Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

"WP:PROPOSE" redirects here. For propose for deletion page, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion requests.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. 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 speedy deletion criteria belong at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.
• 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

Proposal: Make an IAR exception to the no cross-namespace redirects rule to redirect from Main Page/sandbox to Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox

This is a redirect that I think would be useful when it comes to the sandbox for the main page. Normally, we are against cross-namespace redirects, but I think this is one that would be useful. Interstellarity (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Redirects from mainspace to Wikipedia, Portal, Category, Template and Help namespaces are already IAR exeptions of this rule so we will close this soon. - CafeGurrier66 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: A no is a no CafeGurrier66 (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• 1. In principle, I'm against the very existence of Main page in mainspace, and wish it were in the project namespace, like some other English language projects (wiktionary:) already do.
  2. If Main page remains in mainspace, it only makes sense that it's subpage-seeming pages also redirect to relevant pages in Wikipedia namespace, and thus I support this proposal.
  ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 16:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I was initially inclined to support this, as there's no reasonable way a reader would naturally navigate to the sandbox page. But then it occurred to me that creating this redirect might cause the page to appear in search suggestions (a feature in New Vector) when someone starts to type "Main Page", introducing potential confusion. If that's true, it moves me toward opposition, as reader needs should come first. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: If so, couldn't the page be noindex'ed? ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Qwerfjkl, as far as I know, search engine indexing affects Google searches (which I'd presume would be smart enough to hide the sandbox) but not suggestions that pop up while you're typing in the Wikipedia search bar (which is what I'm thinking about here). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Sdkb and @Qwerfjkl There isn't currently any way to do this, but see phab:T24251 for a long-outstanding request to add this functionality. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• I mark any cross-namespace redirect as egilible for speedy deletion. - CafeGurrier66 (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  @CafeGurrier66: Not all cross-namespace redirects are eligible for speedy deletion. The R2 speedy deletion criterion only covers redirects from the mainspace and does not cover redirects to Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces either. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support, assuming Sdkb's concerns are able to be overcome. It feels like there should be a way to exempt pages from the NV search, and if there isn't, it should be a feature added to New Vector. I support the idea, since there's no reason a reader or editor would be harmed by Main Page/sandbox redirecting. Also, the talk page is Talk:Main Page, not Wikipedia talk:Main Page, so Main Page/sandbox feels more consistent. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 21:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Having Main Page/sandbox redirect to Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox isn't the same thing as having both Main Page and Wikipedia:Main Page. Typing "Wikipedia:" at the beginning of any Wikipedia namespace page has been standard (at least since before I signed up). Cross-namespace redirects are superfluous to the redirects that we already use for the Wikipedia namespace (such as WP:MP and WP:SB. If we're going to make more redirects to Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox then it should probably be something like WP:MP/SB or simply WP:MPSB. But a cross-namespace redirect isn't it and is just an excuse to make more cross-namespace redirects.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Also invoking IAR should be a matter of common sense and doesn't need to be laid out as an exception in any Wikipedia policy/guideline. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." itself covers every exception to Wikipedia policy to involves IAR. Ignoring rules to improve or maintained Wikipedia is something that should be broadly construed and each and every exception doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned. This proposal is more or less pedantry in that it seeks process just for the sake of process. There's no need to fix what's not broken or try to rewrite policy over a proposal that is itself pedantic and based purely on semantics.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because 1. That is not what IAR is and 2. Why hasn't anybody created WP:MPSB yet? Let me do that right now casualdejekyll 05:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because "Meh". --Jayron32 12:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support The deletion policy clarified that redirects from mainspace to Wikipedia namespaces are not egilible for speedy deletion. - CafeGurrier66 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Making a proposal to invoke WP:IAR is 100% the opposite of IAR's purpose. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment It seems to me that Make an IAR exception is almost a contradiction in terms. IAR is about what doesn't get codified, so there is no need to formally codify an exception. Maybe you'd like to reword? There's so much cognitive dissonance from the summary that it gets in the way of considering the actual proposal. --Trovatore (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Making the post-move message more concise

Hi there! I propose changing the current post-move message

from:

