Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:22, 14 January 2021

Table of contents
First discussion
End of page
New post

Shortcuts

New proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals. You may also wish to search the FAQ.
This page is for concrete, actionable proposals. Consider developing earlier-stage proposals at Village pump (idea lab).
Proposed policy changes belong at Village pump (policy).
Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.
Proposed new articles belong at Wikipedia:Requested articles.
Discussions or proposals which warrant the attention or involvement of the Wikimedia Foundation belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF).
Software changes which have consensus should be filed at Phabricator.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.

« Archives, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213

Replace hyphen with en-dash in Wikipedia browser tab name – MediaWiki:Pagetitle

HTML tag <title> defines the text, which web browsers usually use to label tabs. The <title> tag on English Wikipedia is controlled through the page MediaWiki:Pagetitle (see mw:Manual:Interface/Pagetitle for details). English Wikipedia uses the default $1 - {{SITENAME}}, where $1 is replaced by the full page name, magic word {{SITENAME}} is substituted to "Wikipedia", and they are separated by a spaced hyphen. For example, this page has <title>Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) - Wikipedia</title>. Different wikis use different separators. Examples (note that wiki-local internationalization preferences affect the page title—use incognito/private tab to see actual tab name):

MediaWiki:Pagetitle on different wikis
Wiki	Separator	Example of <title>
English Wikipedia	hyphen	Earth - Wikipedia
German Wikipedia	en-dash	Erde – Wikipedia
Spanish Wikipedia	hyphen	Tierra - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
French Wikipedia	em-dash	Terre — Wikipédia
Russian Wikipedia	em-dash	Земля — Википедия
Chinese Wikipedia	hyphen	地球 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书
Wikimedia Commons	hyphen	Earth - Wikimedia Commons
MediaWiki's own wiki	hyphen	Help:Editing pages - MediaWiki

I propose replacing the hyphen at English Wikipedia's MediaWiki:Pagetitle with an en-dash, which is a more appropriate separator—see MOS:ENDASH. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is necessary, and keep in mind would only change for users with the English interface language set (everyone else will still get the system default). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:ENDASH. This seems like a pretty simple grammar fix (albeit with a huge scale), so I'm not sure it needs a giant discussion here, but I'm also not sure where else the discussion would've been hosted, so I can see why you brought it here. To speak to Xaosflux's point, this shouldn't be something that only applies to English, so if we can figure out how to apply it to all languages, that'd be even better. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the punctuation on each project conform to its own language and MOS? The MOS on enwiki would certainly indicate that an en dash, not a hyphen, should be used here, but an em dash or hyphen may be correct in other languages. A centralized discussion on Meta would be a good place to confirm that each project's tab punctuation adheres to its own MOS. Armadillo pteryx 00:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meh for en.wiki; they're all just horizontal lines. 99% of users have never noticed, and of that 1%, 96% won't care. None of our business for all other wikis. I assume I'm misunderstanding Sdkb's comment; you aren't suggesting that the result of a discussion here should affect all other wikis? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam: From what Xaosflux said above, it seems that a fix might only apply to the English Wikipedia with the English language interface set, not all language interfaces. We control all language interfaces on English Wikipedia. As for other Wikipedias, it might be nice to standardize among those, but that discussion would probably have to be held somewhere on Meta. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's very likely you know more than me about this. But "We control all language interfaces on English Wikipedia" doesn't sound right at all. I think I must be missing a subtlety or distinction or term of art? Anyway, it isn't important that I understand. As long as you're not saying we should make changes for, say, es.wiki or Commons too - which it looks like you're not saying - then we're good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Special:Preferences you can set your language. If unset or set to a language that doesn't have a locally created MediaWiki page, there is a default MediaWiki page used. Killiondude (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki has a framework to support translations into different languages in its own user interface messages, as described by Killiondude, which is what Sdkb is describing regarding having control over all language interfaces on English Wikipedia. It has been long recommended for users not to change their preferences to another language, though, as a lot (most? all?) of customized messages have not been translated (and as I recall, even specifying a country-specific English variant, like en-uk, will cause a fallback to the default message, thereby losing the customization). isaacl (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Killiondude and Isaacl: actually it seems that if a custom message is set but not translated, the custom message is used. At least in the sidebar - go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth?uselang=de (an en.wp page but with the interface language set to German). The second item in the "contribute"/"Mitmachen" section is the custom English "Learn to edit" in both English and German interfaces rather than the default "Introduction" / "Einführung". Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can see what impact changing the interface language would have by appending ?uselang=xx (where xx is the language code you want to use) to the URL (or &uselang=xx if the URL already contains a ?). For example go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth?uselang=de to see an English Wikipedia article with the interface language in German. The article text remains in English, but all the tabs, sidebar links, etc. are in German. Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It took you all more effort than it was probably worth, but I finally understand. Thanks everyone for the patient explanations, sorry everyone for being technologically incompetent, and sorry User:Sdkb for momentarily implying you might have been saying something crazy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support this change on enwiki (and other English-language projects) per MOS:ENDASH; projects in other languages should make sure the dash (or hyphen) used conforms to their own MOS. Armadillo pteryx 00:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: previous relevant discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135 § Proposal: Amend page title element to remove "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, hyphens are not used for this purpose, WP:NDASH. Nixinova T C 02:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's a tiny, tiny thing...but honestly, I would be happy to see it happen.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support on enwiki per Armadillopteryx. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 16:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: should an RFC be opened to gather more feedback? —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It shouldn't be a question that our interface should generally conform to the MOS absent any reason to the contrary. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tentative support~~, but I am wonder whether there is a technical reason that hyphens in page titles are so common, even for sites with strict style manuals. For example, both the New York Times and the BBC have hyphens in their page titles. Indeed, it looks like every site in my browser bookmarks that has equivalent punctuation has a hyphen (except that my university's Blackboard Learn site has both a hyphen and an en dash in the title, which looks quite ugly now that I have noticed it). Any thoughts about why that might be? blameless 21:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing my support per the below and continued investigation. It was said above that "hyphens are not used for this purpose"--I am certainly a descriptivist, and I would say that hyphens are used for this purpose for purely internet-based instances of language (such as browser tabs) that are entirely separate from prose content, for the sake of consistency and reliability across browsers and character sets. Neutral. blameless 19:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or replace with pipe. Browser tabs have limited horizontal space, and the only effect of this proposal is to waste a bit more of it. Perhaps this is why it is so common to use a hyphen or a pipe rather than an en-dash or em-dash. ST47 (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ST47, I'd have thought that the pipe would take up less space than an endash. I've tested in Firefox and Chromium in Ubuntu. In Firefox the pipe takes up more space than endash (font Noto Sans 10pt). In Chromium both take up the same amount of space (I couldn't figure out which font is used). —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My browser (Firefox on Debian) follows our page title (and every other page title) with " - Mozilla Firefox" so using a dash or pipe would make my browser title look weird. Is that enough to oppose? I don't know, but clearly hyphens are pretty standard separators in how browsers display page titles. Additionally, it's probably better that our page titles are ASCII-compliant, and this change would move us away from that. This could affect page downloads or distribution on offline hardware. My main concern is that we gain pretty much no benefit, but there might be hidden problems it introduces. — Wug·a·po·des 23:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Not worth the trouble for all the reasons Wugapodes mentioned. Probably nothing will break, but the benefit is so small it's not worth doing. The hyphen-minus is also the standard window title element separator on every non-Apple platform. An en/em dash will take up more space, which is undesirable. Switching to pipes would change the visual style, and I'm not a fan of that idea either (the hyphen-minus is the most common <title> separator anyway. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Browser has limited space. Also, the proposal text doesn't clearly say which Hyphen#In_computing is currently used. Hyphen-minus is ASCII. If it currently is ASCII, then stay with ASCII for less interference with third party systems. TerraCyprus (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking to ASCII is about 3 decades out of date, and is in general too limiting, even for English. Dicklyon (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TerraCyprus, regarding If it currently is ASCII, then stay with ASCII for less interference with third party systems. tag <title> already contains dashes and much more of the Unicode. E.g. Ágústa Þorsteinsdóttir, 燒酒. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meh (Is Meh a valid voting option?) The title is also used for bookmarks, and so the site suffix has some value there, but I generally edit the titles to make sense to me and normally remove the suffix. Most of the time the tab is too narrow to display all of the article title, so the "- Wikipedia" site suffix is lost anyway. Personally, I would delete the site suffix from the titles as the icon at the start is enough to identify the tab, but I do suspect that would be seen as a step too far — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meh because I'm not sure I'll ever encounter a Wikipedia debate that warrants "meh" as much as this one. I'm sympathetic to both sides, but would probably favor the character that can be entered with one tap of the keystroke and is easily identified by non-native English speakers who don't even know what an en- or em-dash is. On the other hand no one's really going to be typing this on their own. Also, what were French and Russian Wikipedias thinking when they instituted the em-dash? -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have requested closure of this discussion at WP:ANRFC. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The use of the hyphen here is an old "lazyism" from pre-MOS:DASH days. Should have been corrected a long time ago. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support –definitely. It's professional English, and apart from being in accordance with the major style guides (including ours), it's slightly easier to read. I don't care if other languages want to stick with their shabby little hyphens. Tony (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Support the hyphen is a lazy substitute for the intended punctuation, a dash of some sort. The spaced en dash is a good choice. Those who won't notice the difference won't be bothered. Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a very minor thing, but we may as well follow proper professional usage. Alkari (?), 10 December 2020, 04:29 UTC
Oppose Pretty much what Floq said. I don't have a real "side" as far as the actual issue, because, like most people, to me the distinction is essentially meaningless.(Please, please don't feel compelled to explain to me how very important it is) So, the only concern here is "will this break anything?" And it seems that a few people here are concerned that it might. So, very, very little benefit (arguably none at all) and some risk, so that's a no for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I found myself on both sides while writing this comment, but settled in support. The MOS is clear that an en-dash is preferred over a hyphen as a separator here. The most cogent objection is that the en-dash may cause certain technical issues, and there's a lesser point that it takes up more space. However, this same reasoning would apply to our many articles that are titled with – or — instead of -, or indeed any other non-ASCII characters, which all show up in the <title> tag. And yet, MOS:DASH has been in place for article titles for many, many years with no apparent problems. The fact that dewiki, frwiki, and ruwiki all use some form of dash also supports this point. We can always revert the change if we find out about some unexpected side effect. — The Earwig ^talk 06:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it works, don't fix it. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why so many people have this thing for a character that's not standard and cannot be typed is beyond me. It's constantly forced down our throats for no reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Bushranger, regarding a character that's [...] cannot be typed. On Windows, it can be typed using the ⊞ Win+. menu (under Ω tab), on macOS it is ⌥ Option+-, on most Linux distributions it is Alt+-+-+. (via XCompose feature), on Android and iOS most keyboard apps support it on long press of the hyphen -. On Wikipedia, the en-dash can be inserted using both the editor toolbar (Special Characters > Symbols) and CharInsert extension (first character in the "Insert" group)—both UIs are enabled by default. Also, there is HTML entity –. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it doesn't matter anyway in this context. Bushranger's "utility" argument is inapplicable to something that is simply part of the interface display. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:ENDASH resp. Sdkb and particularly 207.161.86.162 and SMcCandlish, who both expressed my view very succinctly. Similar to The Earwig, I was wavering for some of the same reasons, but above all because of GhostInTheMachine's statement. However, my support was strenghened when I saw that a significant portion of the Oppose votes were because of a fear that something could break, which is absurd IMO given andrybak's point that the title already often contains non-ascii characters. ◅ Sebastian 20:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's small change but conforms better to English style guides. I don't see how typing it is such a problem. This is not a change that implies the need of manually entering the character, and MOS:ENDASH already mandates it for a lot of content. --MarioGom (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per the MOS & correct punctuation. Cavalryman (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Support it's hard to take a side here, and indeed I don't take either with much confidence. But as a small change that better conforms with MOS and standard English, I think we may as well. Aza24 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think MOS applies to page titles. Most sites - massive, big, and small - use a hyphen in page titles. English Wikipedia would be sticking out like a sore thumb. Keep the hyphen. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: What to do with category links to Commons?

