Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.

• If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals).
• If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
• If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the Help desk or the Teahouse.
• This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.
• If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, use Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

« Archives, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

Fractions

I'm unsure if this is the right place to raise this topic, so if it isn't, my apologies in advance. Some time ago I noticed that a fraction was used in an article (e.g. 1⁄2). The fraction affected the line spacing, so I replaced it with ½, because ½ is in the list of symbols. However, the change was quickly reverted. (There are other symbols for ¼, ¾, and eighths.) Is it Wikipedia policy not to use the symbols that are readily available? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Might I suggest that WT:MOS would be a better place for a question of this nature. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You'll also want to see MOS:FRAC. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @RoySmith. MOS:FRAC has "If ¼, ½, and ¾ are the only fractions needed, they may be used in an article body, article title, or category name, maintaining typographical consistency within an article where possible." Since the changes I made (on 23 July 2021) were to 21⁄2 and 11⁄2 (to 2½ and 1½ respectively), and they were the only fractions in the article, they shouldn't have been reverted. Maybe the bot was given a clip over the ear, because my change to 3⁄4 on 7 Jan. was not reverted. :) Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Prisoner of Zenda None of your edits were reverted by bots, they were reverted by other human editors. Your edit on the 23rd was probably reverted because you replaced the conversion templates with hardcoded unit conversions in addition to adding precomposed fractions. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, 192.76.8.81 - but ½ was the only fraction in the article, so I figured it complied with MOS:FRAC (see extract above). Apparently not; can you enlighten me? Even if I did transgress by replacing "the conversion templates with hardcoded unit conversions in addition to adding precomposed fractions", that didn't change the sense of the article one iota. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Article title of Religion Nisei

Recently the new article Religion Nisei was created and I don't think the title to properly conforming to our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. "Nisei" (二世) is a transliteration (romaji) of the Japanese term which means the "second generation". According to the English versions of few reliable Japan's media, "second generation" is exactly used instead of the transliteration, but the article creator user:Penerrantry believes otherwise. I'd like more opinions from other editors who are familiar with Japan-related articles on English Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the word "nisei" has become incorporated in the US English lexicon. A simple search of Google News finds thousands of uses of "nisei" in news stories in publications across the country, especially in outlets on the US West Coast. I also note that "Nisei" does not appear as a misspelled word in many word processing applications, including Wikipedia's text editor. - Enos733 (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Enos733 and Penerrantry: My problem is that nisei seems to only denote "second generation of Japanese migrant (in the US)". It is the "migrant" part that I am having trouble with because "religion nisei" has nothing to do with "migrant" at all. Also I checked the online version of Oxford and Cambridge English dictionaries which don't have the "nisei" entry. Both dictionaries have entries from modern culture like mod, so I am not so sure how incorporated "nisei" has become in the English lexicon. Leaving "nisei" untranslated in "religion nisei" seems to do more harm. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that there is a Wikipedia article on Nisei. While there may be some differences with this particular article, I believe our community has accepted "nisei" into our lexicon. - Enos733 (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"Nisei" may be accepted in the American English lexicon, but "religion nisel" is a totally different story. There are only 8 results of "religion nisei" from my google search, so it's safe to say that we are inventing a new term by ourselves when the major English media sources avoid leaving it as is, including BBC. I really want you to give further consideration in this regard. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe the current title likely fails Wikipedia's policy on neologisms. As mentioned, the term Nisei generally refers to first-generation immigrants in the English context. As most news organisations translate the term in this context (I can't find a reliable English-language source that doesn't), I think this should be renamed. -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia:Impersonating an administrator

I just created Wikipedia:Impersonating an administrator (it is still rather stubby) as an essay, and I am actually rather surprised that I was unable to find a policy page saying that a non-administrator pretending to be an administrator is not okay. If I'm missing something, please point me to it, but this should actually be a policy. BD2412 T 05:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wary of WP:BEANS. I'd assume handling impersonation would be common sense and akin to WP:MISLEADNAME.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite as WP:BEANS-wary—it's pretty easy to see if someone claiming to be an admin is or is not one. BD2412 T 15:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure it's easy for experienced editors & admins like you two "to see if someone claiming to be an admin is or is not one", but the most useful content in the essay would be to explain exactly how to do this, which the essay doesn't address at all! Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Good point. BD2412 T 19:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have a quibble with one of your examples in the essay… saying “I will block you” or “I will delete this article” isn’t necessarily an assumption of Admin power. It’s more a mid-statement of procedure. We have mechanisms in place, after all, where non-admins can get someone blocked, or can get an article deleted. Ok, technically They need to involve actual admins to push the button, but when there is a serious issue, actual admins are happy to oblige. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar: You are, of course, welcome to edit the essay to clarify this, but there is a clear distinction in my mind between an "I will block you" kind of statement and an "I will get you blocked" kind of statement. BD2412 T 20:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think it would be nice to warn against that kind of language without suggesting it's always impersonation. It is reasonable to conclude that someone saying either phrase has the ability to follow through single-handedly. On a related not, I'd like to see the essay/policy/guideline explicitly endorse the continued use of templated warnings, many of which say something like "You may be blocked from editing if ...", as I do see new editors every now and then upset that non-admins have posted such warnings. If not addressed, I think we'll see such editors citing WP:FAKEADMIN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  While I agree non admins shouldn't use language suggesting they may personally block an editor, we often seen including in a talk page discussion above, editors who seem confused and think that even the standard templates which are intentionally worded in such a way to avoid that, suggest an editor is threatening to personally block the warned editor. Even when they accept that the wording doesn't suggest the editor may personally block their warned editor, many still feel as also seems to be sort of shown in a discussion above, that non admins shouldn't warn other editors which of course isn't and couldn't be how things work around here. IMO these are bigger problems than non-admins being careless with their wording although I appreciate this isn't something an essay is likely to resolve. One thing that is IMO a bigger problem and perhaps an essay could help is to remind admins that even they have to be careful with the wording they use. While it's probably fine to threaten to personally block an editor if you're considering that because it's a situation where you can, I've seen cases where an admin has threatened to personally block someone in cases where they accept they should not do so because they are involved (in a non administrative capacity). Personally I find this more troubling than a non-admin threatening to block another editor when the threat is justified since even an experienced editor who bothers to check will know that this is a threat coming from someone who has the technical ability to block so may be more concerned. More importantly, it can lead to confusion by inexperienced editors on how things work, and IMO justifiable annoyance from experienced ones who know that it's not how things work. Note that this also means if you're going to give warnings with such language, you need to consider whether you are involved first rather than only doing so when it comes to using the tools. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: I have added a line noting that admins should not be making threats in content disputes anyway. BD2412 T 19:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Behavior that is unacceptable states the following: Do not claim to be an administrator or to have an access level that you do not have. User access levels can always be verified at Special:ListUsers. isaacl (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Isaacl: I have incorporated that point, and tweaked the page around it a bit more. BD2412 T 01:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Multiple data points in a single table cell