Y The page "$3" (links | edit | delete) has been moved to "$4" (edit | history | links | revert | log) (move log)

to: User:EpicPupper/sandbox/Movepage-moved

Additionally, I propose changing the Wikibase post-move message

from:

Your move should now be [$1 reflected in the Wikidata item] language link.

to:

This change:

• combines the notes regarding non-free fair use rationales and disambiguation links, making them more concise and precise to the exact case where fixing is needed (a change in the content of a page).
• removes the note about double redirects. Multiple bots already work to fix this task automatically; see this section. Per WP:BOTDEF, After launching the bot, an assumption can be made that there is no further need for human decision-making. Protected double redirects can be fixed through human decision making later on through Special:DoubleRedirects or a database query.
• Makes the non-free fair use rationale note more precise. Per the non-free use rationale guideline, A redirect pointing to the page where the non-free content is intended to be used is acceptable as the article name in the non-free use rationale. If an article is...renamed later on, there is no need to update the fair use rationale (trimmed).
• tweaks the link to the disambiguation fixer to change to an interwiki link, to avoid using an external link. This is an almost-cosmetic edit. removes the link to the disambiguation fixer as it is often down and fixing the links manually or via another semi-automated tool like AutoWikiBrowser or JWB is enough.
• adds a link to post-move cleanup instructions for more information if needed.
• removes the request to check if Wikidata interlanguage links are updated, as this is automated

This change makes the template more concise, and reduces banner blindness by only showing the most crucial messages. A diff of the changes can be viewed here. See this 2020 post for more context and an earlier proposal. Thank you for your consideration! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Concise is good, but I've a couple of concerns. As the last line notes, moving a page can be a prelude to reusing the old title ($3) for another page such as a dab. In that case, we do want to fix the rationales and the double redirects, which would otherwise lead to the new page on a different topic. Certes (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. I would also support moving the two pages under a "if you're turning it into a double redirect" bullet point if needed, e.g.

• If you turn "$3" into a disambiguation page or into a redirect that targets a disambiguation page:
  • (disambiguate links)
  • (fair use)
  • (double redirect) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• General support, provided that Certes' concerns and any others others bring up are addressed. This is another good opportunity to address banner blindness. Ideally, I'd like to see it adapt to the particular circumstances of a given move: e.g. include a message about subpages only if there are actually subpages (and if so, say "there are subpages" rather than "there might be subpages"). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  The subpage idea is interesting, but unfortunately I think that's not possible to do in wikitext or Lua AFAIK. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Restructure the last point. Yes, a rewrite of this message was definitely needed. However, the greatest need for change is in the last point: currently, it's restricted to the case of dab pages, which is only one subset and where we already have several layers of redundancy in the mechanisms for tracking and dealing with the links.
  What we need instead is more general advice that will also cover the ground that we can't otherwise easily observe (all changes of primary topic that don't involve moving a dab to the base title: like, moving a dab away from the base title, making one article primary instead of another, turning the old title into a redirect to a different place, etc.). The clean-up work that all of these cases entail is: 1) checking all incoming redirects (and ideally, links) and retargeting as appropriate – otherwise, these can end up pointing to the wrong page; and 2) updating any fair-use rationales – otherwise these would break.
  When do these actions need to be performed? Certes above is on the right track. What all these cases have in common is that the old title will become something other than a redirect to the moved page. So how about Unless "$3" remains a redirect to the moved page, make sure the incoming redirects and links point to the correct target, and update fair use rationales if there are any.? – Uanfala (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • See this 2020 post for more context and an earlier proposal. – Uanfala (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I think this is an elegant way of framing it. Colin M (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback! I've tweaked the message based on your feedback. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• I support the broad outlines of this proposed rewrite (though the last bullet still needs some tweaking - I think Uanfala's proposed wording is the best so far). I wonder if it would be worth wikilinking somewhere in the message to WP:RMCI#Cleaning up after the move, since it goes into a lot more detail on post-move cleanup procedures, with examples and some further corner cases (though it does suffer from some awkwardness and bloat of its own). Colin M (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! I've added the link at the top. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, yes, a pointer to the more detailed documentation is definitely a good idea. I do agree that that documentation needs work: it's split, unreasonably, between WP:POSTMOVE and WP:RMCI#Cleaning up after the move, and it's a bit hairy in places. – Uanfala (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• General support Graham (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted CafeGurrier66's close to allow for more discussion, see their talk page for context. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Make New Vector the default skin

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.

