondary, non-journalistic source to tell you who is the Secretary of Agriculture? who is the governor of Maine? who is the director of budget for the city of Norfolk, Virginia? what is the current status of the Iraqi government? what is the current nature of the Q train in Brooklyn, New York? what are current plans for the BQE expressway in New York?

could someone please explain? --Sm8900 (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

furthermore, if an article is decribing any recent current event, then what source would they use other than news articles? there are dozens of examples, obviously. for example, if the article is covering the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, or the 2024 US presidential election, or the accession of King Charles of the UK, what sources would exist at all, other than news articles? I'm truly baffled by this. Sm8900 (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

we already have an article on the recent tragic plane crash in brazil. i don't want to detail it too much in this venue, out of respect for the human tragedy here. however, there would not be any source to use for details on this, other than newspapers. Sm8900 (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:PRIMARY. Generally speaking a primary source trumps a secondary when it is authoritative. In other words, the Secretary of Agriculture is whoever the Department of Agriculture says it is. When it comes to news sources, they can be primary sources and sometimes not. For current events, news sources may be the only sources available. However... primary sources must always be used with great care. It is fine to use them for facts, but you cannot draw conclusions from them. (WP:No original research) For this, secondary sources are required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I Agree !! please note, my key point of agreement is with this statement of yours. please note, I'm saying this with sincere assent, as your statement on this seems fully valid to me!! For current events, news sources may be the only sources available. ....primary sources must always be used with great care. It is fine to use them for facts... [etc] Sm8900 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Last night I was reading Death in Yellowstone and the author talked about the dilemma of using newspapers: Newspapers, as every historian knows, must be used with care, most often as a supplement to more reliable sources. Unfortunately, with all of their potential inaccuracies, caused by deadlines, distance, and other factors, newspapers are sometimes our only sources for fleeting bits of history, pieces that get too easily lost in the forward march of time, and pieces of strictly local history that get published nowhere else. It caught my attention because of this ongoing discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, excellent insights indeed! Agree fully!! with two  ! thank you for that, so much!! Sm8900 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

can we make a rule against excluding newspapers as sources??!!

there seems to be some contradictory rhetoric going on, above on this page. we Wikipedia has articles such as 2024_United_Kingdom_riots#10_August, yet we have people in the section above stating outright that newspapers should not be used as sources. can we simply make it clear there is no basis for excluding newspapers as sources? this simply seems ridiculous. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Newspapers need to satisfy WP:RS requirements and be weighted accordingly with the claim made. There is extensive and nuanced discussion in WP:RSN to resolve disputes over reliability of said newspapers. Happy verifying! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

further example(s) below, of articles requiring newspapers as sources. this whole issue seems self-evident to me.

• 2024 Ecuadorian conflict Sm8900 (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah, thats a helpful item to note, thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can make blanket rules. See WP:MEDPOP for an example of when we shouldn't be using newspapers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we can make a blanket rule that no source should be excluded based solely on what type of source it is. Sometimes using a newspaper is appropriate, sometimes using a newspaper is in appropriate - but in neither case is that because it's a newspaper it's because of the combination of the context of the Wikipedia article and the context of the specific source article. Indeed WP:MEDPOP explicitly says the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible. An excellent newspaper article about a treatment that explains it in appropriate context without oversimplification etc might be the best available for the topic, conversely articles in peer review journals get retracted and those should not be used (other than for WP:ABOUTSELF and similar purposes).

One I've seen a few times is editors rejecting a youtube video as a source because it's a youtube video. Some youtube videos are top quality reliable sources, some are active disinformation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

yes, I agree with @Thryduulf on their comments on this, as stated above.

• I think we can make a blanket rule that no source should be excluded based solely on what type of source it is.
• One [problem] I've seen a few times is editors rejecting a youtube video as a source because it's a youtube video. Some youtube videos are top quality reliable sources, some are active disinformation.

Sm8900 (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we can not (and should not) “ban” citing news media… however, I do think that we often cite news sources inappropriately. There is a more nuanced discussion that needs to take place: When is it appropriate to cite news media, and (perhaps more importantly) when is it inappropriate to do so? Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar, awesome insight and idea. i'm hoping discussion can proceed, and address the possible refinement that you have helpfully added and expressed above. thanks!!! Sm8900 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we really need any more rules about newspaper sources. We already have WP:PRIMARYNEWS, which qualifies when newspapers should be treated as primary sources, and WP:MEDRS, which state that newspapers aren't usually appropriate for medical topics. It really depends on the context and the reliability of each specific source though. Even generally high quality sources like the NYT may not be reliable for high-level scientific discussion, whereas a local newspapers that gets all the facts right can sometimes be used as a source for a complex topic. Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

this is a helpful reply by @Epicgenius. and in general this whole discussion has been very informative. i think this discussion has brought up a lot of points that were helpful, and which helped me increase my knowledge. i will give this some thought, and review the policies again with the points above in mind. I will comment if I think of any actual changes that I would like to propose. Sm8900 (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

OR is working well and as intended, actually

This discussion wasn't making much sense to me until I read Talk:Iraq War#suggest we need a section on "political impact", and then everything fell into place. Sm8900 is trying to add a section on the war's political impact which synthesises quotes he's selected from various American politicians into sweeping statements like By 2016, the public consensus in both major parties of the United States was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. Other editors are correctly pushing back on this because this is a conclusion he has drawn himself rather than a conclusion drawn from a source. This is good. There is no problem here. – Teratix ₵ 06:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

it is not good, and your dismissal of this topic shows your approach.

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with adding a section to describe politicians' opinions on any particular policy issue, using newspaper accounts and articles as sources. it is entirely possible that my own draft on that specific topic needs to be changed or improved, or perhaps discarded if it does not have consensus. that does not change the larger issue here.

your obvious goal is to cause some degree of personal upset here. by the way, @Teratix, all that's needed for WP:Civil to be needed here, is for one of us to state that the other one is acting discourteously. that is it. I will be glad to show you basic courtesy, and ask only the same thing in return. Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

re the public consensus on the Iraq War, when Jeb Bush did not express strong opposition to the Iraq War during the 2016 campaign, he was widely criticized, both by major candidates and also by major media outlets, so in the end he did need to reverse his approach.

and newspaper articles which provide broad overviews of a major societal consensus or reaction, are indeed valid sources in this regard. maybe we need to open a section to address the larger issues here? oh wait, thats right, that's precisely what this section is. Sm8900 (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

in short, your objections above may indeed be valid re my own proposed text for that specific article. with that said, the topics of this discussion here at village pump are entirely different. editors here are entirely free to agree or disagree with my ideas here on the topic of WP:OR, as they see fit.

however i think it is obvious that any editor would find it somewhat demeaning to see their own ideas on one article brought into the discussion as an absolutely non-relevant tangent, in a page section which relates to other issues entirely. i am trying to indeed grant the validity of anyone's views who may wish to disagree with my approach for the proposal at that specific article as you cite above. Sm8900 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

any editor would find it somewhat demeaning to see their own ideas on one article brought into the discussion as an absolutely non-relevant tangent. By your own account, the pushback you received from other editors regarding your proposed addition on Talk:Iraq War was the impetus for starting this discussion in the first place. You, yourself, have quoted and mentioned the discussion in the above sections. Why would you do that if you didn't think it to be relevant?

there is absolutely nothing wrong with adding a section to describe politicians' opinions on any particular policy issue, using newspaper accounts and articles as sources There is a problem when you draw conclusions that the sources do not reach themselves, when the section gives certain perspectives undue weight or when there are higher-quality sources available that could be used instead. These problems were why your proposed Iraq War section was rejected.

that does not change the larger issue here. The point is, despite what you think, there is no larger issue here. Editors applied the policy exactly how they are supposed to, they got the right result, Wikipedia is better off than it would have been. Changing the policy would make things worse.