This is something I've long been in disagreement with the community so to get me to shut up, I'd like to have this decided. So. In list tables for politicians, the trend appears to be towards including more information about them, rather than less; I say this damages accessibility, semantics, and adds little information to the article.

Here are two sample entries from List of Governors of Alabama:

Governors of the State of Alabama

No.	Governor			Term in office	Party	Election
13			Reuben Chapman     July 15, 1799 – May 17, 1882    (aged 82)	December 16, 1847 – December 17, 1849 (lost renomination)	Democratic	1847
13			Reuben Chapman	December 16, 1847 – December 17, 1849 (lost renomination)	Democratic	1847

The first row contains multiple datapoints: Name, lifespan, and age on death. To accomplish this requires extra formatting, such that the using of ! to begin a table cell to emphasize it as the scope of the row, as per Help:Table: "Row headers are identified by ! scope="row" | instead of |". The second row has how I think it should be, for the focus of the row: Just the name. My complaints go past the accessibility issues to the fact that I don't feel the lifespan adds anything to an understanding of the subject, which, in this specific case, is "list of governors of Alabama." Getting deeper info on a governor, beyond that which is immediately relevant to them being on the list of governors, is as easy as clicking their name. But, the accessibility issue is a bigger concern than me saying "i don't like it".

(note: yes, the next column also contains two datapoints, and I'd be willing to discuss that too if necessary, but my point here is that the governor, the scoped cell of the row, is one where we want to be as clear to the reader (and their tools) what the datapoint is, right?)

If there's a better place to discuss this please point the way, but it's time for my one-man crusade to end, one way or another. I think the method used in the first row is unsound, and I would like to know how the community feels. I figure this could go to an RFC but I wanted to check here first to see if I am just completely off base and not even go that far. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to removing the governors birth & death dates. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I would object to removal, as this will likely impact all lists like this. I supported the initial proposal to add these dates to the List of presidents of the United States, and it's based on the reasoning I gave there that I oppose this here. - wolf 22:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support, oppose - who said anything about a vote? This is about factfinding. If the first one is in fact inaccessible, then it doesn't matter how much you support it, it shouldn't happen. --Golbez (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, @wolf. I notice several supporters at that discussion clearly wanted it limited to year and not full DOB: birth and death year in small text, Year only, to avoid cluttering, more is better, unless it's too much. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I would consider the first example to be unnecessarily confusing. It is not at all obvious that a date range in a list of holders of some particular office is their lifespan; it might alternatively be their term in office. In this particular example, the fact that the date range is 82 years wide suggests that it is in fact a lifespan, but parsing that requires extra mental overhead. If lifespans are useful information in this kind of table, I would think it makes much more sense to list it as a separate column of the table (which would also have the benefit that it could be sorted on in a sortable table). If it's not important enough to get its own column, is it important enough to list in the table at all? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public: It's clearer on the List of presidents of the United States; the column heading is "Name (Birst - Death)", and the next column is "Term" so, no confusion, just readily visible and useful information. (fyi) - wolf 16:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that the example at List of presidents of the United States is clearer, both because the table heading explicitly says what the dates are and because the age at death isn't also included as a third data point in the same cell. I still think that it's clearer for each column to cover one piece of information. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

If you have to have birth and death dates (which I don't understand) then it should be in a separate column. Just saying it's a lot of work to fix doesn't make it suitable to retain. This table is against WP:ACCESS for many different reasons. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DTAB (and its how-to MOS:DTT) is generally quite clear on how data tables should be formatted for screen readers (which is the WP:ACCESS issue I am assuming you are referring to). You need a good reason to do something that fails WP:ACCESS, saying that, multiple data points in a single field is not in itself anti-accessibility providing the table is formatted correctly. What is the exact accessibility issue here? Is the first not rendering correctly for screen readers? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't have one; that's why I'm asking. One thing I do know is that the first one lacks scope=row, which would seem to be less accessible; and a screenreader would presumably say that the 13th governor of Alabama was Reuben Chapman July 15 1799 May 17 1882 aged 82. But I don't use one so I don't know. --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, this is a sortable table with three things it could be sorting for. Why wouldn't you have a column for the dates? Why do you require more than one piece of information in a cell? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Governors of the State of Alabama

No.	Governor			Born	Died	Age at death	Start of Term in office	End of Term in office	Party	Election
13			Reuben Chapman	July 15, 1799	May 17, 1882	82	December 16, 1847	December 17, 1849 (lost renomination)	Democratic	1847

(Reply here for lvl-1 indent with reply tool) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Instead of more data in few columns, the third option is more data in more columns. This helps column sorting and copy-paste reuse, at the expense of readability and layout. I think the data-oriented table goes against the spirit of a "list article". ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

More specifically, for people, I don't mind years as qualifiers Reuben Chapman (1799–1882): that's done a lot in art-gallery and library cataloguing, and is easily parsed out. The full date of birth and death seem off-topic for a list of governors, though. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. - Enos733 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

For the record, this is an example of an entry at List of US Presidents;

List of presidents of the United States from 1789 – till date.