---

Some Wikimedia projects and Wikipedias uses the new Vector by default, should we have the new Vector set by default in the English Wikipedia. - CafeGurrier66 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@CafeGurrier66: just to clarify, default for ip editors and new editors? or for all users regardless? – robertsky (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

For all users, like in MediaWiki. Furthermore, it still can be changed in the user preferences. If you support, type in #Support if not, type in #Oppose. - CafeGurrier66 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose – "Legacy" Vector has the advantage of using the right side of the screen for content, rather than inserting a sidebar like ad-infested websites do. If this changes then I'll just change it back in my preferences, but unregistered editors don't have this ability and occasional editors may not find it. Certes (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Our friends over at French Wikipedia and a few other language projects have new vector enabled by default, so this could be a legitimate proposal if built correctly. However, I think the current proposal is skipping way too many steps to be tenable. Such a fundamental change likely needs pre-discussion to hash out elements like what specific wording will be used; seeing as the current proposal is incredibly confusing, it's obviously that hasn't happened yet. I would not necessarily be opposed in principle to this proposal in the future (though I would still oppose as I find new vector to be unwieldy), but there are a lot of steps still needed to get this to the point of broad community discussion. Curbon7 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

My attitude to change is very much of the "if it ain't broke then don't fix it" school. Could someone please tell us what is broke in the current default, and how this proposal fixes that? Please note that I do not accept that the statement, "some Wikimedia projects and Wikipedias uses the new Vector by default", contributes anything useful to this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The Desktop Improvements project should probably be notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• To those who feel the need to change things… please change broccoli. Blueboar (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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.

"Sibling networks" definition

I’ve seen various television network pages having related networks featured on the infobox, but is there any sort of definition or requirements that these should be added. With some of Warner Bros. Discovery-owned television networks, there hasn’t been any clear guidelines for what should be listed there since it’s combining two companies that own a lot of networks that some of them overlap in the genre or theme that the networks have, which can cause some confusion. Hopefully any input here can clarify everything. Thanks Paramount1106 (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I think, in general, just rely on the same terminology at use in your source texts. If source texts widely describe two entities as "sibling networks", and the evidence is clear that the usage is widespread and commonplace, then feel free to do the same for those two entities. If the terminology is not widely used, or even more relevantly, if you can't find clear and abundant examples describing two specific networks that way, don't use the terminology. --Jayron32 14:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Disable image thumbnails in ajax search

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T306246

I'm twelve years old and what is this?

So you're a child and want to look up Anaheim, California because Disneyland. You go to Wikipedia on your mobile device, enter "ana" in the search box and are instantly presented an image of a penis in an anus. That's.. rather inappropriate. The issue has been reported on Phabricator, but you know the response time of the WMF is typically measured in years. Maybe the thumbnails can be disabled with a configuration change, but if not there's always CSS. See screenshot for an example, the file page description has some CSS to play with. Proposal: we disable thumbnails in ajax search results where we can until the search learns to respect MediaWiki:Bad image list. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Wait, you want us to make a local script-hack to disable all images on search results? No thank you, follow up at phab. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Xaosflux, if there's configuration option for this that would be used instead, but if there isn't, well, what other way is there? And hey, when phab:T306246 is resolved it can be re-enabled. Maybe enwiki disabling it will make the WMF developers work harder on it. If the WMF didn't have a reputation for routinely ignoring tasks this proposal likely wouldn't exist. If the WMF committed itself to resolving the task in a matter of days, this proposal wouldn't be needed too badly, but I don't see that happening. The way I see it, this would be a deployment blocker for this feature if it had been caught sooner. Typing three letters in a search box should never result in NSFW pictures unless you're on a porn site. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