What should we do with the links to Commons in categories? Mike Peel (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. We currently link from categories here to Wikimedia Commons categories using {{Commons category}}. Over the last few years, we have been working on synchronizing the links to Commons categories between enwp and Wikidata, and for the Category namespace these are now fully synchronized. These links use sitelinks on Wikidata, which are robust against vandalism (a Commons category has to exist to sitelink to it), and these also match the sidebar link to Commons. They are also used to display links back to enwp from the Commons categories (both in the sidebar and the infoboxes there).

In 2018 I posted an RfC to switch to using Wikidata for interwiki links to Wikimedia Commons, which led to conditional approval to implement the changes here, and the creation of a new set of tracking categories at Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories. A subsequent RfC in 2019 on removing locally-defined links to Commons categories if they match the Wikidata sitelinks resulted in no consensus to remove locally defined links to Commons.

I would like to revisit this as it applies to categories only (i.e., this proposal does not apply to articles). At some future point this may also be applied to articles, but for those we need to fix the issue that causes Commons sitelinks to not appear in the sidebar (on the Community Wishlist Survey 2021), and there are ~15k articles that aren't synchronised to Wikidata yet (cases with e.g., multiple, mismatched, or misplaced links) out of 560k articles. These are not issues for links in the Category namespace, which are now fully synchronized with Wikidata.

Changes to current links

I suggest the following options for the use of {{Commons category}}, which would only apply in the Category namespace:

A1. Remove {{Commons category}} and just have the sidebar link. This is the easiest option to maintain here as MediaWiki will automatically display it where available. This would affect around 310k categories (the tracking categories listed in A2 and A3). An example of how the Commons link would look like after this change is Category:1817 in Vermont.

A2. Remove the locally defined links from categories, i.e., {{Commons category|Example}} -> {{Commons category}}. This is the second easiest to maintain, as e.g., renames of categories will be automatically updated. Manually defined links would only be removed where they match the Commons sitelink on Wikidata, so this would also allow local overrides. This would affect around 290k categories at Category:Commons category link is on Wikidata. An example of how the Commons link would look like after this change is Category:Data modeling.

A3. Always locally define the link, i.e., {{Commons category}} -> {{Commons category|Example}}. This is the most difficult to maintain, as it requires bot or manual edits when the link changes. This would affect around 20k categories at Category:Commons category link from Wikidata. An example of how the Commons link would look like after this change is Category:Bodies of water of Lebanon.

Adding new links

I also propose:

B. Bot-adding {{Commons category}} where a Commons category sitelink is available on Wikidata

Many links have been added between Wikidata and Commons over the last few years (now totaling over 3 million links). If we go for (A2) or (A3) above, then bot-adding them would significantly increase the number of links to Commons. These links are already available in the sidebar, so if we go for (A1) above then this isn't needed. Mike Peel (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Commons category links)

I suggest !voting for A1, A2 or A3 and saying yes/no to B. If we reach consensus for any of these options, I will code a bot to implement it and propose it at Wikipedia:Bot requests for final discussion before implementation. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear from the RFC as written which options would still allow us to customise the displayed text and whether we could link to multiple categories, both of which are something that arises fairly often (Commons has a slight tendency to split categories so we want to provide links to more than one, and has a very strong tendency to give categories really peculiar names which don't tally with the English common name). I'd be strongly inclined to reject any option that wouldn't allow us at minimum to add explanatory text to the link (e.g. for an biography of an architect, have one link for portraits of the subject and one link for images of their buildings, clearly labelled which is which). ‑ Iridescent 20:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: Those are rare occurrences in categories (but somewhat more common in articles, which is out of scope for this RfC). I can implement something for A2 that will continue to allow customised display text if really necessary, but that can easily be used to mislead the reader. Linking to multiple categories never makes sense anyway, since you can either link directly to the appropriate category from "Category:Buildings by X", or just link to 'Category:X" for the architect, and readers can then look at the subcategories on Commons for the rest - or you can improve the categories in Commons. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., are those intentionally missing links noted/explained somewhere, please? If not, perhaps they could be noted somehow? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 4,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: The title was kinda the summary, I've paraphrased it just below the RfC tag for the bot. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I've posted a neutral note about this RfC at commons:Commons:Village_pump#Commons_links_from_enwp_categories (diff), since this directly relates to Commons. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this was bot-archived while still running, I've manually unarchived it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (Commons category links)

Oppose A1 without even blinking. I'm certain 99.9% of readers aren't aware the sidebar is even there, and on a topic with a lot of interlanguage links readers are never going to see it. Weakly oppose A2 as I can't see any particular advantage to removing the ability to override the displayed label. If these are the only three alternatives then support A3, although I could accept A2 provided there were a means to override or disable it in circumstances where what's on Wikidata isn't considered appropriate. Definitely oppose B, as there are occasions when we intentionally don't link to Commons for a given subject. ‑ Iridescent 20:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: As stated in the A2 description, "this would also allow local overrides". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A1 and Support A3 To always have local control over the destination of the link, makes it easier for users. Keith D (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith D: Can you elaborate on how that 'makes it easier for users' please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concern (not opposition)... We here at WP.en have become very leery of linking to Wikidata (in any form). There are times when the two projects just don’t seem to speak the same language, and that has caused headaches for both projects. I have no idea if this is an exception or not... but please go with caution. Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A1 is the easiest to maintain with the tools at our disposal and with common sense protections against vandalism. A1 is a question of getting used to it and knowing where to look. The template can have a deprecation period where it says "See sidebar left for link to Commons" to help educate during the transition period. Failing A1, would also support A2 w/ Bot add (sigh.. see how much better A1 is?). Oppose A3. -- GreenC 02:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question and not being snotty, but how do you think "getting used to it" would work? In the skin in which more than 50% of readers see Wikipedia, A1 wouldn't just change the location of the link but would remove it altogether; from the perspective of readers this wouldn't be a matter of looking somewhere else to navigate to Commons, but of Commons suddenly apparently ceasing to exist. (Existing readers would probably know to ask where it had gone, but new readers would have no reason to suspect the links ever existed.) Plus, Wikipedia doesn't just have a single cohort of readers; new people discover us all the time. Most people viewing a category have either got there via a search or via the links on a Wikipedia article and aren't insiders who understand the quirks of MediaWiki, and "the links from Wikipedia pages to related content appear on that page" is a very well-established convention reinforced by 20 years of categories and navbox templates. A typical reader couldn't possibly be expected to know that if they're looking for the media associated with a category, they need to switch to desktop view if they're not already there, and then once there click a cryptic "In other projects: Wikimedia Commons" link hidden in the sidebar. ‑ Iridescent 06:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, that's a pretty major bug. I hadn't noticed that since I never use the mobile interface. I had a look on Phabricator to see if there was an existing bug report, but I couldn't find one, so I've started phab:T269992. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating my plug for the gadget discussed here which adds a one-click button to preview how pages will look to readers (who mostly use the mobile view) rather than editors (who rarely if ever do). You'll be astonished how many things you take for granted are either missing completely or behave completely differently (see what a mess User:Mike Peel looks in mobile view, for an obvious example). If I had my way we'd deprecate mobile view and start again from scratch—I think the current skin is irredeemably bad both for readers and for editors—but I can't imagine the WMF ever admitting that a pet project they've spent a decade promoting is a complete lemon. ‑ Iridescent 13:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A1. The Commons link is just one example of the "other projects" links, and displaying them automatically as part of the user interface makes more sense than adding one or more templates to every category. If the mobile interface isn't displaying these links, then it should be fixed. Perhaps removal of the existing templates should be delayed until it's fixed. ghouston (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A1, Oppose A2, Support A3 To always have local control over the destination of the link, makes it easier for users. As Keith_D put it. Or, as I put it during the last RFC: Oppose. Kerry put it well. I have long been troubled by persistent efforts for systematic bulk deletion of content from Wikipedia, in favor of obscure remote-ownership of everything by the bot-farm known as Wikidata. One of these days we need to reach a community consensus on the practice in general. Either we should transfer everything possible over to Wikidata and accept that that Wikidata is going to manage everything from now on, or we need to roll back Wikidata to tracking-categories and rare purposes of specific value. This endless struggle to roll Wikidata forwards (or backwards) one inch at a time is wasteful at best and disruptive at worst. Alsee (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[1] A tiny number of Wikidata enthusiasts have been persistently trying to bulk-delete content screwing over other editors in a holy crusade to make Wikidata lord&ruler of all they survey. Among other problems, the typical editor is going hit CTRL-F trying to find the content they want to change, and it wouldn't be there. They maybe eventually find the would-be-completely-useless template in the wikitext, but there would be no value there. The editor is left stranded with an impossible edit, absolutely no indication anywhere WTF is going on, and no path forward. Alsee (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A2 and B. The typical editor does not need to edit technical interproject links. Ruslik_Zero 20:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A1, Oppose A2, Support A3 noting that we would need to explicitly discourage well-meaning editors removing labels "because it's on Wikidata", as has already happened with the A3 example. Sometimes the difference between the Commons category name and the local name is going to be jarring, all the more so if this is used as a precedent for changing how Commons category links are presented in articles: Commons has a more worldwide focus on titling categories than any individual Wikipedia has on titling pages, and has evolved different conventions as a result, and although this doesn't arise much on categories ("in" vs. "of" Lebanon in the A3 example is barely noticeable), it will be jarring in the cases where it does matter. I've frequently created categories on Commons with different names from the Wikipedia articles, for example using a disambiguator instead of "The". On the broad issue, concur with Alsee; having what the reader sees on a page determined at Wikidata rather than on the individual project is unacceptably risky with regards to vandalism or simple error (I corrected a Wikidata description in Dutch the other day that assigned something to the wrong US state) and makes editing unacceptably difficult; "anyone can edit" is one of our foundational principles, we want readers to be drawn to correct or update something and have the satisfaction of seeing their change live, and we want those who add or expand something to fix things linked to it (WP:SOFIXIT). Wikidata is intentionally behind a steep accessibility wall because it's a thing for information professionals and because errors there potentially affect all the projects. So I must oppose A2 and especially A1 (Iridescent's point being also hugely important regarding A1, and I am astonished the WMF was unaware of it). That said, I can see no harm in the bot run so long as we retain the ability to pipe the links when our category moves to a new title and no longer matches that at Wikidata: support B providing A3 is implemented. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A1, Oppose A2, Support A3 Local control provides needed flexibility. Another aspect is language - my impression Commons tends yo make more use of local language names where as enWikipedia often uses names translated into English - more likely to cause category names to need local control. Changes other than A3 assume a 1-to-1 correspondence between Wikipedia articles and Commons Categories; there have been Wikipedia changed where I've wanted to add more than one Commons Category link. PsamatheM (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, in case it wasn't obvious, my long term preference is A1 (but that bug with the mobile site needs to be fixed first), right now I would prefer A2 since it minimises data duplication - which is the fundamental problem here. If you have multiple copies of the same data, then you have to fix each of them separately. By storing that link on Wikidata, in the same way as we store interwikis there, is the simplest option: it is then the same dataset here, on Wikidata, and on Commons (where that link is used to display the multilingual infobox). Then there are more eyes on the links, and more chance that someone will spot bad links and fix them. I'm saying this as someone that has gone through and corrected thousands of incorrect commons links from enwp over the last year.