No.	Portrait	Name (Birth–Death)	Term	Party		Election	Vice President
1		George Washington (1732–1799)	April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797		Unaffiliated	1788–89 1792	John Adams

Unlike the Governor's table being debated above, there is no detailed birth and death dates, just the years, and there is no age at death. I'm not sure there is a need for such details, but I am sure there is no need to create three extra columns just to include such details. - wolf 23:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec, or rather simultaneous post) Indeed, I replied to similar effect further up. Apologies for forking. :) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So does no one here really know about the accessibility issues in removing scope=row and adding multiple data points in a cell? --Golbez (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A very wide table has a different sort of accessibility problem: it's very difficult to read on a smartphone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay but I didn't ask about a wide table. --Golbez (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Golbez: For accessibility, so that non-visual browsers correctly understand the table, each row in a table should have one cell that is marked as a header cell (with !scope=row). Those cells should be the "primary" column of the table, e.g. it should "define" the row and you shouldn't be seeing a lot of duplicates. So, in the Governor example, is that the row about Reuben Chapman? Or is it the row about the 13th Governor? Either is fine. Ideally, the primary cell should also be the first cell, but it doesn't have to be. It does look better that way, though.

In regards to multiple data points, for non-visual accessibility just read it out to yourself (or if you have a mac, command-F5 to turn on voiceover. "Governor. Reuben Chapman July 15, 1799 May 17, 1882 aged 82". Is that enough context, on its own, that you knew what was said? I think it's almost fine- what's missing is what's in the President list, the (birth-death) line in the header, which would make it "Governor birth death. Reuben Chapman July 15, 1799 May 17, 1882 aged 82".

There's also the concern of it being cluttered, which can be an accessibility problem for people with poor eyesight or just visually overwhelming for anyone. Consider doing what the President list did, and making the birth-death bit just (1799-1882), and leaving the details up to the article. --PresN 14:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, there should be a scope=row, which is not possible unless we want the entire lifespan bolded, which is a bit much.

I would say the row is about Reuben Chapman, who was the 13th governor. Put in another example, Grover Cleveland properly shows up twice in a list of US presidents, and both times it is he who is the scope of the row, not the number of his presidency. However, I could see arguments both ways; as you said, there shouldn't be many duplicates, and if we are being strict about "list of presidents" and not "list of presidencies" then yes, one could suggest that he only appear once, and a list of presidencies/presidential terms would include him twice, with the number as the scope cell. And that's a viable discussion but beyond the scope of this one I think.

As for that, okay, so a screen reader will read this (without knowing it's the primary cell, mind you) and that seems like really poor form. Why is it that every other column should get clean data but the governor column, the primary column, throw three facts at the reader?

I consider the "what should we do otherwise" to be outside the scope of this, but, eh, this discussion is dying and I'm too lazy to make an RFC so why not: Why do we even need to include their lifespan to begin with? It adds absolutely nothing to an understanding of the subject, adds maintenance concerns, and opens the door to other pieces of info like spouse, birthplace, etc., which have similarly zero to add to the understanding of the subject. --Golbez (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the death of this conversation means no one cares, or if it needs an RFC. Shrug. --Golbez (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, this thread didn't die unattended. Several editors responded, and there simply wasn't a consensus. At least, not the consensus you were looking for. That in of itself could be considered an answer. Perhaps it's time to move on... - wolf 16:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems like merely putting "(Birth–Death)" in the header would go a long way to clarifying what the date-range means. DMacks (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Well no one wants to discuss the accessibility and semantic ramifications so I guess time to move on to my other objection: why should we include that? --Golbez (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• My ranked preferences is to omit birth and death dates in a row because of accessibility issues. People can click on each officeholder to know more about the individual, but people reading the table are probably more concerned with the period they served in office. At minimum "(Birth–Death)" should be placed in the header. --Enos733 (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Is it possible to discuss something here without people having to state a preference or a vote? Seriously, can we just... talk about it first? No one ever established this as some kind of vote, and yet nearly everyone here... is this all we can do now? Really? Maybe trying to engage with the community was a mistake. I do better when I just do my own thing. --Golbez (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think trying to engage is ever a mistake. It can often solve problems before they become out of hand, or even start. That said, I'm not sure what more there is discuss. You want to reduce, or eliminate altogether, multiple data-points in a single table cell. It's not all that suprising that some people are responding with !vote-like responses. I can see where, in some cases, you have a point, but not in others. This is demonstrated in the two examples we have just above (Alabama Governors & US Presidents). I think the best you can do is tackle this on a case-by-case basis. Tables such as "List of POTUS" is pretty stable now and unlikely to change, but you may have more success in changing the "List of Alabama Governors", and other tables with the same set-up. At least, more of a chance of success, that is, than continuing here, or in trying to create an RfC that will somehow cover every possible variation of table set-up we have, both now and in the future. And you may have to be wary of forum shopping as well. Hey, at least you gave this a shot, and good on you for doing so. - wolf 19:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm just annoyed that I asked a 'why should we include it' and the next comment was 'my ranked preference is not to include it.' Sorry, I'm in a [permanent] mood and should just do what I said and disengage. --Golbez (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Meh, I don't think you owe any apologies, afaic, you didn't come across as cranky. But just the same, taking a break is never a bad thing. - wolf 21:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

TechConductCommittee acts like a cabal.. sanctions?