If those images aren't encyclopedic, they can be fixed editorially - no? The bad image list is designed to stop vandalism, not as some sort of "NSFW" content filter; though I do think that possibly integrating with MediaWiki:Pageimages-denylist could be useful, but that also isn't meant to be some sort of "NSFW" filter. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course, these are just my initial thoughts - if a community consensus to not use images on this page emerges we can further explore technical options. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Xaosflux, the images are encyclopedic (at least this one is), but it's on MediaWiki:Bad image list because "The images and other media files listed on MediaWiki:Bad image list are prohibited by technical means from being displayed inline on pages, besides specified exceptions." By searching for "ana", I see a penis in an anus on Main Page which is definitely not the Anal sex article for which an exception exists. Btw, no hard feelings. I personally feel it would be very irresponsible to wait a for years for the WMF to pick up that task. I created this proposal so at the very least I can say I tried everything within my power. This proposal is not to disable the thumbnails forever, just until the WMF fixes the issue. How long that'll take them is up to them. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the solution as simple as transcluding {{MediaWiki:Bad image list}} into MediaWiki:Pageimages-denylist? Or does the extension not parse the page before grabbing the list of images? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

a) it doesn't work like that; b)the search results doesn't seem to be using 'pageimages-denylist' (since it doesn't seem to be using the pageimages utility). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux If you say it's not using pageimages I'll believe you, but if it were why wouldn't it work like that? Looking at the source of pageimages, it's doing a dbquery to get the pagelinks from the denylist, which should include any links in transcluded templates. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux As a follow-up, per the source of MobileFrontend, it looks like it's asking the API for the pageimages property of the search results, which is supplied by the pageimages extension. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I was misled by some of the phab comments! — xaosflux ^Talk 23:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, the image quality on those thumbnails is so embarrassingly bad (since they take a low-resolution thumbnail and stretch it to the height of each row) that disabling them makes the search results look SO much better and more professional. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Partial Support We should have an option to disable thumbnails in the user preferences. - CafeGurrier66 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This is primarily a reader-facing item, and most readers don't have "preferences" to set. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Commented at the Phabricator task. I like the images in search results, so I don't want to see them go away, but this should absolutely be a blocking issue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Needs to Support Ukraine

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.

---

As we all know, there is currently a terrible war in Ukraine. I think that the Wikipedia should immediately change the colour scheme of it's layout to Blue and Yellow (These are the two colours on the flag of Ukraine, for those who may be unaware) in support of Ukraine. What do you all think? The140IQProfessor (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

As much as I agree that support on ukraine is needed, Changing the cholor scheme is way too much of a change, and wikipedia is designed to be neutral. On wikipedia, we do not choose "Sides" of anything, We simply list the facts, no matter what they are. Also a color scheme change would require a LOT of program adjustments and would be too complicated. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Bawl with the background set to File:Flag of Ukraine.svg

The140IQProfessor, seems like a bit too much, but I actually thought about something along these lines for my script, Bawl. Essentially because of this I added a custom background option to show your support for something. Originally it was going to be just the flag of Ukraine, but being customizable made more sense in the end. Set Flag_of_Ukraine.svg as the background image in the options and you'll get this. (see image) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that people need to stop trying to rebrand Wikipedia as a soapbox, no matter how strong, and seemingly justifiable, their moral conviction is. 65.88.88.93 (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Many people on Wikipedia have been actively supporting Ukraine recently. Myself and numerous others I know of have been prolifically active in improving content related to Ukrainian culture, people and topics. This is a venue that is quite literally available to everyone, and results in meaningful content being made! Perhaps explore this route, rather than imposing personal guilt onto others. Aza24 (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The TS has been blocked as a sock, so I do not think we should discuss this seriously.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also we literally just went through this kit-and-caboodle a few weeks ago with the Signpost "scandal" lol. Curbon7 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: @The140IQProfessor: Also, you are already blocked as you are clearly not here to contribute to build the encyclopedia. - CafeGurrier66 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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.