I could live with A3 if needed, but it means continuing to bot/manually sync changes between Commons/Wikidata/here, which is just duplicate effort. Vandalism-wise, using the sitelinks/interwiki links is the safest way, since the category has to exist to be linked to (you can't change it to any random bit of text). There are currently no categories that link to multiple Commons categories, and there should rarely be a need to do that - but A2 would still let that be possible if needed. Similar with local text if really needed (but Commons category names are English by default). A tiny number of Wikidata-haters tend to trot out the same rhetoric whenever Wikidata is mentioned, which isn't really helpful (it's like arguing that all websites should go back to static rendering rather than using databases: it doesn't scale). With B, I'm happy either way - if we don't do that, I don't have to code up the bot, but we also don't get a lot more links to Commons (and bear in mind these have historically been bot-added to categories anyway). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support A2. This is the best of both worlds option. It eliminates a need to maintain two different systems to link a WP category to its equivalent Commons category, but also allows flexibility and control in handling special cases. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A1 unless and until the mobile view is fixed (as per the nominator). Support A2 provided it isn't seen as a step to not allowing local over-riding, which will remain necessary for all the reasons others have explained above. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A1, week oppose on A2 and support A3 for the reasons outlined by Iridescent. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A1, A2, B, - Support A3 for reasons above already given. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A1 and A2 (very strongly), B, - Support A3 per Iri & others above. The problem with A2 is that (as I understand it) the current category links will all be removed, and the "local overides" would have to manually re-added. "Matching Wikidata" is a totally untrustworthy test. This would be a nightmare. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: The check is that the links between enwp + Wikidata + Commons are all in sync, not just 'matching Wikidata'. If you disagree with the link, then in A2 you would have to fix the link (e.g., by adding the local override, which we'd then check and correct on Wikidata/Commons - or better by fixing it on Wikidata so it's then fixed everywhere), or in A3 then you would have to fix the link (e.g., by changing the local override, which we'd then check and correct on Wikidata/Commons). Either way, the work you would have to do is very similar, it's hardly a nightmare. Reminder that enwp/wikidata is currently 100% synced for the categories we're talking about. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weekly Oppose A1, Strongly support A2 and Strongly Oppose A3 as explained hereafter
- Weekly Oppose A1 indeed the links to the other wikimedia projects are from my point of view not visible enough for wikipedia readers in order to lead them to click on this link in the side menu.Robby (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly support A2 from my point of view this is at this moment the best solution. Robby (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Oppose A3 indeed this will result in an endless workk by both bots and manual che3ck for categories deleted respectively moved on Commons.Robby (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I generally support A1, but I think that's a question better left for a more general RFC on the boxes we put at the ends of articles. I also support A2 as a minimum result since it removes duplication of what is just another interwiki link at the end of the day, which we already accepted managing interwiki links at Wikidata. Hard oppose A3. I also oppose B as I do not want to see a continuing spread of these boxes; secondarily, enforcing the inclusion by bot of these seems to override the apparent editors' will in editing particular pages. --Izno (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A2 for better visibility of the connection, but A1 is okay for me too. We should leverage Wikidata as much as possible in uncontroversial scenarios like this one. --MarioGom (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A1, Support A2, Neutral A3, Support B. This gives the best combination of visibility and avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care too much about A1-A3 (though I think that local definition is better, goals of en.wikipedia and wikidata do not always align and definitions are sometimes different). I however strongly oppose any automated or blind additions of the 'commons category' (and I guess that is then also an agreement with selective A1). There are many cases where commons category has nothing that is adding to our articles (all images are already used, and, albeit in rare cases, commons has less than what en.wikipedia has), and sending people off to commons to find less (or the same) than what is here is silly and just clogging our articles (especially when you get the whole series of sisterlinks). Note that commons sometimes has different croppings of 1 image, so even if the number of images on commons is higher, it still does not add. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is alarming.

WP:SNOW not happening — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 02:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See these:

I think WP should do a blackout, and also lock up the site (disable access to upload, download, and to view content pages, but not deleting them) unil this is protested. The notice and staydown regime pretty much tells sites to “police harder” which is impossible at scale else they'll be sued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeleoj123 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Keep politics out of Wikipedia. If you want change, write to your congressman and sentator. RudolfRed (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But see Stop Online Piracy Act#Wikipedia blackout. Tony Tan · talk 08:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Wikipedia should act if and only if three conditions are met: a) that it materially affects Wikipedia now or in the predictable future, b) that it is politically feasible to stop, and c) that Wikipedia's action might be influential on the result. My understanding is that neither (b) nor (c) apply because it's part of an omnibus spending bill that's already passed Congress, and although I am ignorant enough of the specifics enough to be agnostic about (a), I'm not certain it applies either. I don't like the result here, but I don't think this is one of the few cases where Wikipedia should intervene. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 00:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joeleoj123, this is a fait accompli. Dont see the point in blacking out. If it becomes a problem we can move the encyclopedia. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihiltres and TheDJ: You seem to be confusing the CASE Act and felony streaming bill (both of which indeed look like faits accomplis at this point) with Senator Tillis' proposed Digital Copyright Act. The latter looks much more far-reaching (involving major changes to the DMCA, which Wikipedia and Commons rely on heavily) and is still very much up for discussion, as the EFF post linked above stresses ("This proposal is far worse than SOPA/PIPA, so our coalition will have to be stronger and more united than ever before"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal to charge felony for copyright infringement doesn't apply to us. However, the section 230 reform does affect us. The Wikimedia Foundation has already taken measures about it, and I would support a blackout on it. --NaBUru38 (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a platform for political advocacy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is to protect & further our ability to collect & present free information? -- llywrch (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until someone can show us that the final text is an existential threat to Wikimedia projects. --MarioGom (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, obviously. "disable access to upload, download, and to view content pages" -- literally the opposite of Wikipedia's purpose. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nihiltres. I would support adding Wikipedia should act if and only if three conditions are met: a) that it materially affects Wikipedia now or in the predictable future, b) that it is politically feasible to stop, and c) that Wikipedia's action might be influential on the result. to a guideline or essay somewhere. — Wug·a·po·des 22:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no...nO...NO...NO! and, once again, NO! GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Did we mention NO? Wikipedia is apolitical and should never be used as a platform for political advocacy regardless of issue. I would apply this even to "existential threats" – if the project's continued success is so tenuous that it rests on messages delivered via its encyclopedia, it's probably not worth saving. I strongly doubt that it is. Leave the politics to the WMF. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The situation around SOPA (which was an existential threat to Wikipedia) should be the bare minimum for a blackout. As much as it might seem tempting to join the latest outrage about misbegotten-Internet-law du jour, politicising Wikipedia so blatantly would sacrifice what goodwill we have unless it is literally a matter of "We can't function if this passes". As noted above, the more troubling parts are still up for discussion in any case, so discussion of any sort of blackout is premature at this point. Legislatures not debating a crisis move at the speed of smell. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 22:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my essay at Wikipedia:Avoid political banners. Mz7 (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support - I too agree with those who've said that they aren't sure that this would impact Wikipedia or any WikiMedia projects. I also think that this should be considered at Meta for a larger audience than just English Wikipedia - ex: other languages, and other projects. That being said, iff a WMF lawyer expresses concern that this could negatively impact WMF projects, I think it should be considered and implemented. The WMF's goal/vision/projects areinherently political - they are for "free" knowledge and content. This inherently delves into copyright/patent/etc laws, which is inherently political. Thus, by definition, Wikipedia already is political - so any argument that "keep wikipedia apolitical" is inherently nonsense. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Class/icon Update

There was first a discussion at the template page where it was made clear that due to the number of transclusions and the protection required on each icon, that this should be brought here.

Some of the icons displayed by this template are not using the "round icon" design or are not using a specific icon at all (such as draft). I am proposing that the following icons be updated to conform with the majority. Some of these icons are also used by xTools but not by this template creating an unneeded disconect for page classes.

SL-Class Article: ->
Non-Article Page: ->
Draft Page: ->
Category: ->
Media File Page: ->
Portal Page: ->
Project Page: ->

Terasail ^[✉] 19:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. The new icons look better to me, and bring this in line with the symbols I've seen used elsewhere. I'm not sure this needs a Village pump discussion—it's a nice bit of tidying, but it's largely not reader-facing. If we're doing work in this area, I'd like to see us focus on carrying through with the GA/FA topicon redesign, which has acquired a mandate but is now sitting at the graphics lab waiting for proposals to be submitted and an organizer to coordinate the process. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. --MarioGom (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks like improvement, can't majorly fault any of the changes. I am a bit concerned about the minus in the non-article page icon compared to say . — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The replacement symbols indicate the information more clearly and have a more unified meaning. I agree with Hellknowz about the minus symbol for NA page, perhaps a centred dot, question or having nothing inside the border would be better? --Xurizuri (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support with the exception of the start-class one, which i very weakly oppose. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 17:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. ~ HAL333 22:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Category:Common vulnerabilities and exposures into rcat template

This category consists entirely of redirects at the moment. I think it would be more appropriate to rename the category to something like Category:Redirects from CVE IDs, and create a rcat template, {{R from CVE}}, that uses it. Given the relatively small number of pages included in the category, this shouldnt be too big of a task. --C o r t e x ^💬talk 02:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should we have Support/Oppose/etc. survey convenience templates?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should we have survey convenience templates? Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:NOTVOTE is really important, we have a lot of discussions/debates (like this one) that people Support/Oppose and comment on. A lot of the Wikimedia projects use templates like {{Support}}, {{Oppose}} etc. to help with this, often also including a symbol. These templates were deleted here back in 2005, mostly because people objected to the inclusion of the symbol.