The TechConductCommittee blocks users from technical spaces without providing sufficient information on why exactly. See this topic about MZMcBride's block by Liz and the warning I got. It's like a small scale Framgate.
This kind of, to quote Anomie, secret court ultimately ends up being harmful for this project too. If users get blocked without sufficient information and/or warnings, that's a serious problem. English Wikipedia (and all other projects) are interwoven with the technical spaces. We need each other. Secret courts with zero accountability have no place in that.
After thinking about this, I was only able to come up with one solution: block all members of the TechConductCommittee from English Wikipedia. I know that sounds ludicrous, but sadly I am dead serious in thinking that's the only way up. An unaccountable secret court is a threat to this project. This block would not be punitive: once they reform they can be unblocked.
It would be nice if someone else could come up with an equally effective but less rigorous method, but I sure can't think of any. I'd really wish I could, especially considering it seems doubtful this idea would garner much support. But discussing this might lead us somewhere. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Tech Conduct Committee is a secret tribunal, a star chamber for sure, as you can see on the MZMcBride topic thread, where we have been assured that there is plenty of damning evidence, but the only links to evidence provided thus far have shown low-grade to moderate incivility that would result in a level-one warning (accompanied by links to diffs!) here at en.WP. If en.WP chooses to pursue a conditional block of those editors, what would the policy or guideline rationale be? If we choose to follow the path of evaluating a potential block, we should certainly act with integrity and transparency by using one of our established processes, notifying all affected parties, citing relevant policies or guidelines, and presenting relevant evidence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

TechConductCommittee is a role account for a wiki that is not this one. Well i have my own objections to the whole thing, it is for mw.org to figure out how we want to be governed not en-wikipedia. If you somehow think its contrary to the principles of Wikimedia, you could start a discussion on meta, but it is not any of english wikipedia's business. Bawolff (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95, the rule might be something like "If you serve in a function on a Wikimedia project where you block users or otherwise restrict their access to parts of Wikimedia, you must always provide the blockee with the exact links or quotes of their offenses that are the rationale of their block. Your process must also include that the community can overturn any block for which no charges were pressed with the authorities of the relevant government."
Well i have my own objections to the whole thing, it is for mw.org to figure out how we want to be governed not en-wikipedia. If you somehow think its contrary to the principles of Wikimedia, you could start a discussion on meta, but it is not any of english wikipedia's business.
Unfortunately, it is. We can pretend to be isolated islands, but we're not. They don't want to be blocked from enwiki any more than we want to be blocked from the technical spaces. English Wikipedia can't decide how mediawiki.org governs itself. I doubt anyone can, even if the community there collectively voted to dissolve the TechConductCommittee, I don't believe they would go down without a fight. But we can decide what's acceptable. And if anyone decides to harm Wikimedia as a whole, even if they don't do it on enwiki specifically, we could decide that's not OK. MediaWiki suffers from severe survivor bias, it's unlikely that community can reform itself at this point without outside help.
There is actually a kind of precedent for this: m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Kubura. Kubura created such extreme survivor bias on hrwiki as a corrupted admin and crat that they couldn't be blocked on hrwiki. So they got globally banned. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey, let's not hold up English Wikipedia's enforcement of our policy on civility as the shining example to compare TCC to. While there are some valid criticisms (transparency dominant among them - I share no love for the TCOC and its committee), that's not the one we should want to chase.

To some degree, there is hope on the transparency front: the UCOC will bring the TCOC under its umbrella (maybe even cause the TCOC to go away) and the expectations for the assorted committee should provide good cause for that group to adjust. And if they don't, that can be heard by the U4C (systemic issues). Izno (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if the UCOC and its committee do not turn out to behave in the same manner. I'll not be at all surprised if we get another WP:FRAMBAN-type situation with the UCOC as the hammer being used to justify it all, since that seems to be exactly why it was created in the first place. Anomie⚔ 11:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Alexis Jazz: Given a lack of alternatives for dealing with the problem, I would support this proposal if it were made. jp×g 19:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

BLP: Replacement of images at subject's request

EDIT: Thanks to suggestions in the replies here, I have written this proposal into an essay. It is accessible at Wikipedia:I look ugly in this! with shortcuts WP:ILOOKUGLY and WP:BADHAIRDAY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpscatter (talk • contribs) 08:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Failing to find policy that addresses this specific case, I would like to propose one.

In the case that the subject of a BLP article wishes to have their photo removed from the article, we can use that as sole justification to replace it, regardless of the subject's reasoning, provided:

• The new photo is also freely licensed,
• The new photo is generally representative of the subject, and
• The new photo is suitable for the article, equally or more so than the original.

If the subject suggests a particular image to use instead, we should make an effort to use it provided it meets the above criteria.

I am not proposing any of the following:

• That we should remove images which BLP subjects oppose without replacement,
• That we change policy regarding the removal of article content the subject opposes, nor
• That the quality of an article should be sacrificed to please its subject.

In fact, this policy would not explicitly allow anything that isn't already allowed. However, codifying it would stop comments such as "is this really a good reason to change the image?", and lengthy discussions under it, in cases where there is no other justification to make the change.

There is precedent for a subject to have direct control of information that appears in an article, though for different reasons: see WP:DOB. See also WP:BLPKINDNESS.