I'm not out to upset you. I just think your ideas about how Wikipedia works, and how it ought to work, are badly, badly wrong. It's not personal. – Teratix ₵ 15:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• You, yourself, have quoted and mentioned the discussion in the above sections. Why would you do that if you didn't think it to be relevant? correct, i mentioned the specific views on the question of what sources can be used, since thats the topic of this section here at village pump. i did not belittle any of the replies that disagreed with me on the specific proposal for that specific article.
• There is a problem when you draw conclusions that the sources do not reach themselves, when the section gives certain perspectives undue weight .. these problems were why your proposed Iraq War section was rejected. i'm completely ok that there may be flaws or problems with my proposed text for that article, and that the community may choose to disagree or indeed reject the proposed text for that article, if it chooses.
• The point is, despite what you think, there is no larger issue here. Editors applied the policy exactly how they are supposed to, they got the right result, with respect, pelase read the mutilple replies i have received above, that agree with my views on the larger issue here. thats the whole point of opening this question for wider discussion here, where the community can comment.
• I'm not out to upset you..... It's not personal. ok, noted. I'm fully willing to accept your reply on that, as helpful, and as constructive, and as responsive to my concerns. i do appreciate your reply, on that note. thanks.

Sm8900 (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Sm8900… WP:NOR is less about which sources we use than it is about how we use them. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Our job is to summarize what others have said, and not to say original things. When we give examples to support a conclusion, we need to show that at least one reliable source reaches the same conclusion using those same examples. Otherwise, we are stating something original. Teratix is correct in saying that the policy is working as intended. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

it is not working, because lots and lots of people are indeed using newspapers as sources. or sometimes not at all! Sm8900 (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Like was pointed out above, newspapers usually are secondary sources. The issue here is that you're using them to cite something they don't technically say.

My suggestion is to just be very precise in your phrasing. To draw a sweeping conclusion you need a direct source for that, but you can definitely source "Many prominent politicians regarded the war as ..., such as X, Y, and Z" with sources quoting X, Y, and Z. Loki (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think news articles are usually primary sources. Most news articles, if you actually pick up a paper copy and count them up, are very short and say little more than "An event has been planned" or "Someone got arrested for drunk driving" or "A routine government meeting happened". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

What's more important here is to say that newspapers are usually reliable sources – they're just not appropriate for picking random quotes out of (or cherry-picking quotes that support a preferred POV). As WP:RS says, " Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." An appropriate source for the views of various countries or groups for a war that started more than 20 years ago is going to be a book or a scholarly work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

A book or scholarly work is usually going to be more appropriate. That's very different to a different type of source always being inappropriate. It depends on the specific claim that the source is being used to support. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Again… The NOR policy is not about whether we can use newspapers (or any other type of source), but about how we use them. A source can be used appropriately in one context, but be used inappropriately (in a way that violates this policy) in a different context. Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

if you mean my proposal for that specific article is flawed and needs some work, point taken, and no argument there. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2024 UTC)

• Thank you, User:Teratix, for the clarification. Having read the Talk:Iraq War discussion I couldn't understand the reactions of the other participants in this Village Pump discussion. Even after Sm8900 basically told on themselves. Schierbecker (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

possible new subsection for ideas, options, conclusions

A long discussion like this one might benefit from a new subsection, for ideas or conclusions from those who agree on the need to refine our approach to wp:OR in order to allow greater openness to usage of reliable newspaper articles as sources. Also, if they wish, the commenter could indicate their position separately on whether wp:OR needs actual revisions or not. By the way, I am glad to also note and mull over the comments above against my ideas as well. however my main thought here is to compile ideas and options for any positive changes desired. any such proposed ideas would still be fully open for discussion.

Obviously i have no basis for making rules on any comments here, no matter what the topic may be. It's just a thought on how the subsection might be set up. I may set up this new subsection, once some time has elapsed for further comments in the existing discussions above.thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, I am going to conclude my own comments on this pretty soon. anyone is welcome to add views if they wish.

just a small note, in the future, i may review some of the highly informative views above,and formulate some proposal for changing WP:OR, and post it here for comment in a new post, at a later date. I do appreciate all the views above. i have learned a lot, and i hope to use the resources cited above, to add to my knowledge about this. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Content assessment tweaks

Since Content assessment was decoupled from individual WikiProjects, I'd like to develop an idea regarding how it can be tweaked. Currently assessments for Stub-class to B-class can be placed on a talk page by any editor, but the manner in which reassessment is done can be a little tricky. If an editor wants to have their article reassessed (such as moved up from Start to C class), where to do this is currently a little convolluted.

This can be asked on the article talk page, but most talk pages on Wikipedia are will not yield a result, as they are either empty or inactive or both. Or it can be asked on a WikiProject page, which is still not a guarantee of getting it answered (also, might defeat the point of unlinking content assessment from WikiProjects in the first place). Or it can be asked on Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment – which doesn't make sense technically. Surely WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment should be about articles relating to Wikipedia, instead of acting as a general catch-all page as it currently does.

My question is – how could this be optimised? For example, should assessment requests be moved to one centralised location? If so, where? Hope village pump can help me here DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Other than promotion to GA or FA status, very few editors pay attention to article assessments… so we don’t actually need clear cut criteria or a process for assessment. We can rely on editorial judgement.

If you think an article should be assessed as being in a certain “class”, feel free to mark it so. If someone else disagrees, discuss it on the article’s talk page. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and marking an assessment totally independently, without any input from others is and would remain a valid way to assess an article. However, some people may not wish to do this and may want to have an uninvolved editor look at the page. This is the problem I would like to address DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there is benefit in an editor being able to request someone else take a look at an article and seeing whether they think the quality assessment is correct then I can think of two approaches that might work:

• A central location in which to ask.
• A template that can put on an article talk page that populates a category.

In both cases WikiProject article alerts should be generated to aid discoverability by editors interested in the relevant topic area.

Whether there is benefit in such a system is a different question, but I think the answer is yes. Even if it's optional in most cases, someone who was heavily involved in rewriting the article or who has a COI with regard to the subject or who is a declared paid editor may want to (in the latter two cases probably should) ask for another editor's opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Either could be suitable – although a central location may be the better option. In my personal experience, categories don't tend to lead to actions being taken DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If I come across an assessment that is clearly wrong on an article I am involved with, I simply edit out the assessment. By means that are completely mysterious to me someone eventually comes along and (re)assesses it. Thincat (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

What? DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion I think @Thincat is saying that if an article they are involved with is rated as e.g. start class but they believe that is clearly wrong they will simply remove the assessment rank, meaning the formerly start class article is now unassessed class. In their experience these articles then get a new rating (that presumably more closely matches their opinion) from somebody else without any additional input from them (i.e. they make no requests anywhere). They don't know how the people who do the new assessment become aware that this needs doing (although my guess is that they're patrolling e.g. Category:Unassessed United Kingdom articles). Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Thincat (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

In my experience that doesn’t tend to lead to articles being reviewed, either because it is a broad topic (leading to a huge backlog) or because it has a very inactive wikiproject DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Question: other than GA and FA, does it actually matter if an editor self-assesses an article they have worked on? Blueboar (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No, an editor would be completely entitled to change the rank themselves. But again some editors wouldn’t want to do this and would want an uninvolved editor to take a look at it. I’m thinking of proposing a central location to replace Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

DimensionalFusion, content assessment between "stub" and "GA" is meaningless. No one is likely to respond to a request to reassess article quality unless you're taking it through a formalised peer review process, and editors interested enough in the topic would likely respond better at any centralised venue to a generic hey I just created / expanded Topic; improvements welcome than to a request for reassessment.