In this RfC I propose restoring these templates but without the symbol. This would mean that editors could use {{Support}} rather than '''Support''', but it would look the same. It would not be compulsory to use one or the other, and of course the !vote should be accompanied by a rationale regardless. The templates would simply be a convenience for editors that are used to using the other syntax, and would avoid a lot of follow-up edits to fix formatting after trying to use the templates instead of the bold formatting (which I at least frequently do, either after saving or in preview!). Their use would have negligible impact on server load (another concern from 2005), but could easily be bot-substituted (by batches every day/week/month) if that really is still a concern.

(These templates have been frequently recreated since their deletion, to the extent that it is a perennial request (the difference with this !vote is that it's to meet cross-wiki expectations, and I'm not proposing to use icons). I originally took this to WP:DRV last month as per the latest deletion/protection edit summaries, but an RfC was recommended instead.)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (survey convenience templates)

{{Support}} as proposer. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I would typically say in TfD, insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template. I completely fail to see the point of creating a template whose content is its name with three apostrophes prepended and appended, when that is only two characters longer than typing the wikitext out in the first place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: It's not about the number of characters, it's about the time it takes to remember the syntax, and that the syntax shouldn't depend on which Wikimedia project you are using. The human cost is much more than the syntax cost. It's the same as {{tq}} vs. this alternative way of writing it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to type “ {{Support}}” rather than “'''Support'''” because the “'” character is not on the iPad keyboard. {{Support}} could be made to auto-subst. Oppose cut or gaudy pictures. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- my iPad allows me to type a '. Switch the keyboard to punctuation, then press and hold the ‘ key. The pop up menu offers you 4 differs types of quote symbol — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 23:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was a nice trick to learn! Thank you. Unfortunately, it is very tedious to do the six times. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- or just type Oppose, select the word and click the B on the editing toolbar — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 23:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah that works. Unfortunately, the toolbar is above the fold. I wish it could be moved to below the editing window. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or you could just try convincing people using words instead of syntax. —Cryptic 06:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I like the simple bold of the lede word of the !vote. Do you dislike that low level of syntax? This !vote bolding culture underlies the working of https://afdstats.toolforge.org/, which is sometimes a nice tool. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- One possible work around is to use iOS's text replacement feature (Settings -> General -> Keyboard -> Text replacement). You can choose any sequence of characters to be replaced by another. For example, you could choose bqq to turn into ''' (three single quotes.) isaacl (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but no. I understand that moving between projects is a mental pain (I struggle with the equivalent of {{tl|xxx}} at Commons) but hiding simple syntax does not help the project. Some projects appear more focused on a vote count, and that idea should not be encouraged here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Johnuniq's comments, especially about hiding syntax. We should not be encouraging anything that gives the impression that votes are more important than the rationale accompanying them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: How exactly does the existance of a convenience template give that impression, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: the existence of a template, regardless of the formatting it outputs, elevates the importance of that output - if it wasn't important then why would anybody make a template for it? Why would any template be kept if it wasn't adding something of value? Experienced editors will unlikely gain this impression, but that is not necessarily true of those who are new to Wikipedia or who have a limited understanding of how XfD discussions work (if there wasn't an impression they are votes then we wouldn't need boilerplates like {{not a vote}}). Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that thinking, I don't think having the template would give any more weight to a new user's thinking that they can !vote than seeing a list of bold-formatted support/oppose votes that they could copy/paste would. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what would the Support template expand to, other than Support in bold? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 23:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have the string {{Support}} auto-change and substitute to '''Support'''. I would find it useful, for the same end result. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I don't think it unreasonable request--no reason to make anyone's editing harder and it sounds like there are a few people it would help. That said, the help is minor and the worries about a slippery slope to voting aren't utterly trivial. So a small thing that helps people now vs. a very unlikely thing (but not impossible) that might hurt the culture down the road? I'm gently leaning toward the short-term gains being worth the improbable long-term risk. Hobit (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Johnuniq ~ HAL333 04:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support If we can have {{Agree}} and {{Disagree}} why not Support or Oppose? RudolfRed (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Like this: {{agree|1=Support}} → Support . Now, how to lose the gaudy green tick? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- {{strong}}? {{strong|Support}} → Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does it substitute? {{subst:strong|Support}} → Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - <strong {{#if:|role="{{{role}}}"}} {{#if:|class="{{{class}}}"}} {{#if:|id="{{{id}}}"}} {{#if:|style="{{{style}}}"}} {{#if:|title="{{{title}}}"}}>Support</strong>. Oh dear, that's a mess of wikimarkup, isn't it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I eschew starting my comment with a bolded word, precisely to place emphasis on discussion over voting. Assuming the community is truly dedicated to making decisions through discussion, I do not favour having templates that give more prominence to votes. isaacl (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl: the opposite is that there are so many words in a section that prefacing the section with a bold helps you know what to expect, especially in confusingly worded arguments you know better what they're trying to get at. eg when closing RfCs I don't necessarily close based on vote, but knowing a binary yes/no before a comment helps follow the comment and get a general feel of where the discussion lies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote something similar once about how knowing where an argument is heading can help provide context and thus improve understanding. Nonetheless, it can be done with a thesis sentence, rather than a single bolded word. I appreciate many people like starting with a single bolded word. I believe, though, that it puts more emphasis on voting and tabulation of votes versus discussion. isaacl (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Isaacl, you are assuming that others find it as easy to read or write a thesis sentence as you do. E.g. people with dyslexia, ESL, inexperience with writing topic sentences) I personally struggle to summarise positions into a sentence for many reasons. It was also helpful to me as a new editor that there's a format which people are generally using to help me feel able to engage with discussions. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can't, that's OK. Starting with "I support the proposal," is fine. If we're trying to encourage discussion amongst those who have opted to contribute to a writing project, though, I think it's reasonable to aspire for participants to craft a concise explanation of their viewpoint. Though it'll likely remain an ideal, it's a good target to aim for. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The practice became widespread because editors felt it worked best. It has persisted because editors continue to feel it works best (for the most part, although many surely do it because they see others doing it). To my mind, there is no higher principle than that, and there is something to be said for consistency in formatting (some handle the variation better than others, and I'm in the latter group). But whether to use a bolded first word and whether to create templates for it are separate and independent questions. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said, I appreciate many people like to start their response with a bolded word. isaacl (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support such templates, not because I'd use them myself, but I see no justification for preventing other people from using them. When instructions are given for how to participate in XFD discussions, a summary word in bold is suggested.[2][3][4][5][6] On the rare occasions when I take part in such discussions on other wikis I have to go round searching other people's comments for the appropriate syntax so I can sympathise with the difficulties of occasional !voters here. Thincat (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a good example of the failure to understand the cost of complexity in terms of barrier to entry. Multiple ways to accomplish the same thing is unnecessary complexity, unjustified by the perceived need to let every editor "have it their way" (apparently because they are unpaid). Anyway, the template syntax is no less prone to typing error than the markup. In the worst case the editor can omit the bolding and it may be fixed by another editor per TPO. To the extent that is not done, a few very rare cases of unbolded !votes are not a significant problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE - The goal is simply to highlight what your opinion is. There are lots of ways to do this. As demonstrated here, ALL-CAPS works too. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To disincentivise plain voting, we could adopt these templates, but ensure they only output an empty string :) – Uanfala (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is NOT a problem. No SOLUTION is necessary. GenQuest ^"scribble" 22:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per User:GenQuest and User:Mandruss (and probably a few others that I agree with for other points). Or, if you wish for greater detail, why would we decrease inconsistency between multiple projects by increasing inconsistency in one project? Having the same method for producing bold "oppose" and "support" as is used for making other things bold throughout Wikipedia is beneficial to the general run of users on Wikipedia.--Khajidha (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Minimal implementation cost, minimal burden on other users, and well-defined use case. Thincat put it well. I understand the instinctual "no voting templates!" response, but there's no icon and no emphasis on the opinion. It would be a good idea to brainstorm ways to enforce current community norms around !voting if these templates are created, though. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. If there are no icons, {{Support}} and {{Oppose}} become shortcuts for wiki markup. As with SmokeyJoe I use an iPad to edit Wikipedia, and typing {{Support}} would be slightly better for me than '''Support'''. I also agree on what Thincat and Enterprisey said. GMX (on the go) 16:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{Support}} The cognitive dissonance of people typing '''Oppose''' in this discussion is remarkable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As one of the several people who have explained why a template producing the same output as '''Oppose''' is not desirable I find this ad hominem to be in rather bad taste. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Thryduulf: Andy has a point here about how people comment regardless of the existence of the template, it's not an ad hominem. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Effectively calling everyone idiots, without explaining why they're being called idiots, sort of looks like an ad hominem, doesn't it? – Uanfala (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Mike Peel: if Andy has a point other than insulting the intelligence of people with a different opinion on these templates to him then I am at a loss as to what it is. I can't prove it, obviously, but the impression I get is that he has read only the bolded words (which would be rather ironic for this discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Competent editors can see that Andy's comment was 100% insult and 0% argument, and therefore a "not-not-vote" of no consequence. A competent closer, if there is a closer, would simply discard it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I would not use it, but why not have such a template if it makes it easier for some? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tends to encourage voting rather than discussion aimed at generating a consensus. Solution looking for a problem. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE per Thryduulf, isaacl and Stifle. Those who can't write bold should use the workarounds mentioned above, address their shortcomings (which would help in a far wider range of applicability) or simply write all caps, as Blueboar suggested. ◅ Sebastian 11:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Johnuniq, Mandruss and GenQuest - This really is a solution looking for a problem. I appreciate Commons etc use {{Support}} however we're not Commons, Every project has their own way of doings things and "'''Support'''" is our way of doing things. Personally I use "'''Support'''" on all projects as it's what I'm used too (unless it looks out of place which I then change it after (ie with RFAs etc)). –Davey2010^Talk 11:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: trivial implementation, no disruption of previous practices, no migration cost, aligns well with other Wikimedia projects, probably slightly less chance of unbalanced markers (e.g. 2x2 vs 3x3). --MarioGom (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I myself mostly start comments with a bold oppose text, I don't think this a template necessary. Firstly, per there being a wide range of commonly used !vote strings and having a template for each is a massive overkill. Will we be needing {{Option|2}} for Option 2 or something? This proposal fails to list (even as example) the actual templates, there are surely more than the two mentioned. And having only a few of these will just create extra differences in markup. I would want to see some statistics of the commonly bolded terms in discussion first. Furthermore, the non-existent complexity of the output does not warrant a template, it is unnecessarily convoluting what is a simple text message, nor is having (even more) templates in text helpful when it's literally default bold syntax. Then there's grammar -- what if I want it lowercase or add other words that need bolding? These just feel like ballot checkboxes rather than a summary of the opinion to follow. Finally, pretty sure this will just make using visual editor way more complicated needing to insert a template when one could have clicked/tapped bold like is standard in every other text editor. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point - the common recommendations at current discussions are: "allow recreation", "containerize"/"containerise", "convert to an article"/"write an article", "delete", "disambiguate", "draftify", "dual merge", "endorse", "keep", "listfy", "merge", "move", "oppose", "overturn", "purge", "redirect", "refine", "relist", "rename", "rename", "restore", "retarget", "reverse merge", "revert", "setindexify", "soft redirect", "split", "subst", "support", "upmerge", "userfy", "wrap"/"wrapperify" and "wrong venue". Then you have modifiers like "all", "don't", "for now", "in principle", "leaning", "speedy", "strong", "weak" and "without prejudice" and non-recommendation bolds like "comment", "note", "question" and "update". Covering all these would need between 40 and 50 templates. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: We're only talking about the most common uses of such templates, which are also used on other wikis, like those mentioned in the proposal. There's a latin phrase you could use to explain your comment if you want, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are the the recommendations used multiple times in a current discussion and/or in multiple current discussions on en.wp (AfD, RfD, CfD, TfD, MfD, DRV, MRV and RM; although there were none exclusive to MfD). To be useful to editors at en.wp they will need to cover the !votes they will commonly make otherwise they will frequently have to use the standard ''' markup which negates the whole point of having templates in the first place. What other wikis do is not relevant to discussions on the English Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not I would never use them, but that doesn't mean that others wouldn't find them useful. Most of the oppose votes are people who have no personal use for them. Why is this even a vote? The OP could have saved themselves some trouble by just creating them. I am struggling to figure out why we needed to even have this discussion/vote. --Jayron 32 15:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble would have been saved by doing that, because (a) the templates are salted and (b) I would have tagged than as {{db-g4}} if I had noticed them being recreated. We would have ended up here anyway after a few more rounds of bureaucracy. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite apparent that this is controversial. Sure, people often slip in new templates that would be controversial if discussed beforehand, but I don't consider that good faith practice. Editors are less likely to challenge by WP:TFD because it's such a hassle (and, for some, because they aren't aware of TfD or don't have the time to learn how to use it correctly). If the creation of a template were as easily challenged as an ordinary edit, standard BRD process would work fine, but that is unfortunately not the case. I commend the proposer for "discussing first" in this case, despite the fact that it likely would have been easier to get forgiveness than permission. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is that templates (in general) too often shift from being “optional” to being “preferred” ... and then to “expected” and finally to essentially “mandatory”. I know this is not the intent here, but I have seen this shift occur too many times with other templates to be comfortable with it now. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboar: Definitely not the intent here. I can't say that this won't happen, but if it does, then presumably it would be accompanied by discussions that you and others (including myself) could object to. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with “template creep” is that there often isn’t any discussion in which to state an objection. So I am objecting NOW, while I have a chance to do so. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orz... can we have "Strong Meh" as well? But really we already have Template:Done/See_also and we also don't have a problem with people actually typing "Support" so I really don't care if a template does it as well, however I don't want to see a proliferation of media like File:Symbol confirmed.svg on every discussion, less concerned if it is stylized text (even check marks that are not image files). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly {{meh}} already exists as . We would probably want {{weak meh}} as well — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even without images, we can still run into problems with a page's transclusion limit which could end up breaking the village pumps or ANI where there are lots of proposals with lots of bolded !votes. Not worth the trouble just to save two keystrokes. I'm also worried about what Blueboar points out with templates going from "optional"->"preferred"->"required" over time. In this case, it would threaten to undermine the already weak "discussion-not-vote" consensus process which worries me per WP:NOTAVOTE and meatball:VotingIsEvil. — Wug·a·po·des 22:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could always have a bot auto-subst them (although it would clutter the page history). Enterprisey (talk!) 08:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Enterprisey: I suggested that in the proposal. I could code up a bot to do so if needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I left it vague, but to be clear, I think that's a worse idea for precisely the reason Enterprisey hints at. The last thing I want is a WP:COSMETICBOT roaming around making non-visible changes to markup and cluttering discussion diffs just to help powerusers save 2 keystrokes. It would probably also make people think they themselves ought to be substituting it which actually costs them 4 keystrokes compared to just using bare markup. — Wug·a·po·des 02:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support without the icon and with substitution to avoid transclusion limit. As other projects have implemented it, I have found myself trying the template before realize that here doesn't work. Alexcalamaro (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
O - or a bold S is simple enough or better yet, separate the sections like we do at RfA. Atsme 💬 📧 15:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atsme: Great, let's support more options for commenting, like this proposed template? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: or alternatively doing it properly, Hell no. I despise bolded words as a substitute to discussion and the lack of nuance of just going support or oppose is not to be encouraged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spartaz: But you just used bold words in your comment? This proposal is for a convenience template to make it easier for other editors to comment, not a substitute. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The convenience factor does not outweigh the barrier to newcomer participation created by use of excessive templates in simple discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support anyone making and using almost any template, and the creation of templates rarely requires a vote or discussion. I must be misunderstanding something here. As noted above, we already have {{agree}} and {{meh}} which are similar templates that people can use or ignore. Why the opposition? No one is proposing to force or require the use of this template, so most people would either not know it exists or not care. Other Wikimedia projects like Commons use these templates, so it is understandable to me that if some people want to use it, then they might look for it across projects. In 2005 the template was deleted for use of images, but no one is proposing that right now. To a typical reader they would not know a template is being used at all.