There is a short discussion about this situation at WP:BLPN#Hasan Minhaj, but no real consensus was reached. WPscatter ^t/_c 16:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with this in broad concept, but with reservations. There may be good reasons to NOT use the image preferred by the subject (example: if it also unduly promotes his/her business). Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think this, and any other reservations I can think of, are covered by my proposal already. An image unduly promoting a business is not suitable for the article. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• No policy please! Should be case by case. These are reasonable principles though - do it as an essay? Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestion, I think that's a much better idea. I wasn't aware there was a "policy bloat" problem. Wikipedia:I look ugly in this! WPscatter ^t/_c 08:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't think we should be changing articles based on the whims of the subject - but if a better item does exist then we should change it. I don't see why we'd want to policy-ify it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Simply to avoid the "is this really a good reason to change it?" argument when it comes up. Also in cases where the given image is already good and it wants to be changed to one of approximate equal quality - we've all seen "old one was fine" reverts. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  If the items are equally good, then there is no reason to change it. The subject of the article has no more weight than any other editor. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  That the subject of the article should have more weight than other editors when it comes to the page image, and that it should be a valid reason to change to an equally good image, is exactly the policy change I'm proposing. Stating that it isn't currently the case isn't an argument, it's the entire point. WPscatter ^t/_c 21:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe "the point" you are making is a bad one? Maybe the idea that the subject of an article should have control (beyond the basic avoid libel type stuff) isn't something we should be doing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  If you have any arguments as to why a subject's desire to have an image removed should be a reason against replacing it with an equally (or better) suitable one, please post them. I've written an essay about it, I welcome discussion on its talk page. WPscatter ^t/_c 09:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  If their preferred image is better, the fact that it is better is the reason to change it. If it is only "as good", then the change is just pointless. The onus is on the subject to show that their image is better. And "I think this picture of me is prettier" is not a reason that holds any weight. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  "If it is only "as good", then the change is just pointless" - okay, why? If thousands of people were seeing an image of you that you didn't like, I'm sure you'd feel differently. The fact that the person is not presented in a way they like makes it not "pointless". And besides, even if it is "pointless", surely that means we can make the change without affecting anything negatively, which is why I will continue to argue that we should. I still have not read any argument as to why we should not. WPscatter ^t/_c 20:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  ""If it is only "as good", then the change is just pointless" - okay, why?" Because any change made to any Wikipedia article should be one that makes the article better. If the picture is only "as good", then it does not, by definition, make the article better. It is just rearranging deck chairs. "If thousands of people were seeing an image of you that you didn't like, I'm sure you'd feel differently. " I'm not sure why you are so confident about what I would feel when I pretty much said that a person's own opinion about a photo of themselves is of no importance. And, to reiterate my point, "not affecting anything negatively" is not a reason do something. The reason to do something is because it will affect things positively. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  May I direct you to WP:BLPKINDNESS, which is policy and states "Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern." Are you willing to argue that saying "no, the old picture is fine as is" is acting with kindness when a subject expresses that they do not like how they are presented? WPscatter ^t/_c 21:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  You are completely misrepresenting what WP:BLPKINDNESS is about. This has nothing to do with "showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material". The point of BLPKINDNESS is not to throw the book at people who are technically acting with a COI. Not to coddle their vanity. As I've said before, if the existing image does not meet guidelines for not presenting the subject in a negative fashion and for presenting them in a way that is generally representative, their proposed image would be preferred. Beyond that, if the two images are equally good, I see no reason for a change. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  "I see no reason for a change" - that isn't true. The reason is that the subject prefers the new one. You just don't agree with the reason. And you still haven't argued why, outside of simply saying "we should ignore them". WPscatter ^t/_c 16:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Their preference for one photo over another falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Which specifically covers "subjective opinions concerning the usage of fair use images". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  First of all, that's an essay, not policy. But more importantly, the subject of a BLP being the one who doesn't like it changes things. BLP matters often trump other areas of policy and procedure. It's really a stretch to say this is outside the realm of BLPKINDNESS.

  Others have presented fair arguments against making this policy, such as that it opens the door for subjects to whimsically request changes very often, leaving us obligated to have a constantly rotating image in the article. You haven't presented any other than a dogmatic "subjects shouldn't have control over their articles". Again, my entire argument is that this (where an equally suitable or no-consensus image is preferred by a subject) is a special case in which considering the subject's opinion does not negatively affect the article. If you would like to argue why it would negatively affect the article I welcome that. Appealing to dogma is not an argument. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  While I'm waiting for you to give a reason why we should do this instead of sticking with the Wikipedia wide principles of 1) not making changes that do not improve the article and 2) being independent of the subject. I'm also confused why you would bring up BLP issues when you already specified that this is only for cases where the two images are equally suitable. If there is a BLP issue with one of the images, then the other is preferable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  If we think as kind, considerate people rather than Wikipedia policy robots, the reason why we should do this presents itself rather obviously. Of course "this person is being represented in a manner they aren't okay with" is a reason to change the picture, all else being equal.

  Let me remind you that Wikipedia policies exist for reasons. The reason COI and BLP self-edit policy exists is because it tends to make the article worse via violations of NPOV or uses of unreliable, non-independent sources. They don't exist because "subjects shouldn't have control over their articles" was divinated from on high, to be followed uncritically by all Wikipedia editors to follow. Please make an argument as to why appealing to the subject in this special case would make the article worse. Otherwise this discussion is not productive and I will not continue it. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Khajidha said: Because any change made to any Wikipedia article should be one that makes the article better. If the picture is only "as good", then it does not, by definition, make the article better. It is just rearranging deck chairs.

  This isn't actually a policy. It's your opinion. It's a fine opinion, but it should not be mistaken for a requirement or a view that has general consensus.