We should find a way to increase awareness of internet addiction among Wikipedians

Wikipedia can be addictive. Have you ever felt that you missed something important to do, just because of an article or a discussion at WP. Internet addiction and more specifically WP addiction as a big issue and we should inform and protects ourselves and others. By what means, I can not tell. Maybe ask for expert advice as a community. Let 's talk about it. Do you fell it is an issue we should be concerned? I think if we find a way to increase awareness, it would be an important step that highlights we are a community and even we do not know each other, we care. Cinadon36 10:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been kind of back into my Wikiholism and doing virtually nothing else lately; Wikipedia is like a vacuum you get sucked into. So much to get caught up in, between editing articles, fighting vandalism, keeping up with policies/guidelines and participating in discussions, that it just sucks you in. The time I've spent on Wikipedia lately is time I'd normally spend watching videos or playing video games. Not sure when or how I'm going to come out of it, but Wikipedia addiction is most definitely a thing and I haven't been this addicted in awhile. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Very ironic timing as I am currently on Wikipedia procrastinating from doing an online exam lol. Curbon7 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

In seriousness, it seems like an ebb-and-flow thing for me. This month I've been chilling with edits, but in February I was definitely spending way too much time on here. To some extent it probably has something to do with seasonal affective disorder, as now that it's warm and bright out I haven't been editing as much, though I'm still active daily. Curbon7 (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is not for increasing awareness of any topic, which is considered promotional, even for good causes. (anti-suicide measures have been proposed before) WP:RGW is also relevant. There may be ways to work with the Foundation on this topic. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This could be something interesting to toss to the researchers if they haven't done this before, but yeah this is not in-scope for this page. Curbon7 (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• We have an article on Internet addiction disorder… which is marked as needing more work. I would suggest that a great way to make people aware of the issue (one that IS within the scope of WP) would be to improve that article. Blueboar (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is very true. I have my board and joint just round the corner. They happen to be the most important exams in a students life here. Even the slightest bad performance there sends you into a black hole, as you can't get into cheaper goverment colleges,^{(many aspirants, less vacancies)} and have to spend millions in private colleges, whose affordability is somewhat difficult for our family. Yet, here I am, addicted to Wikipedia, replying to a random VPPR. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 11:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

So awareness of internet addiction is best pursued by posting on the internet? Let's have a smoke while discussing addiction to tobacco. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is totally wrong. "Have you ever felt that you missed something important to do, just because of an article or a discussion at WP" - no, never, why or how? If there is something more important to do just leave Wikipedia and start doing it otherwise it's serious mental problem not related to Wikipedia. Leave mental problems for hospitals. If you ask questions about "addiction disorder" in such a way this is trivializing the problem of addiction disorder so should footbal stadiums help to increase awareness of footbal addiction among footbal fans or should television help to increase awareness of television addiction among audience? Eurohunter (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Casinos aren't in the mental health business, nor should they. Yet casinos offer information about gambling addiction. Maybe for some, the important step of recognizing the problem, needs to come from the source of the addiction. (says someone who scored a 163 on this test) --DB1729 (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments friends, but I would like to clarify that I wasn't talking about raising awareness among general public, which would be against WP policy. I am suggesting we introduce something (a policy or a guideline maybe?) for healthy editing. Like a rule of conduct, maybe just like Wikipedia:Civility. Cinadon36 13:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Good grief. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever seen something like this in any book, television, zoo, gym or whatever? Leave individual mental problems for hospitals. Eurohunter (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I have literally never seen that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Mental health has quite a range, and most of the situations do not need a hospital. Have you ever heard of a frustrated person counting to 10 before replying? That's a mental health strategy. Do you go for a walk outside when you're having a bad day? Mental health strategy. Watch a funny movie when you're feeling down? Mental health strategy.

@Cinadon36, the "story" about internet addiction changes every few years. The newest version is that internet addiction is a symptom, not a disease. That means that (for example) depressed people want to spend all of their leisure time watching videos, not that watching videos makes you depressed. This makes sense: YouTube will autoplay a stream of videos, and you don't have to go to any effort. However, that doesn't help your mental health as much as positive interactions with other people would.