I think the point of this discussion is that this template has been deleted ~10 times since 2005 because of prior use of images, but I see no harm or cost in having the template available for those who want to use it now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{weak strongest possible oppose}} Majavah (talk!) 18:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: (1) It's not that hard to type the non-templated equivalent (2) It encourages !voting without !vote rationale, (3) It only increases the number of templates transcluded on discussion pages. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Plastikspork, you don't ever edit from a smartphone, right? We have editors above who say that it actually is "that hard" for them to type straight apostrophes ('). I think we can trust them that they struggle with this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then type in all caps (as suggested above), which is even easier than finding the {} symbols. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. On my bog-standard Android keyboard ' is on the first page of symbols, { and } are on the second page. Additionally, when editing using the Wikipedia Android app there is a single button that automatically inserts the markup for bold text, there is no equivalent for templates. Unless iOS works very differently (I own no Apple products so can't check) then it seems very likely that templates being easier to insert than bold markup for smartphone users looks fallacious. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Checking on an iphone (in a text application not in a Wikipedia app), ' is on the first page and { is on the second, but if I enter ' then the characters go back to the alphabet, while if I enter { then it stays on the second page, so it's easier to add a second {. Does android behave the same? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried editing in the Wikipedia app on iPhone, and I see the same keyboard behavior there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a consensus to try to make it easier to enter bold or italic text without using a straight single quote, then I'd prefer it be done in a generic way for all text, not just specific words. Let's extend wikitext markup in some way, for example. Maybe something like @‘’’, @’’’, and other combinations of typographical quotes can be supported. isaacl (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a textbook example of a solution looking for a problem. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's quite sad to see the amount of attention this is getting, while much more significant issues get crickets. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple solution to a problem I and others encounter regularly. I know others don't have this problem, but I am surprised at how many have gone out of their way to oppose this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Peel, perhaps we are not simply going out of our way, but instead many more people than expected felt strongly about this. (Similarly, User:Sdkb perhaps what you feel is significant is not the same as for others.) That does however not mean that its not a real problem, but perhaps instead that this is not the best solution. Personally, I wish I could have a panel of formatting/template shortcuts that I could customise to address a related problem I have with often forgetting specific template names (even if I use them regularly). --Xurizuri (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xurizuri, significance is not some wishy-washy subjective value. Yes, assessments differ, but there are objectively things that have a big impact on readers and things that don't. The size of this discussion is perfectly indicative of our worst navel-gazey tendencies. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Likely to encourage voting behavior which would not harmonize well with enwp's consensus-based culture. -FASTILY 01:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because this method of bolding is very simple. As someone that recently began editing, the vast numbers of templates have frankly been barriers to me engaging with some parts of WP thus far, particularly when there's no immediately obvious consistency in when people use one method or the other. And trying to remember all the templates and their parameters, and type them out correctly, is one of the biggest barriers from editing resulting from my ADHD that I've had. I would greatly prefer to not have more of either of those issues. The bolding and italicising are, to me, the simplest/easiest type of formatting we've got and making that more confusing is frankly not worth it. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the arguments about how very difficult it is to type straight apostrophes with a smartphone were being made in good faith, this would be a discussion about undeleting Template:Bold. —Cryptic 15:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allow linking to the "submitted" draft article available for review

To avoid a WP:TALKFORK, please hold discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia policy and guidelines should be solution-oriented and future-proof the edits by being oriented towards "non-alpha" editors (IPs and occasional editors) who contribute the majority of the content, hence they are the core and most important editors/stakeholders. Whereas policies and guidelines are designed by the and for the alpha editors who love to argue, waste time in pedantic debates, nitpick on minor thing to turn mole into hills, big turn off for the "core contributors" (IPs and occasional editors) of the wikipedia, who gets disgusted and walk away.

Please amend the MOS:DRAFTNOLINK guideline in such a way that it must permit the linking of draft articles that have been submitted for the review. You can still impose restriction on linking the sandbox articles or the draft articles that have not been submitted for the review. You can read the benefits and arguments in favor of this proposed edit here and more detailed benefits and concerns here. I was redirected to MOS:LINKING here and to VPR, what a wild goose chase, down the people in time-wasting stuff. Please note that the similar concerns have been already documented by numerous other editors Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great, my proposed edit mitigates some of those concerns. To start with, just allow linking to the submitted drafts as requested here. I will not be monitoring this talkpage here, I have also stopped monitoring talkpages where I had submitted my proposals to edit MOS guidelines. I have already wasted too much time on this bureaucratic hurdle/issues. I leave it to the other members of the community here to tke this to some logical conclusion. Big thank you to you all for your patience to volunteer your time here to help others. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to the article without the Draft: prefix. Once the draft is accepted, the red link will become blue. Allowing links to the draft space from the main space would aggravate our problem with spammers and undisclosed paid editors. MarioGom (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion should happen at the linked-to discussion, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bring back Superprotect protection

I believe this would help the wiki a lot. It wasn't completely useless. I feel like all pages with Wikipedia:(Article Name) need it to prevent vandalism. Of course not pages that contain user-generated content such as the Village Pump section.

This is really just a suggestion. SoyokoAnis (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are implying administrators are vandals (which is clearly not the case), then superprotect is irrelevant here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superprotection was a WMF-implemented feature that allowed staff to prevent even administrators from editing certain pages. Are you sure this is the feature you are referring to? – Teratix ₵ 10:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. Administrators aren't vandals I just feel like those pages shouldn't be edited by anyone except Wikimedia Staff. Yes, that is the feature I was referring to. SoyokoAnis User Page 22:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This is a wiki, after all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SoyokoAnis: The Foundation pretty much leaves it to the "local Wiki editors" for things that don't involve multiple projects or things external to the project, like legal issues. What you are asking would represent a huge philosophical shift. The only time I can see it being used would be for OFFICE actions and possibly for policies with legal implications, but it's not needed there because we can trust administrators to not do anything that goes against an OFFICE edict. Besides, the WMF has enough work to do, they don't need to be wasting time monitoring {{protected edit}} requests on local Wikis. Oh, I can think of one place where this would come in handy: If a court ordered the foundation to prevent administrators from editing a page. But I don't see that happening. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's not the WMF's job to participate in content disputes unless there are legal reasons to do so, can you show an example where superprotect could have been useful if it was available? Majavah (talk!) 23:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SoyokoAnis, I think you are looking for WP:FULL protection, which already exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Request for User:IN

Incorrect venue. Please see WP:ANI or similar. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey admins, User:IN is continuously doing useless edits, against WP:NOTHERE policy. I think a blocking request is needed. He/She was doing the same thing like this in Chinese Wikipedia and is in blocking status now. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? --Golbez (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Convert all English variant notices to editnotices

This proposal arises from an ongoing discussion at the idea lab about how to reduce the clutter of excessive talk page banners, a phenomenon that leads to banner blindness, overwhelming and confusing new editors and reducing the visibility of the more important notices.