If you're not comfortable changing the assessment rating yourself on articles you've significantly contributed to, turn on WP:Rater in Special:Preferences, and use whatever it suggests with the default edit summary. If you want other editors to take a serious look at your work, take it through WP:GA. Folly Mox (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If content assessment between "stub" and "GA" is meaningless then why does it exist at all?

Anyway, for people who know that an article does not meet GA standards but want it to be looked at/rated by another editor, if only for 15 seconds, would create a massive waste of time in taking it to GAN as you suggest, which already has a massive backlog. One of the ways to reduce that backlog would be to improve the process for content assessment, no?

A centralised location like what Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment is (but should not be) providing would help this, no? DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As someone mentioned below, they're mostly an historical artefact, leftovers from the days when WikiProjects roamed still. I don't know why we still have them. My apologies if it seemed like I was recommending taking a known sub–GA-quality article through GA. I miscommunicate sometimes. What I meant is that other editors are not likely to invest significant time reviewing work that the primary contributors have not already invested significant time into.

We might not be seeing eye to eye on this because I'm experiencing disagreement with your problem statement. To me, reassessment has never felt tricky: if I've improved an article and notice its rating feeling out of sync, I'll update it. Also the notion of a venue where someone might be guaranteed a response doesn't feel in alignment with the state or ethos of the project.

I suppose you could just remove the rating on articles you've recently improved, which should lead to someone else assessing them eventually. Folly Mox (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

How soon will eventually be though? As far as I'm aware, the Citation needed category for example hasn't led to many articles having citations added

But I see your point. The problem (or, the reason) behind CA is that nobody cares about anything other than FA and GA. DimensionalFusion (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

In theory, the rating helps copyeditors find good-enough articles to bring to GA and major content adders to transform stubs. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

does this actually happen? DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That would be pretty hard to determine. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent backlog drives at WikiProject Unreferenced articles and WikiProject Reliability have used maintenance categories to improve the project, but it really does seem like that kind of organised effort is what it takes to budge the needle even a little bit on highly populated maintenance categories.

At some point last year WikiProject Stub improvement was reactivated to expand stub-class articles, which didn't last long since there were an overabundance of false stubs. I blame myself for rating some of these upwards out of the stub categories without significant expansion.

I don't have good anecdata for routes to GA, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone taking an article there on the basis that it was already B-class. I have seen B-class used in guidance once or twice, like at H:YFA, where newcomers modeling their first article on existing examples are advised to make sure their model is at least B-class.

As to my eventually above, that's difficult to predict, and I don't have time at the moment to look into how long articles remain unassessed, nor even how to formulate a method of checking. Late for work, Folly Mox (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Given the amount of outrage declared paid editors doing anything that could be seen as advancing the interests of their employer (regardless of whether this aligns with Wikipedia's interests) causes among some sections of the community, I think some method of requesting an independent assessment is warranted. Personally I don't see them doing this as an issue at all, but I recognise my views regarding paid editing are a lot more relaxed than the average. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

What does paid editing have to do with content assessment? Gawaon (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If a paid editor has contributed significantly to an article, should they be allowed to change the rating of that article themselves? As I say I don't have a problem with that (as long as it's not to GA/A/FA, but that applies to everyone) but given how controversial paid editing is I suspect some people will have a problem with it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Uh, the problem here is the paid editing, not the content assessment, I'd say. Gawaon (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that there is absolutely NO BENEFIT to be gained from changing an article assessment from “Start” to “C” (or even “B”)… why would it matter if the changer was paid to do so? Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar If there is "absolutely no benefit" why do we have three different ratings? Is telling a client you improved their article from "C" to "B" not a benefit?

@Gawaon neither paid editing or content assessment is a "problem", I think you're misunderstanding this discussion. The question being asked in this discussion is "Should there be some central location or other method for editors to request a different editor re-assess the quality of a given article?" This cannot be answered without answering the question "Is there a reason and/or benefit to requesting another editor do this rather than just doing it themself?". My view is that the answer to the second question is "yes", giving a paid editor as one example scenario of when it would/might be better for another editor to do it. Paid editing is controversial (imo way more controversial than it should be, but that's beside the point) but it is not, in and of itself, a problem. Content assessment is not a problem, but an individual editor reassessing the quality of their own work might be a problem in some circumstances. Given that such circumstances exist, I see benefit in their being a way to avoid the problem. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It's like Blueboar says: Ratings are a hint to other editors, our readers will in general neither see nor care about them, and the payer probably won't either. Gawaon (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thryduulf- To be blunt, we don’t need all these ratings. The original intent was to help wikiprojects figure out which articles needed the most collaboration (we would focus on high “importance”, low “quality” assessments first).

However, as more and more wikiprojects became moribund, the ratings system became increasingly irrelevant. They are now little more than an ego boost (it’s nice to think that you improved an article to a “higher” level). Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Iridescent/Archive 45 § Assessment streamlining (2021) remains the most edifying thread on this topic that I'm aware of. Folly Mox (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t care enough either way but if I could; I would simplify assessments to Stubs, Start, GA, FA. I have never ever used B, C, A classes. If an article can be improved, then do it! These debates about their classes could be better spent on improving the content however much or little. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Folly, thanks for the link. I note that the 2021 discussion focused on GA and FA… while this discussion seems focused on the lower assessments (Mostly “c” and “b” class). Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Only big and active WikiProjects like MILHIST use class A. IMO it's good that B-class exists as it has actual, tighter criteria, and the banners always give tick marks for which specific criteria need improvement.
I do agree that there need not be a centralized, stringent discussion forum for these ratings. They are not supposed to be formal, and I agree with Blueboar. The assessments are working as they should. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that assessments in their current form are not working as they should. Rating an article as GA or FA gets that article more recognition as they get a topicon, and can be featured in DYK or today's featured article.

Rating an article as A-Class, B, C, Start, or Stub does... nothing. Originally they alerted WikiProjects as to how much an article needs improving but since WikiProjects are no longer giving out ratings this seems irrelevant. Which leads to the obvious question – what is the point of content assessment? But that discussion is most likely out of the scope of this idea lab.

If I personally had control over the process then I'd rename A-Class (something like Quality article), and consolidate B and C class into one. DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The ratings provide the exact same information regarding article quality to Wikiprojects as they did before. The change to a single rating did not affect their Wikiproject functionality, all the categories etc. still work. CMD (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The big question is – does content assessment, through wikiprojects or otherwise, help improve Wikipedia? Because from personal experience, lots of wikiprojects seem to not actually undertake coordinated efforts to improve articles, much less using content assessment to do so.