To use a more Wikipedia-specific example, if you are feeling "addicted", it can be useful to figure out whether you're getting sucked into the outrage machine (turning into "our most moralistic and least reflective selves", in the words of this recent article). If you are, you might have a happier life if you spend less time on things like reverting other people's efforts, getting into arguments on talk pages, or trying to enforce rules, and more time on building something that interests you and you find to be pleasant (e.g., clearing out a small backlog, making sure your favorite subjects have decent articles, or encouraging editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @WhatamIdoing: for your input. I feel addiction is a problem that some wikipedians have, and lots of them at are risk. They can be a manifestation of an underlying disease, or it can appear in an otherwise healthy individual. The "DSM-IV-TR Criteria for Substance Abuse and Substance Dependence" can be found here. [1]. In any case, my proposal was based on the idea that we have a moral responsibility to care for each other, and protecting each other from addiction could be useful. It is like saying to your loved one: "hey mate, you are too much consumed on this issue, are you ok?" How we do this, if we decide to act, we should first consult the experts. But unless we act, it is like WP is becoming a thing, that is produced based on mental illness. The analogy could be diamonds, that are products based on child slavery. As diamond sellers should make sure they do not use slavery, WP should make sure that the final outcome (articles) is not the result of mental health problems, nor any problems were caused during the "production period". Cinadon36 07:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

If someone has a mental health situation, and they use it to improve a Wikipedia article, then why would that be considered a problem? We have editors with mental health conditions such as autism and (actual, not movie-style) OCD. This can lend motivation and focus to their editing, and I have trouble imagining why this would be a problem. If you really like having all the Star Wars articles properly categorized or ordered into a list, then what's the problem with that? We'd never tell an editor, "Oh, hey, sorry, your desire to set up a logical cat structure is at least partly motivated by a mental health situation, so you're not allowed to help out with something that we all agree needs to be done. You sit on the side lines and watch while the rest of us slog through this tedious work that you'd be very happy to do." That would be both discriminatory against the editor and ineffective for the project.

There are some limits. Someone wrote Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy many years ago, because we sometimes have people who are trying to use Wikipedia as an actual type of medical treatment. They might be practicing their computer skills (a type of Occupational therapy) or practicing social skills by contacting other editors. If, and only if, this activity is disruptive (e.g., they keep accidentally vandalizing articles), then we block them even if they say "but I need to keep editing for my health program!" This is really rare, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

We have an article on this already, Problematic social media use. Social media addiction is a thing, and Wikipedia, despite WP:NOTFACEBOOK is social media. [2][3][4] I'm not saying there's really anything that can be done about it here, but to act like it's some bonkers thing is bonkers in and of itself. To say things like no, never, why or how? If there is something more important to do just leave Wikipedia and start doing it is to ignore the psychological effect of addiction. Many places and products that are addictive have signage and programs to help those with problems, so it's not a wild idea that's never been heard of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• There is a slightly humorous take on Wikipedia addiction at WP:ADDICTED. Meta has a research project (incomplete, not in English) at Meta:Research:Wikipedian and Internet addiction. If you feel you are addicted, spending too much time on Wikipedia, and need or want to take a WP:WikiBreak, there is a WikiBreak Enforcer script you can use. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I have User:力/scripts/timeclock.js which people might want to copy and experiment with. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Create a short-cut for Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Xayahrainie43

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.

---

Xayahrainie43 is too long to type and remember, I proposed to create a short-cut for them as WP:LTA/X43, this name came from Chinese wikipedia and also used on meta-wiki for SRG. PAVLOV (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Not every sock master is an LTA. And LTA pages should by and large be deprecated. CUPIDICAE💕 12:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Xayahrainie43 is an exist page, this proposal is only for creating a shortcut for it. PAVLOV (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Support. This will be helpful for hard and/or long usernames. - CafeGurrier66 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of any potential conflicts or confusions. If you think it's the most appropriate shortcut, I'd say just go ahead and add it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks a lot for approval. PAVLOV (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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.