One idea I put out that seems to have gotten particular traction is that there is no need to have English variant notices (e.g. {{British English}}) appear on the talk page, rather than just as an editnotice that appears in the edit window while one is editing the article. The primary rationale is that no one is policing the English variety used on talk pages, so the only place this is needed is the editnotice. I'm therefore proposing here that we convert all existing English variant notices on talk pages to editnotices on the corresponding page. This would be done via a bot task, and once completed Module:English variant notice would be configured so that it produces an error notice if placed on an article talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (English varieties)

Support as nominator. To address two potential concerns: (1) In the rare instance that there's a talk page discussion about changing the variant, it's easy for the proposer to provide the context. I can't think of any other situation in which people on the talk page need to pay attention to the variant. (2) Modifying editnotices currently requires advanced permissions; my understanding is that this is for technical reasons rather than because of any editorial consensus. This is an issue that ought to be addressed on its own at some point, but I don't think it's an insurmountable impediment here, as most pages developed enough to be tagged with a variant notice are monitored by editors able to modify it, and if not, they will be prompted to create an edit request, which is quite straightforward. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a good idea and should be implemented, provided any technical issues are addressed eventually (new permission?). GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support there's a dual benefit as it simultaneously improves both the talk page (by reducing clutter) and the edit screen (by displaying relevant info), a win-win. --Paul ❬talk❭ 16:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposal seems half-baked because it doesn't address the use of templates like {{Use British English}} which are what I see most often. For talk pages, we could use something like an infobox which would contain key pieces of information about the article such as its size and quality rating. The dialect would fit best in such a summary of the article's properties. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "use" templates, this wouldn't affect them one way or another; they'll continue being available for when it's desirable to designate a variant but there's not enough erroneous editing for there to be a need for a notice. We could discuss down the line how often to have something visible vs. invisible, but for now I think getting all the visible notices into editnotice format is the best first step.

Regarding your idea for a hypothetical talk page infobox, I'd suggest proposing that at the broader idea lab discussion. I could support it if it's implemented well, but it's beyond the scope of the more narrow change I'm trying to achieve here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. I suspect if editnotices had existed when these templates started this problem would not have arisen. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support if implemented, this would be huge for reducing talk page clutter, and actually making the english variety notices effective. As I said at the idea lab, the people who are disregarding or ignoring an established English variety aren't going to be on the talk page and see it there. As such, I'm convinced that the current position on the talk page is basically worthless. Aza24 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support this seems like a way to make the information more effective and reduce talk-page clutter at the same time. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support we do this for a few Canadian articles already...like Template:Editnotices/Page/Canada....still not seen in mobile view :-( --Moxy 🍁 01:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support great idea. One added benefit is that it reduces ownership of articles by preventing new users from posting useless engvar tags. Since only admins, template editors, and page movers can add these if we make them edit notices, it also gives template editors and page movers something to do. — Wug·a·po·des 02:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also like the idea of removing them altogether. — Wug·a·po·des 21:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for all of this genre of notices (engvar, date formats etc.), but -- perhaps heretically -- I would support all top-of-the-page cleanup notices going into editnotices as well, so people who just want to consult an article for information aren't bothered with them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, by top-of-the-page cleanup notices are you referring to things like {{NPOV}} or {{Original research}}? I think those notices are pretty necessary from a reader perspective, since readers deserve to know when an article has significant problems so that they can read it with due caution and skepticism (yes, people should always be doing that, but they trust us enough they de facto often don't). That's more true for some notices than others, though; I could see a case for many of the yellow style ones like {{Cleanup bare URLs}} to be converted to be shown to editors only. The question at that point becomes whether we're wasting an opportunity to convert readers to editors by offering them an easy task. All this is tangential to the current discussion, so maybe take it elsewhere if you want to develop it further, but I hope my comment is food for thought. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are correct, I was referring to the "yellow style" ones which primarily concern editors only. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that a fair number of the yellow banners are useful to readers (eg Template:Overcoloured letting colourblind users know that they may not interpret something on the page correctly, or Template:Essay-like). Further, as I've been editing even the ones which non-editor readers may not find useful now inform how I read. For example, seeing Template:Debate wouldn't have changed how I read something in the past, but now it suggests to me that people may have POV forked, there may not be great usage of reviews/meta-analyses (in the case of scientific articles), or its editing may have been a series of unconnected additions. They're also useful for the purpose of editing - I will detour from doing other tasks to correct an article if I notice some kinds of banners, including when I wasn't intending to edit it. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great idea, this banner contributes to creep and I hope that this reduces needless conflict, as many well intentioned edits from new and IP editors are related to ENGVAR. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support not useful on talk pages, useful when editing which shows on editnotice. No need for new permission, nor should editing editnotices be available to all, PMR & TPE can do this. If the TPER queue becomes too long, we can get a bot with TPE to carry over additions from the talk page into the editnotice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per proposal ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – reducing talk page template bloat and helping new editors understand Engvar at the same time sounds like a clear win-win to me. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I oppose for sympathetic reasons. 2 reasons: 1) I do not think this is technically feasible. It asks to make an edit notice for essentially 6 million pages. That's an awful lot of infrastructure. (Someone tell me I'm wrong.) 2) I do think the correct remedy is removing these in their entirety from talk pages. We do not need them present in both their canonical place as article tags as well as talk pages. (Replace as needed on the article proper.) --Izno (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Izno: I think it would be at most creating 41,000 edit notices with current use of the eng var module. --Paul ❬talk❭ 18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a casual 41k. Eyeroll. --Izno (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Trivial for a bot. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Trivial or not, a very different figure to 6 mil. --Paul ❬talk❭ 21:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Creation is "trivial for a bot". Maintenance and filtering through the noise in the template namespace looking for anything but edit notices? Yeah, not so much. --Izno (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems like a good idea worth pursuing. --Jayron 32 18:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reducing talk page clutter is a good idea. Remagoxer (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It'd be more useful as an edit notice - I know I never check first, and it's a pain to have to open the talk page in a new tab (especially as I have ADHD and sometimes forget the variant as soon as I close said tab). Ideally, similar notices about the style of writing in a given article would also be great to have as edit notices. However, a concern would be that by reducing talk page clutter, we need to not just relocate the clutter (sweeping it under the carpet, so to speak). --Xurizuri (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but what about protected pages? There might be an increase of (incorrect) ENVAR edit request, I guess you would also add a en-varent message on the talk page too? (please ping) DarthFlappy 18:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Will only worsen banner blindness. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but not at scale, and only as a pilot. As I understand this could affect millions of articles, so please try it first as a pilot for 100s of articles. Big changes like this are best done with test cases, time passing, multiple requests for comment, and documentation. This already has my general support and also I anticipate supporting again in the future, but the proposal as it is has no limits. The scale and pace of the changes matters to me. I am only expecting volunteer-level documentation and not the best and most complete, and I encourage the pilot. I recognize the existence of the problem and feel that it will only grow. There are various possible solutions, and perhaps we have to use several solutions at once to address this issue. Please develop this one solution first. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose editnotice banners are far more annoying than talk page notices. They slow down editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Enwiki has got to be the only publication in the world that writes a single work using multiple varieties of English. Engvar isn't important enough to have talk page banners for, I agree, but the solution is to remove them altogether. Moving them to the edit notice will create edit notice blindness instead of talk page banner blindness, and that's even worse, because in theory, edit notices have the really important stuff, even moreso than talk page headers. Creating thousands or millions of edit notices is a huge overhead and maintenance increase. Edit notices are annoying and largely ignored anyway. They don't show at all for mobile users. In all, I think this moves the problem to a worse place rather than alleviating it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point. I was thinking the notice should be trimmed down, literally into a bullet point like: “* This article uses British English.”. Alternatively, we can have a single “Article conventions” talk page template which is highly trimmed down and signifies standards like the variety of English used — this assumes that there are other types of standards other than English and date variety that could possibly apply. A bit like {{article standards|lang=British|dates=dmy}}. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An article conventions template sounds like a very good idea. There are probably others besides engvar and usedmy, but those two are good examples. I would find iconography to be the most efficient way of communicating these sorts of things, but I'm not sure if everyone would be on board for that. So like a little British flag somewhere if it was use BrEng, a US flag for AmEng, something like that. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the notices should be kept unobtrusive and concise. Regarding the "just remove them entirely" point, we already have the e.g. {{Use British English}} family of templates, which set the standard without displaying anything, just as you describe. I'm undecided about whether/when we should use that compared to {{British English}}, but I think that, in circumstances where it is important enough to warrant a banner, that banner should be proximate to the place it actually applies, which means putting it in the edit notice next to the article rather than the talk banners next to the talk. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We should save banners for the truly important stuff like BLP, rather than spelling. (t · c) buidhe 18:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Graeme Bartlett and CaptainEek. ~ HAL333 22:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

If this is adopted, how would it be implemented relative to existing editnotices that already incorporate English variety? That is, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Editnotice templates for a list of all medical featured article editnotices, that already include English variety, incorporating a custom list of words from the article. (Not a techie, please spell this out in Dummy 101 detail.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In the cases where it's already in the edit notice, I think we'd just leave it there and only remove it from the talk page. --Paul ❬talk❭ 17:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, for pages like Template:Editnotices/Page/Rotavirus, it already includes {{British English|form=editnotice}}, so the bot would just remove the talk page notice and not add a duplicate. For the rare page that has a custom language editnotice, like Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 pandemic, that'd be a little trickier, but still doable; the bot could just skipping adding anything for editnotices that link to a page in Category:English dialects. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shifting banners from talk to the edit notice helps talk but makes it even more unlikely that people will read the edit notice. I would want to see a draft of exactly how this proposal would be implemented (create a million new edit notices? create one central edit notice with magic code to show the language variety?), and exactly how it would appear. Try editing Donald Trump to see what an edit notice can look like. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You're emphasis of how big of a change this will be is certainly valid, though I don't know if I agree that moving to an edit notice makes it even more unlikely that people will read the edit notice – even just the flag of the UK or US in the edit notice would do more than right now. The only alternative I can see to the current situation or the proposed solution above is to completely remove the english variety, which is a more or less impossible scenario. Aza24 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We make the editnotice form smaller? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure how feasible this is in a technical sense, but if an editnotice template is about the formatting (eg date order), language variant, etc, then could those be smaller and all placed together right above the editor? It'd make it less obtrusive, while still being easy to locate all the relevant little pieces of information re writing conventions. Those could alternatively be in an expandable bar, like some of the category lists at the end of articles are. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many old time editors, most newer editors, and virtually all IPs never make it a habit to look at the talk page before editing an article page. English version notices on the talk page are worthless. GenQuest ^"scribble" 23:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely agreed, and this proposal should address that appropriately I believe. The current placement of English variety templates are virtually invisible to the intended audience. Aza24 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a newer editor, I have never intentionally checked before editing so that's at least some anecdotal evidence for your point. However, I'm not sure if this is a function of the notice on the talk page, but on the visual editor on some articles there's a little prompt right under the title (eg Education in Australia). I'm a big fan of those little prompts. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The need for an administrator to intervene will force an non-administrator-editor who notices a a change to the English variety is clearly warranted to spend two edit sessions on the page. The first session would be to place a protected edit request. The second would be to actually change the variety. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Given how infrequently a page's variety of English should be changed this sounds like a benefit to this proposal - ensuring that it only happens when there is a good reason to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would agree with this. Requiring two edits isn't unreasonable for something that defines how the entire article is written. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that the opposers on the basis of "we shouldn't have them in the first place" will actually do something about that and propose that we remove them all together (were this proposal not to pass) . Otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time. Aza24 (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing a change from the second-best solution (talk page banners) to the third-best solution (edit notices) is not a waste of time, even if one doesn't propose the best solution (no banners). Making a proposal that doesn't have a reasonable chance of success is a waste of time. Oftentimes, "second-best" is status quo because it's the compromise. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken if you believe this discussion cannot generate the consensus to remove these from talk pages without replacement. RFCs are not votes.