  We have consensus that edits should not make articles worse. We do not have consensus that if the article says "The film is known for A, B, and C", and someone wants to 'rearrange the deck chairs' so that it says C, A, and B, that you get to revert them because you think the change was pointless. If there were any community consensus on such changes, it would likely be that you shouldn't get in the way of editors who believe they are improving an article when you think their changes are pointless. The very first item in WP:BADREVERT is about "edits that neither improve nor harm the article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  If the current photo is a mug shot or looks like the subject just walked through a tornado, then a picture of them in a normal setting with normal grooming would be better. And that would have nothing to do with their preference. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think we need this as policy, just that yes, if the subject is able to provide a quality free image that is seen as an improvement by editors, that should be preferred. (We should have a guideline somewhere related to "handling content requests from the BLP subject" that this should be covered in). --Masem (t) 17:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Probably not a great idea. In some cases, sure. I remember the case of Lauren Wolkstein. Her face isn't entirely symmetrical. I think she looks fine, but that's not the point. File:Lauren Wolkstein Montclair film festival 2017.jpg used to be the infobox image. It's not a poorly timed photo, it's just what she looks like. After photos without permission were uploaded and inserted repeatedly we now have File:LaurenWolkstein2021.jpg with OTRS permission. It's a fine picture, but it also deliberately tries to make her face look more symmetrical than it is. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's the rub, if the person wants to present an airbrushed picture say. However, I haven't seen that very much. If both pictures are OK but the one the subject wants makes him look somewhat better, but no less like he really looks than the existing picture... it's fine. Which is most cases. Per the spirit of BLP, we should lean over backwards as far as reasonably possible to accomodate the subject. (But then there is also the question of the person requesting being the actual subject, or her agent, if there's no OTRS ticket). Anyway, we have too many rules already, and rules are supposed to codify existing procedure, not be mandated from above. An essay would be good tho. Herostratus (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Where the subject's preferred photo is appropriately licensed and equally good or better then I can see absolutely no reason why we wouldn't use their preferred photo. If the image is overly promotional then it is worse than the current image and so this wouldn't apply. If someone's face is notably asymmetric (or has some other notable feature) then there should be reliably sourced content in the article supporting that. If that content is in or near the lead then a photo that doesn't show that aspect isn't equally as good as one that doesn't. If the content is lower down the article then use the original photo adjacent to that content and the preferred photo in the lead. If there is no relevant reliably sourced content in the article then the preferred picture not showing that is not a reason to regard it as worse than the current one. In all cases though it is perfectly acceptable to discus which photo is better any why, the only changes would be (1) that one photo being the preferred photo of the subject is not a reason why it is worse than the previous one and (2) no consensus (or consensus they are equally good) defaults to using the preferred photo. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - if the subject has a better photo to offer, the relevant fact is that it is a better photo. Not that it is from the subject. We aren't part of their social media presence, their likes and dislikes are no concern of ours. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Individual cases should be considered on their merits. It may be appropriate to take the subject's personal preferences into consideration, but trying to make this into some sort of policy makes no sense, given the multitude of other possible factors that may be relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• I dislike the proposal's wording, because it says "sole justification" and then goes on to list three non-trivial requirements that the preferred photo must satisfy, which is a little contradictory. However, I do support the general idea of using the subject's wishes as a tiebreaker in "no consensus" scenarios, as opposed to defaulting to the status quo as we usually do. There is precedent for this type of action, cf. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for bringing up the "tiebreaker in case of no consensus" idea, since I think that's an important point and I hadn't thought of it. I've incorporated it into the essay I wrote on the topic. WPscatter ^t/_c 09:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support I used to deal with this a lot. I fully appreciate that many people dislike poor-quality or embarrassing images of themselves like mug shots. A particular problem is when a person derives income from their appearance and therefore prefers the airbrushed publicity photo. Given that our definition of free is "free as in free enterprise", prioritising the interest of corporations over those of the encyclopaedia, I am generally willing to accommodate this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• The important question is: is the proposed new image better than the current image (both in terms of quality and our rules)? It does not matter who proposes it. Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  That's a fair point, and really I suppose the only thing this proposal would change is the case where the new image is of approximate equal quality or no consensus can be reached. WPscatter ^t/_c 09:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support wholeheartedly. Typically, a Wikipedia photo represents a person across the Internet whenever you search for them: it is deranged for us to insist on using terrible photos because using good ones would somehow be capitulation. I mean, the same argument could be applied to any insulting thing: what if we added a sentence to every BLP saying "there is no evidence that John Smith is not a pedophile"? And then we could preen ourselves about how we didn't cave in to the demands of subjects by removg it. And it would even be true, technically speaking! But it would also be pointlessly mean moustache-twirling vindictiveness. jp×g 19:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support if the replacement photo is just as good, it doesn't have to be better to make it a kind thing to do to replace. Newystats (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support So long as it is of equal or better quality, I have no problem respecting someone's wishes. --Jayron32 14:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• I support in principle as a tiebreaker, à la WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The proposed wording is a bit dramatic, though. Ovinus (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• This is in line with what I understand typical practice to be. Some people seem to take an adversarial stance against article subjects for some reason, rather than just tell them "it's the best we have. give us a better alternative and a reason why it's better, and we can see about changing it". It seems pretty in line with BLP to be respectful and empathetic to people who don't like the photo we have (and to guide them accordingly). I don't think this needs to be introduced to policy, but an essay in projectspace makes sense to me. You'll just have to decide if that essay is for Wikipedians interpreting policy or article subjects to explain to them what's going on (and how to upload something better, if they own the copyright to it). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose making a policy that gives article subjects editorial control. If they prefer a different image every month, we should be free to ignore them. We should honour reasonable requests, but making this policy goes way too far. —Kusma (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It goes without saying that there needs to be some authentication, such as WP:UTRS if the person makes their comments on Wikipedia. We wouldn't be able to take any action on an unauthenticated message or through an untrusted channel. Elizium23 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, we can sometimes/often take action without authentication, because fairly often it doesn't matter who made a request. If someone shows up and says "Hey, I'm the subject, and please fix this obvious problem", we should focus on the obvious problem, not on checking who said it. After all, we didn't ask the people who wrote the article/added the image/caused the problem to authenticate themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Draftify things, or improve-in-situ

Note for newcomers to this thread: The ANI discussion linked in the first line is now here. PamD 07:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I am opening this as a discussion-place following yet another big dispute arising at ANI [1] concerning (1) whether recently-created articles that still lack adequate sourcing should be draftified; (2) and if so, how long should be left between their creation and draftification as grace for the original editor to make a cup of tea and continue with their work? Is it acceptable to write articles in main-space directly, with the inevitable consequence that for a period, main-space contains an imperfect article? Related to this is (3) the question of whether poorly-sourced articles from the past should be deleted, draftified or merely tagged as in dire need of sourcing, and (4) the question of whether a likely-true-but-unsupported edit should be reverted, or tagged as needing a source.

My viewpoint is that this is a fundamental clash between two important concepts in Wikipedia. On the one hand, we believe strongly that all information in Wikipedia should be reliable, and therefore we want reliable sources. On the other hand, it has always been accepted that Wikipedia is a work in progress, and that it will always improve: we write articles on the understanding that they will not be perfect, and others will build on our work and improve it. Poor can become Good via Mediocre.