Standardise voiced/voiceless over fortis/lenis

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § Standardise voiced/voiceless over fortis/lenis

Fortis and lenis are both terms that have inconsistent definitions and are rarely used in comparison to voiced/voiceless in every context, it seems, other than Wikipedia pages for phonology; this is needlessly confusing and voiced/voiceless should be enforced over them. There are two different reasons one may argue against this proposition. Firstly, one might say that fortis and lenis mean voiced and voiceless themselves. In this case, fortis and lenis, as the rarer terms, should not be used for the sake of recognition. Otherwise, one may propose an alternative definition for fortis and lenis; it is the strength of a consonant, or the length, possibly something even more exotic. These simultaneous arguments, when viewed together, show why this fails; there is no consistent definition of fortis and lenis! In fact, there exist consonant inventory tables which use fortis and lenis in place of voiced and voiceless, despite the fact that plenty of pages for phonology, including Portuguese phonology and Spanish phonology, are entirely comprehensible without mentioning either word once, even in their many sources. In conclusion, fortis and lenis are dated and ambiguous terms that should be replaced with voiced and voiceless. Additionally, I might add that unvoiced should be replaced with voiceless in every linguistic context due to the fact that they are synonyms and voiceless is much more prevalent, but this proposition is not relevant at the moment. (This has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Standardise voiced/voiceless over fortis/lenis) (I'm not sure if this is a proposal or a policy suggestion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.241.63.173 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this proposal would be better suited to a specialised venue, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, rather than a general-interest one such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, should I remove it from here once I post it there? 169.241.63.173 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can just copy your post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, and then either remove the whole of this thread here or leave it in place with a pointer to the other discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at WT:RFA

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk: Requests for adminship regarding changing the display of ongoing RfXs in the RfA Page. The thread is Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#RfC_on_display_of_vote_totals. Thank you.— Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Expand WP:Requests for undeletion to cover FOP-related restorations

I hope I chose the right forum. Presently, WP:Requests for undeletion exhibits a very large notice on top stating that the UNDEL is not the place to request restoration of pages deleted via deletion discussions, and such requests must be made at WP:Deletion review. While not elaborated by the notice, the notice seems to imply to include WP:FFD and the now-axed WP:PUF, as these are deletion discussion areas.

This becomes tricky for requesting restorations of files deleted due to freedom of panorama-related reasons, like cases of freely-licensed images of buildings deleted during the time {{FoP-USonly}} did not exist yet, or rare case of a country introducing commercial-friendly FOP in which deleted files here need to be restored for them to be moved to their almost-permanent home (Wikimedia Commons). For such cases undeletions can be made immediately.

This proposal was suggested by Hobit at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 25, where I requested the restoration of three files of buildings (two from Cambodia and one from France). Since such discussions at WP:Deletion review can be impractical, as the reason for undeletion is crystal clear, the best option is the allowance of WP:Undeletion requests to accept requests on undeletion of files deleted via FFD and PUF but only for freedom of panorama reasons. This will reduce the bureaucracy on Wikipedia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I withdraw this thread. In light of a discouraging remark about me by an IP user at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 25 (which simply isn't true!), I will no longer pursue this discussion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

To give some more context for editors who don't know the intricacies of how freedom of panorama (FOP) works on Wikimedia projects: The Wikimedia Commons has a rule requiring that all uploads there be freely usable under the laws of both the United States and the country in which the file was created. The English Wikipedia has a different rule: we only require that content be free under US law. In the United States, photographs of any constructed architectural work (e.g. a building) can be freely distributed under the freedom of panorama rule in copyright law. Because of this, it is acceptable to upload any photograph of a building to the English Wikipedia, even if the building is located in a country that does not have freedom of panorama. According to User:JWilz12345/Deleted no FOP, it seems like there are a number of examples of cases where administrators have deleted photos of buildings on the basis that there was no freedom of panorama in the countries in which they were taken, but because there is freedom of panorama in the United States for buildings, those photos were actually okay to upload on the English Wikipedia (but not to the Commons). It's definitely a bit confusing, but on the whole, I think JWilz12345 has it right, and I am not opposed to their proposal here to make this something acceptable to bring to WP:REFUND. (If only they un-withdraw it...) Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)