But this is getting off topic, anyway DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It certainly helps at the upper end (GA and FA)… I don’t think the lower end (from Start through B class) is of much use. However, it doesn’t harm anything to have these levels… so… meh. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, it's not a big question as we know the answer already. They're there if someone wants to use them; if they don't want to use them, no harm done. CMD (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally disagree with this – if it isn't going to be consistent what's the point of having it at all DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

We have a single long-standing set of criteria defining each assessment rank that has been pretty consistent over time. Editors apply these based on their best interpretation, up to and more or less also including GA. CMD (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

For the people who don't know about our content assessment processes:

• The most important level is B class This is implicitly the minimum requirement for DYK and ITN.
• GA is B class with a review It is, like Start, C and B, a low level. Since the review is conducted by only one editor, YMMV.
• Our highest level is A class This involves reviews by multiple editors from a project.
• FA is similar to A class, but reviewers are drawn from all projects. However, unlike all the other levels, there are limits on the articles that can be submitted.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

^*trying to be helpful*(Hawkeye means this is guideline that WP:MILHIST follows). I thought ITN required only non-stub status?. Schierbecker (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't find anything at Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines about being assessed as B class. Schazjmd (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK requires Start-class (because their minimum length exceeds a stub).

@Folly Mox (and others), these ratings are primarily for the WP:1.0 team, which uses them for offline/curated releases. The difference between Stub and GA is important to their algorithm. They consider factors like popularity, centrality (=incoming links), and WikiProject ratings (i.e., to identify articles that humans say are important but that otherwise might be skipped). All else being equal, an article with higher ratings in terms of either quality or importance/priority is more likely to make the cutoff. Most of that group's work is coordinated off wiki these days, but AIUI they are still active.

(Search engines don't care, so a spammer/paid editor shouldn't, either.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the time, anything well-cited is gonna be B-class, though it could be C-class or start-class if it's short. While ITN doesn't have this criterion, DYK's length criterion means it's usually B-class. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Only 1,500 character are needed, so that's actually most relevant to the B-class criteria DYK is likely to miss (The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies). DYK articles are expected to be well cited though, and being well-written comes from the attention, so most of the other B-class criteria are met in some way. CMD (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirects to Film categories

For context, I am primarily an editor in the Simple Wikipedia, although I occasionally edit here. Many Wikipedia readers and editors switch to Simple Wikipedia by changing the domain from "en" to "simple", and back. This works well until you get into categories involving films. In simple wikipedia, "films" are referred to as "movies". In English Wikipedia, the only redirect that redirects you from "movies" to "films" is Category:Movies. I wonder if it would be possible or even a good idea to create every related Film category and create a Movie redirect page for it. For example, Category:1942 movies would redirect to Category:1942 films. This would also go for any templates, articles, etc., that would be related. I think this would be a good idea since this is an often enough redirect target, and the words are basically synonyms. I would also wonder if there is a way to automate this. Thank you. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

From anecdotal experience, most people do not know how to edit the URL bar. To go to a site like YouTube.com, they'd Google YouTube even though there's a YouTube suggestion that pops up before they hit enter. I doubt that changing the domain is the primary way of switching against Simple Wikipedia.

I'd recommend using the language switcher (文_A at the top of the screen) to switch between these wikis; after a while of switching with it, the switcher will pick up that you primarily switch between these wikis and put the targets under "suggested languages". Aaron Liu (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

While this may be true in some aspects, that is a very broad and unreasonable assumption of many It is still a very common and reasonable way to switch between wikis. In any case, “movie” is a reasonable redirect for anybody to search up. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 14:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Naming convention for Uzbek names

Although thirty years have passed since the government of Uzbekistan decided to switch to the Latin script, the use of Cyrillic remains widespread, and the Latin script in use is widely considered inadequate to say the least. There's growing pressure to change it, particularly the letters Oʻ/oʻ and Gʻ/gʻ which are particularly problematic. However, so far no political will has materialized.

On Wikipedia, Uzbek names present many challenges, which I discuss in some detail below. Maybe this discussion will lead to a naming convention, which would be quite helpful. I can't start drafting one yet, as I don't have all the answers. Maybe after discussing the issue here, a task force could be put together to start drafting a proposal.

Distinct characters

Google's Uzbek keyboard uses U+02BB ʻ / U+02BC ʼ

The letters Oʻ/oʻ and Gʻ/gʻ (and the tutuq belgisi ʼ denoting a glottal stop or a long vowel) are a nightmare (See Uzbek alphabet#Distinct_characters). Basically, while it's clear that the straight English apostrophe should not be used, there is no official guidance on whether U+02BB ʻ MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA / U+02BC ʼ MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE or U+2018 ‘ LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK / U+2019 ’ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK should be used to properly render these two letters and the tutuq belgisi. Unicode.org states the former should be used. The Uzbek Wikipedia also favors U+02BB/U+02BC, and Google's Uzbek keyboard uses these characters.

However, Uzbek sources often use both—sometimes within the same text—and some do not distinguish between the modifier letter turned comma and the modifier letter apostrophe, instead opting for the straight English apostrophe, which is incorrect. Here's an example of an unfortunate Uzbek name that contains both problematic characters:

	U+02BB ʻ / U+02BC ʼ	U+2018 ‘ / U+2019 ’	Straight Apostrophe	Romanization through Russian
Spelling Variant	Yoʻdosh Aʼzamov	Yo‘ldosh A’zamov	Yo'ldosh A'zamov	Yuldash Agzamov
Sources	English (Yoʻldosh Aʼzamov) and Uzbek (uz:Yoʻldosh Aʼzamov) Wikipedias, Uzbek academic publications (Journal of New Century Innovations), Uzbek newspapers (Platina, Yuz)	Uzbek academic publications (Journal of Culture and Art), Uzbek newspapers (Daryo, Dunyo, Kun,Xabar)	Bloggers (Xurshid Davron), handful of Uzbek newspapers (Uzreport), average Joe	Websites that rely on Russian sources (Bolshoi Theatre of Uzbekistan, IMDb), local journal articles in English (Oriental Journal of Social Sciences)

The question is: should we, like on the Uzbek Wikipedia, formally agree on which pair of characters to use in Uzbek words? I've been using U+02BB ʻ / U+02BC ʼ, but other editors might be using, or may have already used, U+2018 ‘ / U+2019 ’ instead.

On a related note, when a new page is created here on enwiki, the U+02BB/U+02BC pair poses no challenges. However, if the article is misspelled, as in the case of Yodgor Sa'diyev, moving it becomes impossible. "Yodgor Sa'diyev" is clearly wrong: reliable Uzbek sources use both U+02BC (Kknew, Zamin; Ministry of Internal Affairs) and U+2019 (Daryo, RFE/RL's Uzbek Service, Xabar), but not the English apostrophe. The handful of English sources that I could find on Yodgor Saʼdiyev use the Romanization of his name in Russian (Yodgor Sagdiev: Uz Daily) or a mix of his Uzbek + Romanized Russian name (Yodgor Sagdiyev: President.uz)! Since there is no single variant used in English sources, I decided to move the article to the Uzbek Latin spelling. (Although, as mentioned above, there isn't one standard Uzbek spelling, but this still seemed the best option.). However, when I tried to move the page to Yodgor Sa’diyev (with U+02BC), the following error popped up:

The page "Yodgor Sa'diyev" cannot be moved to "Yodgor Saʼdiyev" because the title "Yodgor Saʼdiyev" matches an entry (?!(User|Wikipedia)( talk)?:|Talk:)\P{L}*\p{Latin}.*[^\p{Latin}\P{L}ʻ].* <moveonly> # Latin + non-Latin on the local or global blacklists. If you believe that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first.