This clash leads to a lot of arguments at ANI, but more importantly, to lost editors, editors who leave the project in frustration, or editors who lose the will to edit in main-space because it's a lot harder than piddling around writing proposals at the village pump. I think it would be very helpful if we could have some community debate on the relative merits of deletion/draftification versus tagging/improvement in main-space, perhaps leading to some better guidelines on when each is appropriate. Elemimele (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Poor can become Good via Mediocre, but a text without basic verification is not an article but a draft. At least the notability of the article's subject has to be verified. Editors who create a new article always read the following sentence on their screen: "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article." I am not sure that those who are unable to read our relevant policies before starting an article are able to add value. Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Editors who create a new article always read the following sentence on their screen: "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article." ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your message. Try to create a new article and you will read the text on your screen: this is the first sentence above the editing box. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Banner blindness is a thing. Just because it's displayed on the screen doesn't mean anyone ever clicks the link and reads it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think the elephant in the room here is that currently almost all draftifications rely on a degree of IAR. There is no clear policy basis for the majority of them. And so when one person says "that draftification has no basis" and the other says "but it made the encyclopedia better", it's possible that they're both right. But it's not a great status quo. Some parts of the project run fine on IAR and common sense. Deletion policy and anything related it tend to not be one of those parts. Perhaps we're overdue for formalizing draftification into something more akin to CSD. (Consider more niche draftification scenarios that are currently entirely IAR, like WP:NFF fails.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, in spirit, with the things said and the sentiments carried thereby. As to the letter, I wish only to say that IAR is a misnomer in light of a process with no formal rules to ignore, and offer my opinion, that: a codeifyed ruleset defining appropriate draftification of main space pages is (more than missing) badly needed. --John Cline (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• More in line with the specific query, currently the official or official-ish rules on time before permittable draftification is either 15 minutes or 1 hour. I don't think it should become too long, but we could expand it to 4 hours without significant issue (CSDs still apply, though A7 and its ilk perhaps should still wait). Nosebagbear (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• I waiver on this myself. Sometimes I think draftification is a great idea, sometimes I think it's a terrible idea. It think it's a good idea for some articles and some editors, and it's really hard to know before doing it which is which. I'd like to see it used less, but I still want it to be a tool in the box. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• This is a good discussion to have. Because of __NOINDEX__, I'm not quite as concerned about subpar articles in mainspace. If it's not CSDable, and it's not something super controversial that will attract gobs of page views, just leave it for a couple days. I usually leave a talk page message in this case, and sometimes it ends up with the article consenting to a draftification so they can work in peace (e.g. User talk:Mitch199811). Ovinus (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Tamzin that we lack a specific policy or guideline about draftification. We do have Wikipedia:Drafts but that is an essay and I agree with much of it while disagreeing with some of it. I know that many editors may disagree with my view of this, but I believe that all unreferenced articles, even those written one minute ago, violate our core content policies. By their very nature, they violate Verifiability because the reader has no way to verify the assertions. They violate the Neutral point of view because our articles are supposed to summarize what a range of reliable sources say about the topic, and an unreferenced article reflects the point of view only of its author. They violate No original reasearch because an unreferenced article reflects only the personal knowledge of its author. We have personal sandbox space and draft space for a reason. Those spaces allow editors to develop acceptable encyclopedia content at their leisure, which is six months for drafts and indefinite for personal sandboxes. I believe quite strongly that content should only be added to the main space of the encyclopedia when it arguably complies with the core content policies, and an unreferenced article by definition does not comply. I understand that that this style of article creation was probably necessary in the very early days of this encyclopedia, but the project is 22 years old and we are at the point where new article quality is much more important than new article quantity. I have never written an unreferenced stub in main space and would be ashamed to do so. I do not think other editors should be permitted and implicitly encouraged to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • A zero-tolerance approach like that would be very alienating, especially with the vague and aloof user talk templates in common use. Ovinus (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Ovinus, how would draftifying alienate any editor who is truly here to write articles that comply with our core content policies? Such editors would have the opportunity to improve the draft until it complies with core content policies. Draftification is not deletion. If editors determined to ram and jam non-compliant articles into the encyclopedia right now are alienated, then I consider that a beneficial thing in every way. If they reform their thinking, they can return at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

      The message draftification sends is "your content is not welcome and has been removed". If the author of the draftified article doesn't get the memo and continues to make a good faith effort to improve the draft, only to see its proposed article status passed over for months or repeatedly rejected over increasing demands that it obey alphabet-soup requirements, the message becomes "we will make you go away by wearing you down with bureaucracy". How could that not be an alienating experience? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

      (edit conflict) That's not what it's like from the newcomer's perspective. She joins this MMORPG of sorts with some excitement and trepidation, and then gets interrupted mid-edit, justified by a (clearly semi-automated) message that doesn't even address what specific problem her article has, or give suggestions for improvement. Frustrating. Also, is the right advice to the creator of a near-WP:A7 candidate that is clearly never going to be notable, "please keep working on this draft meets WP:GNG, and press Submit! for a review"? No, it should be, "please find a different topic to write on", or, "please read Notability in a nutshell before continuing to create articles", or "I'm sorry, you aren't good enough with English for this site; please find the Wikipedia in your own language", or, "hey, check out WP:WIR or WP:JAPAN". Anyway, the damage caused by a poor article in mainspace being seen by a handful of people (mostly NPPers, and only a few random readers) over a few days is less than the permanent deprivation of a potentially prolific contributor. Ovinus (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

    That's a great argument for fixing the problem with user talk templates and then coming back to that approach. We could require that drafitification also requires a message to the creator explaining the issues with the draft in detail. Lurking shadow (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