Secondly, we are not wasting time regardless. We should prefer the best solution, however we get to it. It is a logical fallacy to argue that we also must do things consistent with our position, especially as this is a volunteer mission. (I have no problem being called a hypocrite if you like. :)

Thirdly, this is maybe the least concerning thing on the wiki today. We don't need the polarism on your part. --Izno (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Izno, literally no where did I say anything like this discussion cannot generate the consensus to remove these from talk pages without replacement, and I certainly wasn't intentionally trying to generate "polarism"; the misrepresentations are not appreciated. I think I was pretty clear about what would be "wasting time" – a situation where people who oppose on the basis of "we shouldn't have them in the first place", the proposal fails, yet these opposers don't start some proposal to remove English variety banners. Because in a situation where a problem is brought up, consequently unresolved by the introduction of a bigger problem and neither end up being addressed is a waste of time. Aza24 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PROD consensus

Clear SNOW consensus that (standard) PROD can remain single-objection removed, with AfD handling consensus cases Nosebagbear (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the PROD process once a single person objects with a valid reason, it's a keep. The proposal is that it must be a consensus of this. Instead of removing all templates, they place a keep template with a reason. An admin evaluates the reason and removes endorsed templates. If there are a "negative" amount of endorsed templates for a whole hour, it's a keep. If this never happens for the whole week, it's a delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nononsense101 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what AfD is for. The point of PROD is to action uncontroversial deletions without discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD system could use some reform, but I don't see this getting any traction. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PROD is intended only for uncontroversial deletions. As soon as one person objects it's not uncontroversial, so the system is working exactly as intended. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No per above. Paul August ☎ 01:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have a system like that. It's called AFD. --Jayron 32 18:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An objection is not a “keep”... it’s a “don’t prod”... the article might still be deleted at AFD if no one can explain why it should be kept. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

English Wikipedia's 20th anniversary

Hello, January 15 is in two days. I see that Wikipedia:20 just has a redirect to Meta. Are there any plans to celebrate it here? --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was some talk on changing the logo for the day but they never gained much traction and ultimately fell through. Besides that, not much chatter has been going on about it on-wiki. — Wug·a·po·des 21:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should at least do something... ~ HAL333 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, let's hope it snows. — Wug·a·po·des 22:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wugapodes for starting the RfC below. I wonder, will people clicking the logo on that date expect to be taken somewhere other than the main page? If so, do we have a decent target? WP:About certainly isn't ready, alas, but it'd be nice if we could use some of the buzz around this to direct readers toward trying out editing. Another thought is having a banner notice, or tying in the billionth edit. We're on a short timeline, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe History of Wikipedia? I don't know if it is written well enough to be "featured"... ~ HAL333 23:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's had a "needs update" banner at the top since 2018, prob. not. Maybe we could have it go to the Main page as normal, but put a variant of one of the banners like File:Wikipedia 20 cover confetti blue.png on the Main page. But that'd still leave the question of where, if anywhere, to point people who click on the banner. Maybe I'm just biased in favor of my own work, but I can't really think of any intro-esque project page other than Help:Introduction to Wikipedia that'd really be ready. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would do too. ~ HAL333 01:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: I like your suggestion of linking to a version of the main page with an anniversary banner, but would this be too technical to pull off in time? I'm not convinced about Help:Introduction to Wikipedia, as it's really for people who are already interested in contributing. Just toying with an idea here, but I've always been a fan of the 'Impact of Wikipedia' video, which provides an accessible, inspiring overview, if it could be somehow linked to. If none of these suggestions are practical then I think the normal main page link is best. Jr8825 • Talk 12:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jr8825, a main page banner wouldn't be that hard technically; I think the harder issue would be just garnering consensus. I like that video as well, and I'd be fine linking to it from the banner. Ideally we'd want it to autoplay, but alas that might not be possible. Give me a few minutes to experiment... {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jr8825: Does User:Sdkb/sandbox/Wikipedia:20th anniversary look something like what you envision? (It'd need attention from a CSS expert to get mobile display fully working.) To spell it out, we'd put a banner on the main page something like this, and clicking on it would lead to the page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're on such a short timeframe, I went ahead and made a section below. We'll see what folks think; it'll be nice if it succeeds, and worst case scenario we just get stuck with the normal main page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems as though there's quite a lot of active participation down below. Whatever the logo chosen, I believe it should stay for more than just one day - keep it for a week. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 02:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. I remember the 6 million articles banner logo lingering for a week or so. ~ HAL333 02:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lingering longer than a day sounds fine to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with up to a month. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A week or two sounds good to me. A month might get tired with the flashier option (D). — The Earwig ^talk 19:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change logo for 20th anniversary

Should we temporarily change our logo in celebration of Wikipedia's 20th anniversary? — Wug·a·po·des 22:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Format

Because of the short time frame, this RfC will only run for 24 hours. To ensure adequate participation in the reduced time frame, notices have been left at the administrators' noticeboard, the centralized discussion notice, and the village pumps.

The original RfC proposed File:WP20 EnWiki20 SimplifiedLogo.svg. Due to editor interest, other options have been added below and are labeled by letters. Please rank your preferences from most to least, and do not list options which you oppose.

Proposed images

A Minimal changes

B In the style of the WMF campaign

A black banner with "Wikipedia 20 years of contributions by people like you"

C Inspired by the Wikipedia 10 campaign

D First iteration in the style of the WMF campaign

Implementation

Details can be found at mw:Manual:FAQ#How_do_I_change_the_logo?. Ideally a server admin can update the server configuration, but the change can also be achieved through edits to MediaWiki:Common.css

Survey

Support as proposer. — Wug·a·po·des 22:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support no brainer. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Thanks for the ping, Aza!) My preferences are A, C, B, D in that order. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A is my vote. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sure, why not. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Rpp No objections to any of the images, support in the order D > C > B > A. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option C, it's time. Enjoyer of World — Talk 22:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional support~~^{options since added} if there are no other proposals. I'd prefer something bolder than that (which looks like it'll barely be noticeable), but I'll take it over nothing, certainly. Can we have some other proposals? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sure, why not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow up: Of these choices, I still prefer the originally posted one, Option A. The remainder are too gaudy, or amateurish-looking, or take up too much space. I prefer the understatement of the original, which is clean and professional-looking. Wikipedia has outgrown its amateurish roots, and we should present ourselves for what we are now, the premiere source of immediate information on the Internet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional support~~, same reasoning as Sdkb. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, same as Sdkb. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Option A is better than the rest, but anything is better than nothing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note working on getting the other options set up since there's interest. Gimme a sec. — Wug·a·po·des 23:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A - I prefer the fact that it is not too showy or gaudy. A nice commemoration of two decades of building the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 23:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ If we celebrated 6 million articles, why not 20 years? ~ HAL333 23:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I want a flashing Wikipedia logo with a comic sans 20 in the middle of it and animated fireworks (preferably yellow and red, green isn't my thing) in the background. Make it happen. --qedk (t 愛 c) 23:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional support~~ per Sdkb. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 23:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Enos733 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logo preference is Option A followed by option D. The logo should be changed for the anniversary. --Enos733 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up The RfC has changed since these first comments. Those indicating support were commenting only on option A. — Wug·a·po·des 23:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since we only have 24 hours for the RFC, am pinging the users above who commented before options were added: @Levivich, M Imtiaz, Vanamonde93, Enjoyer of World, Sdkb, Beyond My Ken, Tayi Arajakate, Davidwr, MarnetteD, HAL333, QEDK, YorkshireLad, and Enos733: Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option D. It's the most vibrant, but still looks professional. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option D As Sdkb says: Vibrant yet professional. Followed by: B, C, A. A is hardly noticeable. B is...okay but a bit hard to see what it says. C seems a bit hokey. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A makes the point in a consistent and elegant style. B and D seem too cartoony and garish. And C risks being quite inaccurate as it supposes that the readership is just like the contributors when their demographics may be quite different. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option D, then B, C, A. A seems too subtle, C perhaps too in-your-face. Thanks for the ping, Aza24! YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option D. Option A is also better than nothing. I oppose C - it looks like a Cards Against Humanity card; it's too big and the black background isn't good. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option D: Here is a mockup on Vector. I thought it might be too busy/colorful, but it seeing it in context – it works, I think. Fits the branding for other 20th anniversary content. Second choice: A, then B. Not C; it looks like we're protesting something or someone died. — The Earwig ^talk 23:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting mock. Maybe we need to increase the spacing between image and text a bit? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I think you might be right. Pad a bit more to match how the current logo looks and possibly give us enough space to properly center "20 years of"? Unfortunately we're running out of time. Ping Wugapodes. — The Earwig ^talk 19:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Working on the final designs of A and D (since those seem the only real candidates) as we speak. Should have them posted by 20:00 UTC — Wug·a·po·des 19:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
D C B A ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Option B~~ Then D, C, A. I like the design of B and D, but D is just too busy. ~ HAL333 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D all the way The Earwig's vector changed my mind. ~ HAL333 23:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option D – followed by C, I've loved the style of D since I first saw it at some WMF page; it should draw attention, worried that the others won't. A and B seem a little too bland for a celebration or anniversary imo. Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A: maybe option B. C is horrible. D is messy — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 23:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option C, unorthodox opinion sure. In your face, yes. But it brings attention to the fact that anyone can become a contributor which is something we need more awareness of and I like its aesthetics... Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A or C, please not the cartoony B or D. --Yair rand (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A, then D. Not B or C. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option D -FASTILY 00:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option D then Option A. But wondering whether a logo would mention we reached one billion edits. "20 years, 1 billion edits" sounds even more grandiose. Ovinus (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer A, then C, but any of these would be better than doing nothing.-gadfium 00:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option D (then A). I wouldn't want this around for any length of time, but it's nice and punchy (but friendly) for a day. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really love Ovinus' suggestion of "20 years, 1 Billion edits" CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone with some photoshop skills modify Option D - the clear frontrunner - so that it reads that beneath the artwork? ~ HAL333