When I tried to move it to Yodgor Sa’diyev (with U+2019), I got the following error:

The page title that you have attempted to create contains a right single quotation mark (’) Unicode character. Per MOS:STRAIGHT, such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace it with a standard apostrophe, or a modifier letter turned comma (ʻ) or modifier letter apostrophe (ʼ) character if appropriate, and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.

Talk about a Catch-22! When there are no English sources and it's appropriate to use the Uzbek spelling, what should I do if I cannot move a misspelled page name due to the technical issues mentioned above? Should I request a name change every time I encounter an Uzbek word wrongly spelled with the English apostrophe, or can we make an exception for Uzbek names to facilitate moving articles?

As a page mover, I should be able to move over the title blacklist, so asking at WP:RM/TR could be an option. However, I notice the page has already been moved in the past, so maybe it is best to discuss it first. On that note, if you end up having a lot of them to request and consensus is that they should indeed be moved to the modifier letters turned commas/apostrophe, asking for the page mover right yourself could also be an option. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Romanization through Russian

Since Soviet times, Uzbek names have tended to be crudely transliterated into Russian, especially in official documents such as passports. As you can see in the table above, Йўлдош Аъзамов (Yoʻldosh Aʼzamov in the modern Latin script) was written as Юлдаш Агзамов in Russian, and English sources relying on Russian transliterate it as Yuldash Agzamov (see the table above for sources).

Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should generally use the most commonly used English spelling ("as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources"). Are sources in broken English, like the ones mentioned above, sufficient for this purpose? While the current policy states "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly", it would be helpful to have a general policy for such cases, as most Uzbeks have multiple names, and the Romanization of Uzbek names through Russian is unlikely to stop any time soon.

Listing all the different spelling variants

When a given entity has many different names, it's helpful to list them in the relevant entry. Over the years, I've variously formulated the existence of different spellings while creating content here on enwiki. For instance, in Yoʻldosh Aʼzamov, I wrote:

Yoʻldosh Aʼzamov (sometimes spelled Yuldash Agzamov in English) (Uzbek: Yoʻldosh Aʼzamov, Йўлдош Аъзамов; Russian: Юлдаш Агзамов; May 10, 1909 – June 16, 1985) was...

In the recent entry on Olim Xoʻjayev, I added the following footnote:

Uzbek Cyrillic: Олим Хўжаев; Russian: Алим Ходжаев, romanized Alim Khodzhaev.

There are also Uzbeks like Hamza Hakimzade Niyazi who almost exclusively wrote their name in the Arabic script, and there are many reliable sources that use his name in the Arabic script. This complicates things even further. Is it best to specify all the various spellings in the lead section, or is it better to list them in a footnote? Either way, how should I word it so that it doesn't get too clunky but at the same time lets the reader know that multiple spelling variants exist? It would be really helpful to have some sort of rule of thumb for such cases.

P.S. I create redirects from all the known spellings to the main entry whenever I can. While I haven't encountered any issues on this, a future naming convention should probably have some guidance on redirects as well. Nataev ^talk 19:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Central hub for WikiProjects

I think there should be a central hub for WikiProjects which would provide a space for editors to collaborate on all topics (yes vanilla wikipedia is a collaborative project but note that some editors are more open to collaboration whilst others prefer to work independently, this taps into the former). At the moment WPs are isolated from one another, and collaboration is often limited to within a single WP, when most articles have multiple WP banners and scopes overlap. This central hub could be called something like WP:WikiProject Hub and incorporate the directory (unsure whether WP:WikiProject Council would be best kept technically separate). It could have a resource that people could submit articles to that they would like to collaborate on (eg. most recent at the top, off the list after 2 weeks) and users could filter out/in WikiProjects technically based on the WP banners. I'm sure there's lots of other resources and uses it could provide that I can't think of right now Kowal2701 (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

i could support this idea, depending on the details. however, you should check out WikiProject Council, to see if this existing resource overlaps with your idea. Sm8900 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest you could call it "WikiProject Cafe." that's a word which easily lends itself to this use, and yet has not been used for actual items here, so far. Sm8900 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It'd be like an actual WikiProject, and other WikiProjects would sort of be sub projects of it. I don't know whether WP:WikiProject Council would be best kept separate as a sort of regulator and help hub while this would strictly be for collaboration on articles etc. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

oh. well ok, but sorry that sounds overly broad. i don't really see a role for that. sorry.if you want to see why an overly generalized wikiproject might not work, please look at WikiProject History. let me know what you think, if you want. Sm8900 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

all WP:HIST needs is taskforces for different regions and periods. I really think the lack of collaboration between projects hurts wikipedia and there's a lot of potential here Kowal2701 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, well you have my support for that. could you please come by WikiProject History, and get that going? I can give you my support for that. Sm8900 (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, although not sure about the best approach and I'm wary of wasting people's time. Do we immediately ping people to a discussion about taskforces with minimal initial comment or do we make a fleshed out proposal and then ping everyone? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

in general, it's neither. you simply create the task force with like-minded editors, in areas that you yourself would be interested in editing. that's not an official rule or method, in any way; it is simply my own personal opinion. Sm8900 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

there're already taskforces for each continent, is it not just about reviving those and maybe merging WP:WikiProject European history into a taskforce? If people support it, we should probably discuss it with the people at WP Council, they've expressed similar ideas Kowal2701 (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

sure, revive those. if you find people interested, then go ahead! Sm8900 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

"all WP:HIST needs is taskforces" – No, what HIST needs is people. A collection of task force pages is worse than worthless if there aren't lots of people involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, @WhatamIdoing is actually doing a better job of providing a relevant and helpful reply here than I am,actually. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's got over 300 members, if it were to be reorganised all could be pinged to a post which lists the taskforces, and hopefully enough would engage with them to keep them all sustainable Kowal2701 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, sorry but there is no practical benefit to doing so. editors generaly edit whatever topics inteest them at the moment. there is little to be gained by organizing a whole lot of task forces which no one is already showing an interest in, actually. Sm8900 (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, editors often have narrower interests than just history, which makes WP:HIST too broad like you said. If there was a push to organise the project around taskforces I think enough people might be inclined to engage with them especially considering only a small proportion of the large membership would be needed. I think it's worth a go rather than leaving it semi-active/inactive Kowal2701 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder how many of those "members" are actually active these days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I’d assume 150, but with the taskforces that don’t get off the ground we could just message contributors. Idk, it entirely depends on whether there’s appetite for it Kowal2701 (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, can you describe your idea in concrete terms, with examples?

I can't tell if this is "I want one group of editors to be in charge of all the other groups of editors" (a WP:WikiProject is a group of editors) or if this is "I want a multidisciplinary group of editors". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No this is nothing to do with authority or even a group of editors necessarily. It's a restructuring of the wikiproject system. Think of a tree diagram where you have

central hub --> wikiprojects --> taskforces

Kowal2701 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the central hub? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

To serve as a central place for collaboration on Wikipedia. Where people can collaborate on topics without a WikiProject. A place where WikiProjects can collaborate with one another. To macro manage WP’s coverage. Where WikiProjects can notify people of initiatives etc. To foster collaboration and make a healthier culture. I’m sure there are other uses. I think the resource mentioned in the initial post might be a good core idea. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There are basically no topics that don't fall within the scope of an existing WikiProject.