Here it is for Option A, though I think the WIKIPEDIA portion could be moved up a tad. Ovinus (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away from inkscape at the moment, but if we're going to have both 20 years and 1 billion edits, I would suggest they go under the Wikipedia textmark instead of over. Essentially, replaing "The Free Encyclopedia" part with something like "Wikipedia\n20 years and 1 billion edits". Another option is to keep "20 years of" above the mark and have "Over 1,000,000,000 edits" below in small caps. — Wug·a·po·des 02:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! I've put something similar on the right, though I admit I have no background in graphic design so the spacing may not be optimal. Maybe someone can make one using the "The Free Encyclopedia" font. Ovinus (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having the text above "Wikipedia" looks much better imo. ~ HAL333 03:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bit busy at the moment, so maybe someone else can create the analogous things for other options/Wugapodes's second idea. Ovinus (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mocked up the text mark. It's at right or here. This can just be dropped into whatever logo gets chosen except C but that one's a long shot anyway. — Wug·a·po·des 04:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support A or C, preferring A. The B option has a bizarre number "2" that looks like a 5 that fell over. Both the B and D options do not match any of the look of Wikipedia or the other Wikimedia projects, so unless there is a complete rebrand everywhere, they are too strange. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
D > C > A > B > nothing. – Teratix ₵ 01:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
D, C: Currently support D, with C coming a close second. C has the best message to deliver, and it looks really classy, but it's too solemn - maybe have some 50% opacity glyphs, or splashes of colour, on the black background to make it look less like a banner for a memorial service for a recently deceased person. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 01:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As Ovinus suggested, we have to mention the thing about the billion edits. How can we not? It's a milestone as great as any other, and the billionth edit itself was by Ser Amantio di Nicolao, rather than just some vandal... Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 02:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support A or D. My only strong opposition is for option C, which is too big and might be disruptive. If we can't all agree, I suggest just going for A because it's so minimal many won't even notice. 20 years is a long time... I feel like we have to advertise this milestone in some way! — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A'. Yes, 20 years is a benchmark that should be acknowledged, but I do not think that a dramatic celebratory change is appropriate at this moment in world history. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration is fun, and the whole world's beginning to look brighter every day. Vaccines are out, and economies are slowly beginning to pick up pace again. Twenty years in pursuit of excellence and a billion edits definitely call for celebration. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 05:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support generally, first choice being Option A, second choice Option D. No objection to other options presented, though. BD2412 T 02:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support D though A is fine. I also support the 20 years 1 billion edits wording. Opposed to the other two. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A, minimalism is best here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A, per the Bushranger. Also support mentioning the billion edits, of course. Double sharp (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support to A or D. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First choice is Wugapodes' suggestion, second is option A, third is D and B. --pandakekok9 (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support D rest look meh. Oppose B and C. A looks way too bland, unlikely to even be noticed tbh. D is exciting, whilst not messy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support D, which I thought would be too messy at first but looks great in the vector. A as backup. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support D followed by A. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A D followed by D A. Also support the 20 years 1 billion edits wording Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 07:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support any: A, B, C, D. Just do something. GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support any, but A as first pick. -- a lad insane (channel two) 08:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support option D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think many option A !voters are missing how extraordinarily subtle that change would be. It's one thing to see the extra line when you're looking at it oversized in the context of a discussion you know will be about changing it; it's quite another to be browsing Wikipedia for something totally unrelated. If we want anyone other than ourselves to notice (and I think we do for an anniversary this significant), we should choose a bolder option. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support C, followed by A As C doesn't seem to be getting much love, please consider A my !vote if that wouldn't win. I prefer the non-cartoony options, 20 years in, Wikipedia is into its adulting phase ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support D, followed by A. The D looks quite cool. Mario Jump 83! 11:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support D, then A. Jr8825 • Talk 11:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Preferences: D or B. A is too easy to miss. – Joe (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A D looks a bit cluttered and cartoonish, and I like the more simple, minimalistic form of A. B looks ugly, and C is just text.
Support A is the most professional looking one..lets steer clear of child like cartoons on the main page...or any page for that matter.--Moxy 🍁 14:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support D Option D looks cool in my opinion, better than the rest. Danloud (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
support A though it should not be temporary, it should be an alternate to main logo for a few weeks...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support D - Compared to the other options, actually feels celebratory. D reminds of a vibrant mural on the street. Altamel (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
support A, then C – B and D look amateurish. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support choosing any of the proposals (though that seems to have consensus now) and I'd like C, D, B and A in that order. C is simple but thought-provoking and could inspire people to think about joining, D is beautiful and hopefully would also get people to reflect a bit on how they use Wikipedia and why, B looks nice and grabs attention and A is similar to banner themes we've used in the past and uncontroversial. — Bilorv (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support C, D, B, A, in that order. We've done bolder logos for arguably less important events, and I think C looks really good for WP 20. Best, KevinL (alt of L235 · t · c) 20:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Main page banner

There is some discussion above about having a banner on the main page leading to a page with some additional information and encouragement to try editing. I've put together a rough mockup of what that could look like. It needs some technical attention to get the width working properly, so apologies for not having something more refined, but I want to put it out here because we're on such a short timeframe. The main page would be changed to add a banner like this, which would lead to this page with a video and further reading/learning links (again, it still needs a few technical tweaks, and it'd of course be moved to Wikipedia:20th anniversary if adopted). Is there general support for doing something like this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that banner is way to big, would rather something less intrusive like we did for 6MM articles (example). Keep in mind there is already also a huge CN banner for the New York area at the top of the page, landing on Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia_Day_2021. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, While the banner could be slightly smaller this is wikipedia's 20th anniversary and I think something big would be appropriate Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 15:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Asartea: I'm assuming this would be in addition to already styling the logo special as well - that's why I'm suggesting not making it so large in addition. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support mainpage banner and the page Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 15:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good idea ....but could we incorporate a few more options like above. Just not sure a cartoonish look is apprioate during a world wide pandemic...should look more academic in my view.--Moxy 🍁 16:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, considering my quick reading of the Logo seems to indicate D will win this banner would be in the same kind of style. A more academic banner might clash with the logo otherwise. Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 16:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a banner campaign planned in support of WP20 in place of the usual WMF fundraising thank you campaign and will follow a similar format to that run in previous major anniversary. Seddon ^talk 18:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon, that's good to know. I'm not sure it'd interfere with this unless it's being planned to launch tomorrow. The aim is also different if it's fundraising vs. seeking editors. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~ HAL333 19:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about launching a campaign to candidate the Wikipedia Foudation for the Peace Nobel Prize?

Candidates for the Nobel Prize will be examined as from February 1st, there's still some time and this might be a favourable momentum! Lichinga (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that would have to be thoroughly planned and considered. There's no chance of us being ready to launch by tomorrow. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree w/ Lichinga--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On other projects

Just wanted to note plans I've noticed at other projects. FrWikipedia are discussing the same options (except our option C) at w:fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro du jour#Vote express d'un logo temporaire pour les 20 ans du projet. CsWikipedia chose a logo in the same art style as B and D at w:cs:Wikipedie:Pod lípou#20. narozeniny Wikipedie. Probably too late to take this into consideration, but if people are interested in being consistent with other projects, it's worth looking at. — Wug·a·po·des 20:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finalizing images

Given the discussion, the main candidates are A and D (the eventual closer will need to figure out which has consensus) and there's interest in memorializing the one billion edit milestone. In prep for deployment, I've finalized these two images based on the feedback. Let me know if there are any other issues that should be fixed before midnight UTC. — Wug·a·po·des 20:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there’s only a few hours till midnight, Wug, and also the last deployment window before Monday, do you have someone ready who can close this? And it may be worth contacting a sysadmin on IRC to have them (or someone else CR) look over the patch to make sure it, and the asset, looks okay, since there’s not much slack room I suppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a red link is supposed to indicate that an article on that subject is needed, and is not supposed to be used for anything else, and should be removed if misused, why is the only thing you see when you place the cursor over that word "the article does not exist". Why doesn't it say "article needed"? Imagine being a living person whose name is red-linked and all you see is "the article does not exist"! Wikipedia can be so confusing when it comes to living people. Sometimes we really care about how they are treated. Could we get that tooltip (cursor message) changed?

Proposal: Change the red link tooltip to read "Article needed". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting suggestion. Two questions that come to mind are: (1) Would we be concerned about erroneous overuse of red links (which, like it or not, happens) leading to the software encouraging the creation of non-notable articles? (2) Is there potential for confusion by moving away from the straightforward "page does not exist" to something else? Also, we'd need to refine a bit, since redlinks exist beyond just mainspace; for instance, I'm looking at a red link to Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) from my current edit window, an example of a page that doesn't exist and probably shouldn't exist. We'd have to handle circumstances like that before moving forward with this sort of proposal. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the tooltip adds (page does not exist) to the name. Page, not article. CapnZapp (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the description should remain literal, rather than assuming that every dangling link indicates a page is needed. isaacl (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much less that every red link is for an "article". — xaosflux ^Talk 19:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 600: / Line 600: @@
 *'''support A, then C''' – B and D look amateurish. [[User:Dhtwiki|Dhtwiki]] ([[User talk:Dhtwiki|talk]]) 19:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Strong support''' choosing any of the proposals (though that seems to have consensus now) and I'd like '''C, D, B and A''' in that order. C is simple but thought-provoking and could inspire people to think about joining, D is beautiful and hopefully would also get people to reflect a bit on how they use Wikipedia and why, B looks nice and grabs attention and A is similar to banner themes we've used in the past and uncontroversial. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 19:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
+*I support '''C, D, B, A''', in that order. We've done bolder logos for arguably less important events, and I think C looks really good for WP 20. Best, '''[[User:L236|KevinL]]''' (<small>[[User:L235/Alternative accounts|alt]] of</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L236#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L236|c]]) 20:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 ===Main page banner===

Revision as of 20:22, 14 January 2021

Replace hyphen with en-dash in Wikipedia browser tab name – MediaWiki:Pagetitle

RfC: What to do with category links to Commons?

Discussion (Commons category links)

Survey (Commons category links)

This is alarming.

Template:Class/icon Update

Reform Category:Common vulnerabilities and exposures into rcat template

RfC: Should we have Support/Oppose/etc. survey convenience templates?

Survey (survey convenience templates)

Allow linking to the "submitted" draft article available for review

Bring back Superprotect protection

Blocking Request for User:IN

Convert all English variant notices to editnotices

Survey (English varieties)

Discussion

PROD consensus

English Wikipedia's 20th anniversary

Proposal to change logo for 20th anniversary

Main page banner

What about launching a campaign to candidate the Wikipedia Foudation for the Peace Nobel Prize?

On other projects

Finalizing images

Improve tooltip for red links