Cross-project collaboration is relative rare, probably because "editors often have narrower interests", to quote your words above, but interdisciplinary collaboration is common, and even has multiple thematic groups (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles).

If "macro manage" means "tell people that we need more articles about X or fewer about Y", then it's doomed because we're WP:VOLUNTEERS, but the Village pumps serve that purpose. The Village pumps are also where groups can notify others of their initiatives; WP:VPM is usually the most popular for routine announcements.

Creating yet another forum for communication is not usually helpful. See https://xkcd.com/1810/ ("Chat systems") and think about the problem of walled gardens (a handful of pages/people end up isolated from everyone else, leading to drift) and local consensus (e.g., we declare our group to be the One True™ group for deciding whether Our™ articles get an infobox, and we make sure that nobody else gets notified about or invited to participate in these conversations, because Those Other Editors might disagree with us). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, I think there’s some merit to it but there’s too many ways it could fail and it’d take a lot of community resources and time which might not be worthwhile. Tbh with you I just really like the resource mentioned in the initial post, if that could be incorporated into an existing page I’d be satisfied. People really like serendipity and this could provide that, and bypass the isolation of WPs. It is also entirely voluntary, people can submit articles they’re working on that they’d like more input in and others can choose anything that intrigues them. It sort of serves to direct people I guess Kowal2701 (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Articles for improvement. CMD (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s really great. Maybe another list/page with a list could be added which didn’t have nominations so anyone can add an article regardless of importance or page views and it stays on the list for a month and people can filter by WP banners? Kowal2701 (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiProjects are groups of people, and you probably don't want to filter by "WhatamIdoing and her wiki-friends". If you'd like to be able to filter by topic area, then the WMF did some research a few years back, and found that articles could almost always be classified into a couple dozen categories under four main headings of Culture (includes biographies), Geography, History/Society, and STEM. See mw:ORES/Articletopic#Taxonomy for the full list.

Having said that, if you just want a place to tell people what you're working on, then I suspect that Wikipedia:Discord might be a better match that anything on wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that Movement Strategy Forums might be a good venue as well. Sm8900 (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s more you filter by topic area, so you if you’re interested in say 5 topics, you just filter for them, it’s not necessarily about collaborating with those WikiProjects but with people on the articles for improvement page. Those groups are good, but I imagine it’d be a lot easier technically to use WP banners as identifiers for which topics the article is a part of Kowal2701 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If the resource was made, it could have a signpost about it which would attract more to use it as both submitters and browsers Kowal2701 (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were a way to surface articletopic at the article itself, or its talkpage, rather than only being visible through CirrusSearch and the Suggested Edits pane. Folly Mox (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

A tool should be feasible, or maybe a magic word. Something for the wishlist? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Making "Wikipedia:Closing discussions" a guideline?

Within Wikipedia:Closing discussions, only the "Closure procedure" is a how-to and could be split and marked with something like {{Wikipedia how-to}}. The rest seems like widely agreed-upon guidance. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you read WP:PROPOSALS yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Merging mass-created village stubs into district articles

Initial ideas, village stubs

There are a lot of mostly formulaic (though that's not necessarily bad) stubs of villages with 60-100 people that will probably never be significantly expanded, at least beyond one or two events happening there. I know that under the the guideline on geographical features all inhabited places are considered to be notable, but what if very small villages were by default merged into district articles? I'm thinking of a section "Villages" or something similar with a subheading for each village and a few sentences with the population/location (what's already in the leads). Villages that had enough coverage to need their own article would be split; it could be done based on the categories "Rural localities in X district" that already exist.

For example, Basovo and Timonovo in Valuysky District, Russia. The second has 1 event happening there, and the 1st none listed; both are very small towns with a couple hundred people. It's possible Timonovo could be expanded with a description of the event, but that would be rather WP:1E-style and deserve its own article.

I'm posting this here because I don't know the history & policy details sufficiently to put it into proposals (or the 300-vote discussions), but I wanted to see what people thought and if this had been proposed before. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what the guidelines are agreed to. I'd say if a location only cites census tables and maps (gonna use Hashemabad, Kerman as an example), they should be merged with the above-class subdivision. All these location articles only have maps and census tables, could possibly violate geographic feature Notability. Roasted (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I would support this. BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I would cautiously support this as long as it was done carefully so no information was lost, was explicitly without prejudice to later expansion and excluded places with significantly more extensive articles on another language wiki. Of the three places here, only Timonovo has more information elsewhere (ru:Тимоново (Белгородская область)) but that is borderline. My ballpark suggestion would be that any article with circa two paragraphs of prose of non-census information excluding a description of it's geographical location on any language edition of Wikipedia should not be merged in without an individual discussion. I'd also say that before any merge takes place there needs to be a list of all the merges proposed laid out in a fashion easy for humans to check (separate lists or separate sections for each destination article would probably work well). Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Section break 1, village stubs

I support the concept… Wikipedia should continue to cover all noteworthy geo locations, but we can be more flexible in how we cover them. Not all locations require a stand alone article to be included. Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The ru.wiki versions of the villages are not much longer unfortunately, and the length of the longer one comes from quite generic information that would likely apply to the district. Your method of merging to the district article sounds like one in which no information would be lost, although I would leave room for a bit more than what is currently in the leads. CMD (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I doubt anyone will stop you but I think it's a waste of time. For some reason some editors have strong feelings about the existence of stubs vs. redirects to entries in lists but, from the reader's perspective, they're pretty much the same. I can't tell anyone how to use their time but if all the collective hours we've wasted on merging or talking about merging stubs were instead put into expanding them, the encyclopaedia would certainly be better off. – Joe (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As a reader, they are not the same. Hunting through various pages to try to glean info takes up time. The reader of ru:Валуйский район will not see the climate information in ru:Басово (Белгородская область). A mobile reader does not even have a way to get from Valuysky District to the information in Timonovo. CMD (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should be making content decisions based on known bugs in the mobile theme. – Joe (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There's the rest of what I wrote, and if your counter-proposal is to treat the nav boxes as great article content then I don't think that's very helpful to the reader either. CMD (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I might come to the same conclusion ("As a reader, they are not the same") but in the opposite direction: Hunting through a merged-up page to try to glean which info is relevant and which is about other villages takes up time. With a stub like Timonovo (five sentences, 75 words, five sources, plus the infobox), you know that all the information is what you're looking for, and you know that's all there is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

List articles don't have to be tabular data with no prose, nor do they have to be internally consistent as to whether or not the list items they contain are bluelinks or not. The GA Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway is basically a list article that contextualises borderline notable information beautifully.

I should disclose that I'm strongly in favour of contextualising stubs into their container topics wherever possible. Folly Mox (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt the result it this will be a load of GA-level lists. It'll be the existing stubs, pasted in one after the other. – Joe (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the implementation of contextualisation is likely to resemble pure concatenation, and would prefer that outcome to the status quo. JMO. Folly Mox (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I was more thinking of a policy allowing people to merge such things if they felt like it: because there are so many village articles it's never worth it for any one person to start a discussion about merging the villages of one district, because who cares about this one random district in particular. And no one has the hours and hours you refer to to just go do it for all of them. With a pre-consensus it could ideally happen piece by piece? If there was a policy on this I might merge the villages of that district just because I ran across them, but I wasn't planning to spend 900 hrs on trying to do all of them.

As for expanding them: 60 people live in most of these village, and it's unlikely someone's written a book about most of them. Not going to say it's not a little bit of a waste of time, but having a list of villages in a district in its article seems useful: it was helpful to me finding some village list in district articles on the German Wikipedia I think when I was trying to figure something out. I think name+whatever small details exist could be somewhat helpful, if not the most important task. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

We already have such a policy. – Joe (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Be bold, but also be WP:CAREFUL. When you know the community's practice is to split the subject into small stubs, then boldly merging the articles up without discussion might result in WP:DRAMA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

section break 2, village stubs

@BilledMammal put together a sample of 10,000 articles so we could try to find out some basic information about what the community's actual practices are – the revealed preference, if you would like to use that language, rather than the aspirational goals. So far, we're finding facts like these:

• 90% of articles have between 2 and 95 sentences, heavily skewed towards shorter articles. The most common number of sentences in an article is two. Half of articles have 13 or fewer sentences. A quarter of them have 5 or fewer.
• If you define a stub as having ≤10 sentences, then 43% of Wikipedia's articles are stubs. If you define is as ≤250 words, then 41% of articles are stubs.
• Half of all articles have 4 or fewer (detectable) inline citations. A quarter have 2 or fewer. Only 21% have more than 10. Having more than 20 (about 10% of them) is a statistical outlier.
• Compared to longer articles, stubs tend to have about twice as many citations per sentence.

The reason I bring this up is because when we compare articles against our ideals, it's very easy to think "What garbage. It 'only' has five sentences. It 'only' has five sources. It 'only' has 75 words." We ought to be thinking "Huh, that has more sentences than 25% of our articles. It has more refs than 60% of our articles. It has more words than 16% of our articles. Maybe it's not too different from normal, actually." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I recently ran a new scan, of 100,000 pages, where the talk page categories are also provided. I’m not sure how to upload it yet - it’s a far larger dataset than all the others I’ve uploaded put together - but it should be helpful as it will allow us to determine which topic areas have abnormal articles.

We’ve already identified species as one of those areas; I think we’ll find that places is another. BilledMammal (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe consider uploading that as c:Commons:File types#Tabular data? ORES can automate identification of the main subject area.

I suspect that the size of places will vary by location. Most US census places have longer than median articles (e.g., Mulberry, Kansas has 25 refs and almost 1,000 words) but were largely written by bot/script.

Getting the numbers for FAs and GAs would also be interesting to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I totally support the idea to reduce village stubs. here is one possible way to do so; make articles consistently named "villages in ___ County", or "Villages in ___ Oblast," or "Villages in ____ Arrodinsement," and so on, and make these into list articles.

doing so is more efficient, and actually will enable more people to view this information, not less. Sm8900 (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that the fact that these articles are close to the status quo doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't be improved by merging them, though. The point is that they have very low potential (only have 50-200 people or so), which is not true of all stubs. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Use of "former" to describe occupations

I continuously see the word "former" before describing occupations in biographical articles. For example, Tiffany van Soest's article describes her as a "retired American Muay Thai kickboxer who competed in the bantamweight division". This feels redundant, as the past tense is also found in the word "competed".

I only find it helpful in cases when the person has other current jobs, such as in Ben Carson, which says "retired neurosurgeon" as he went into politics.

I say the use of the word "former", "retired" or others versions be banned to describe occupations, except for cases such as Carson's. Roasted (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It's much less confusing than "was a kickboxer", which sounds like one died (knock on wood). If we make it "is an American Muay Thai kickboxer who competed in the bantamweight division", that sounds like they used to compete there but then moved on to other places. I don't see how this adjective can possibly be harmful. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron Liu, "former", "retired" and similar are usually unambiguous accurate descriptions that are clearer than omitting them. There might be exceptions in individual cases, but as a general rule they are more good than harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The use of former is often used to push a POV in BLPs such as: "Jayle was is a convicted fraudster and former businesswoman". These things are arguably true, but a more neutral way to state it is "Jaylee is a businesswoman who was convicted of fraud". It avoids the name calling, "fraudster"; and makes no crystal ball guess what the future might hold for Jaylee, who might continue to have a career in business, after she serves 10 years in jail. The use of "former" is a dig over her downfall. So yeah I would agree that "former" can be a loaded term and is usually unnecessary. Another hypothetical example: "91-year old Jaylee is a former skydiver, former book author, former model, former Olympic swimmer and currently a painter." Ugh. Please no. -- GreenC 01:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with your last example except for the fact that some of these formers are probably way more important than others, for which we already have existing guidelines that say that only the most notable occupations should be included. I also don't see how one could be a former businesswoman. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You can stop running a business, just like you can quit any other career. Some people might interpret "is a businesswoman" as meaning that she's running a business right now, which, in the specific case of "a convicted fraudster" might not be compatible with their legal situation. If the BLP in question has been barred from certain business activities (e.g., being a director or officer of a publicly traded company) under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act or similar legislation in the relevant country, they might even consider it harmful to be described as a current businessperson. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I expect people to use their wits and do this rationally. I doubt that bad cases of such scenarios will pass sane minds. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think the former reads that way in your first example, I wouldn't assume someone with a conviction can't do business. The fraudster use is a separate issue, "former businesswoman convicted of fraud" uses both. ("Businesswoman" is a bit vague I suppose, which makes the example tricky.) CMD (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Ultimately, what we ought to do is describe subjects the way the sources describe them. If sources generally describe someone as a "former XYZ" then we should to. That said, the lead does also have some degree of leeway to paraphrase and summarize (since it's trying to summarize the entire article); in some situations it's fairly uncontroversial to describe someone's previous roles in the past tense, especially when the ending is unambiguous - for example, former elected / appointed officials. Even then I think it's more commonly worded as eg. "was the secretary of whatsit under whosit" but I wouldn't support a hard-and-fast ban on "former"; it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, like most things. --Aquillion (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• A "kickboxer who competed in the bantamweight division" might be someone now competing in a different division. Thincat (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Past tense is not used in many areas of Wikipedia, such as TV programmes that are no longer made where the word "was" gives the reader straight away that it is no longer made, but the MOS says we cannot use it. I think "former" is acceptable in my eyes, as it what the "normal" world outside of Wikipedia would use, however common sense and this place doesn't always meet. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is a near-identical RFC ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#RfC:_The_position_of_"retired"_and_"former"_in_the_first_sentence_of_biographical_articles - arguably a more proper place. I suggest people comment there. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  All of this stems from formulaic writing and trying to fit too much information into one sentence. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Universal reference name

Would it be possible to create universal reference names for writers to use across multiple pages? Pbergerd (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Currently? No. In the further future? Would be hard, but possible ig. Legends speak of a http://wikicite.org/ project under Wikidata. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You can already do this through Wikidata, the issue is that it makes those sources inscrutable when editing on en.wiki. CMD (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Cite Q}}, in addition to inscrutability, will sometimes generate CS1 errors that are not possible to repair on this project. Folly Mox (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Pbergerd, if you're reusing the same source enough times, you can also create a {{CS1 wrapper}} for that specific source. Folly Mox (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Can’t we repair them on Wikidata? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, if we understand how to, and if repairing them there for our project doesn't break them for other projects. I've never tracked an error to Wikidata that I was able to repair myself. Sure, I'm pretty incompetent technically, but so are most of us, and Wikidata is inscrutable and seems poorly documented to those of us who interact with it only infrequently. Folly Mox (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Please promote Meta:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Shared Citations wishlist ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

"Can’t we repair them on Wikidata?"

Yes, but it will break them elsewhere.

For example, in one article, you might use the style (Smith, John (Month Year))

• Davidson, Lloyd A.; Douglas, Kimberly (December 1998). "Digital Object Identifiers: Promise and problems for scholarly publishing". Journal of Electronic Publishing. 4 (2). doi:10.3998/3336451.0004.203.

and in another (J Smith (Year))

• LA Davidson; K Douglas (1998). "Digital Object Identifiers: Promise and problems for scholarly publishing". Journal of Electronic Publishing. 4 (2). doi:10.3998/3336451.0004.203.

while in Wikidata, the support style is John Smith (Day Month Year)

• Lloyd A. Davidson; Kimberly Douglas (1 December 1998). "Digital Object Identifiers: Promise and problems for scholarly publishing". Journal of Electronic Publishing. 4 (2). doi:10.3998/3336451.0004.203.

WikiData can only support one such style. So if you fix Wikidata to match Article A, you break Article B. If you fix Wikidata to match article B, you break article A. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

As said at Template:Cite Q#Workflow, that seems like an easy fix: Wikidata already has an easy way for dealing with this through the "object named as" property.

• Gordon, Dennis P., ed. (2010). New Zealand inventory of biodiversity: Kingdom animalia: chaetognatha, ecdysozoa, ichnofossils. Vol. 2. ISBN 978-1-877257-93-3. OCLC 973607714. OL 25288394M. Wikidata Q45922947.

Aaron Liu (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Which is the most convoluted asinine process that defeats the purpose of "universal references". Use {{cite xxx}}, provide DOIs/ISBNs, let User:Citation bot expand the references, and then review the output for uniformity. You'll see directly in the edit window all the information provided, and can standardize everything in one go. Everyone gets to see things are uniform, and no one has to deal with the abyss that is {{Cite Q}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

How is it convoluted or purpose-defeating? You just add a "object named as" property to Wikidata, bam. It's just one step. If you really wanted to go all fancy, you could query the author names for the part that is the family name. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You can use the "object named as" property to cause the reference to appear different ways on different articles? CMD (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion seems like people are confusing data with presentation. If different articles really are needing different ordering of the name-parts or different formats/precision of dates, ideally the template should handle reformatting the data instead of trying to do it all in the data layer. Anomie⚔ 11:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata items exist for DOI database entries, but not other sources. DOIs are well structured data in comparison to a web link, where either multiple urls point to same data, or the same url points to different data depending on when it's archived, along with all other issues of link rot etc.. Meta:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Shared Citations is a proposal to make a Wikibase just for shared citations.

The presentation (maybe one article wants to list first 5 authors and not more, while another also wants to expand all authors, their presentation format, their publisher cities etc...) but either way the presentation should be customizeable per citation and or page wide, as is done with dates already. {{Use DMY}} will change presentation of dates in references for example while the data stays same regardless of whether it's fully typed out like February 28, 2024 or enclosed as 2024-02-28.

The risk of harm from Citations being edited is akin to widely transcluded templates being vandalized. So any interface should have additional safeguards whether permission levels, or or edit-restrictions depending on number of transclusions. Same for merging data objects. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Image search

Would it be possible to have a way to search Wikipedia articles by inserting an image and finding the most relevant articles?Anonymous1261 (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

To be honest I think google images would probably be better suited for that. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, in theory, if we take an infrastructure similar to Google Images and then do something complicated that does image recognition involving wikidata. But it hardly seems worth the effort. Cremastra (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Rename and/or Combine Content Assessment classes

Currently Content Assessment is named arbitrarily at Featured, A, Good, B, C, Start, Stub. Looking for ideas as to what A, B, and C classes should be renamed? And if B and C classes were combined into one, what would that be named?

Following on from some ideas slightly touched on here. DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I would merge B, C and Start together and call them all "start". Anything checking criteria of article like DYK would not solely rely on WikiProject content assessment anyways. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting! DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I’d definitely be opposed to lumping B and Start into the same bucket, the resulting rating would cover a really wide range in quality. There is a difference between “often not used and superfluous in many cases” and “totally unnecessary”. ― novov (t c) 01:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The names aren't really arbitrary. They're basically American letter grades, plus two existing review processes (FA and GA), the separate {{stub}} system, and a squeamishness about rating anything with a "bad grade". C is a relatively recent innovation; back in the day, it was realistically Stub–Start–B, and anything else required extra effort. In 2008, editors basically decided to divide the Start class into two groups (C and Start).

As a first approximation, we started with:

• Stub: Less than ~10 sentences.
• Start: More than 10 sentences but not yet B-class.
• B class: Meets all six specified criteria.

and we decided to have:

• Stub: Less than ~10 sentences.
• Start: More than 10 sentences but still kind of short and not B-class.
• C-class: Kind of long but not quite B-class.
• B class: Meets all six specified criteria.

Your question is basically "Shall we reverse the decision that split Start class into two groups?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's bigger than that. It's "if we were to reinvent the wheel, and repaint the bike shed, what would it look like and what colour should it be?" The answer to that is "it'd still be a wheel and the shed is fine as is". The criteria are well-established and clear, and short of a clear actionable problem supported by the whole community, they should remain as they are. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Merging classes was only part 2 of the question. I was asking about whether A, B, and C classes should be renamed DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would consider using something other than the A-B-C convention. I noticed that an inordinate number of editors were adding A class to India articles. Apparently people think it's like self-grading a homework assignment. I think A-class should either become a universal process like GAR or FAR, or go away entirely. That I know about, only WP:MILHIST, WP:USROADS and WP:HIGHWAYS have a process to review A-class articles. WP:WikiProject Biography and Wikiproject Cyclones had a process, but the latter turned out articles that in no way represented the best of Wikipedia. Schierbecker (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I agree. Given how few WikiProjects actually have a process for reviewing A-Class articles and how difficult it would be to create them given how many of them are small and/or semi-inactive. Standardising it to a universal process or eliminating it would probably be better. Although there is always the idea that "it's there if people need it" DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  What's A class? Why does it even exist? I always thought there's B class, better than that is Good Article, and the very best is Featured Article. A class seems to have no good place in this scheme of things. Gawaon (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• We could rename start to D class, and stub to E class to make the system more consistent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Although stub is listed in WP:Content assessment I'm told it's technically a seperate thing(?)

  and D and E classes apparently suggest an article is "failing" DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Their current names seem fine enough. Gawaon (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Offering to link.

Is it possible to have links offered when any page is created in mainspace (or moved from say draftspace). So if Grand Poobah Association is created, as part of the creation in mainspace, it brings up a list of article (and clips of the article) containing the phrase "Grand Poobah Association" unlinked. Basically, I am trying to somehow staple https://edwardbetts.com/find_link/ to the end of the creation/move to mainspace process. Absolutely fine if this is optional.Naraht (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like a useful tool/gadget that editors could install if they want. Posting at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests is most likely to attract the attention of people who can make it happen. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)