    I agree. The draftification message is far more WP:BITEy than the act itself. Ovinus (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• The problem is that draftification fails to distinguish two classes of new articles by relatively new editors: (1) spammers, paid editors, and self-promoters and (2) enthusiastic and potentially valuable contributors who have not yet written and edited enough articles to have a firm grasp of what is needed in the way of notability and sourcing in a new article. The new page patrollers are so overwhelmed with (1) that they feel forced to draftify new content far more quickly and indiscriminately than the draftification process actually specifies, but this has the effect of biting and driving away (2) and leaving us with fewer productive contributors in the long run. Stricter enforcement of delays on draftification and on the too-often-ignored guidance to patrol from the back of the queue, not the front, might help. What is needed is for the contributions of people in class (2) to stick around long enough for them to show up on new-content reports so that, at least in some cases, more experienced editors can take the new content in hand and fix it up to the point of being keepable. Instead, it vanishes so quickly that nobody ever sees it, as does the potential contributor who has been turned into one of the crowd of people on outside forums complaining (correctly) about how hostile Wikipedia is. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• The biggest change that we can easily make is to change the templated messages use when something is sent to draft. For example having a specific "Hello, as the article that you created does not yet have any references we have moved your page to draft where your page can be worked on without having to worry about any issues you might have." Especially if it also has easy to use links for getting help. I also think that having consistent messaging from the NPP and AfC would be aa good thing. Gusfriend (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  But that would be a lie. What draftification actually means, most of the time, is "Hello. We have moved your article to draftspace because we think it should be deleted but it doesn't actually meet our requirements for speedy deletion. Instead, we are going to make any attempt to move it out of draftspace so bureaucratic and sisyphean that we hope you will give up and let us delete the draft six months later." —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Dang. Right on the spot (except last twenty words). IveGoneAway (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  How is getting a draft out of draftspace "bureaucratic"? Autoconfirmed users can just click "move" at the top of the page... Whether the info on how to do this is accessible and understandable enough is a different question, and, if this doesn't already exist, I do think there should be quick instructions on moving to mainspace in the draft editing platform itself. Maybe even two "publish" buttons, one for draftspace and one for mainspace, with the latter being greyed out until the user is AC. JoelleJay (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Very few editors I've encountered realise that they are allowed to move articles out of draftspace themselves. Many many editors stuck in unproductive AfC loops hit autoconfirmed way back, yet the reviewers rarely if ever tell them that they could simply publish it themselves. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but that's not really an issue of how draftspace operates as much as it is a problem with our instructions and overall UX. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I like the two options for publishing which @JoelleJay has suggested. On that we could think a bit more at the RfC on mass-created articles.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• I would like to scrap draftspace. It was a good idea, but it fundamentally does not function as anything like what it was intended to be, whereas "improve-in-situ" is the tried-and-tested formula that got us where we are today. But I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. As for what we can do now, I think Tamzin hit the nail on the head: we need to overhaul WP:DRAFTIFY so that we have clear and specific criteria for when an article cannot be in mainspace, that do not contradict each other or the established deletion policy. And most importantly, we need to communicate those reasons to the creators of the article. The situation we've come to in the last few years, where solo new page patrollers can arbitrarily decide an article is "not ready for mainspace", leaving the creator with only a canned edit summary and jargon-filled template message to try and decipher why, is untenable, and I dread to think how many potential editors it has driven away. – Joe (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  To a large degree, we do have "clear and specific criteria for when an article cannot be in mainspace": our speedy deletion criteria. To me, it follows that draftification should specifically depend on an article's vaunerability under that criteria where draft space offers a clear safe haven. Best regards. --John Cline (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Joe, you've hit the nail on the head here. If you make a formal proposal to scrap draft space I will certainly support it, but I'm afraid I don't have the time or the energy to propose it myself. The problem seems to be that nothing tried on Wikipedia seems to have clear success (and so failure) criteria attached to it, so every change that is made becomes permanent. This leads to a great reluctance to try any changes. I'm sure that if such criteria had been proposed for draft space when it was first tried out it would have failed them. And "not ready for main space" must be about the most wishy-washy subjective criterion we have, even beating "significant coverage". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  +1. I'm under no illusions about how difficult it would be, but I'd like to scrap the draftspace entirely. Anything that needs to be outside of the mainspace for further development can go to userspace, exactly like we normally do for a WP:REFUND. And when "not ready for mainspace" means "I don't think this is a notable subject", that should be handled at AFD, not by moving the page to draftspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  +1. Here's a frustrated user who was unsuccessfully trying to publish Draft:Daniele Santarelli since February. In the meantime, someone else has created Daniele Santarelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the mainspace, and the subject has won the world women's volleyball title as a coach. But that still was not good enough for the AfC crew, so no wonder the last user's message was "fuck you all". No such user (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Let's dissect this one a bit more. The first draft the user submitted in February contained 4 refs: 1) a press release from the Croatian Volleyball Federation (obviously not independent of its members and the leagues it governs); 2) a press release from the Volleyball Federation of Serbia (ditto); 3) newspaper coverage of his victory that is primarily quotes from him with only a few independent sentences from the author that are directly about the subject (not SIGCOV); and 4) a blog post (fails RS). This was correctly declined July 8 with the comments:

  This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
  
  Absent a volleyball-specific notability guideline, notability must be established per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Arguably none of the sources cited meets this standard.

  The user then resubmitted the draft on July 11 without adding any references, and this was correctly declined by a second reviewer, who left the note

  There is a problem, the same problem, with all the references except https://hos-cvf.hr/2022/01/18/hrvatski-odbojkaski-savez-nije-produzio-ugovore-s-izbornicima-reprezentacije-santarellijem-i-zaninijem/ whcih can be consiodered to be about Santarelli. The others are announcements pretty much the same announcement three times. We call this churnalism and it adds no value to verification of notability LIke DoubleGrazing I can't find a particularly useful sports notability to guide you. But have a look at WP:NATHLETE which covers coaches. It ought to prove a useful model

  This review was even laxer than it should have been, as the one source it highlights as acceptable is definitely not due to being primary and lack of independence.

  The final submission, on July 20, included a few new references: 5) a piece of SIGCOV in RS Y; 6) his profile/stats on his club's website (not independent); 7) a two-sentence announcement from the same newspaper as (3) (not SIGCOV, and does not increase the total number of SIRS cited); 8) a passing mention in a volleyball magazine (not SIGCOV); 9) a passing mention in a sports outlet. This is halfway to meeting GNG, but still isn't there.

  However, I do think AfC severely dropped the ball at this point as it was not reviewed again until the day after someone else created an (also poorly-referenced, non-GNG-demonstrating) article in mainspace. If it had been reviewed earlier, more guidance could have been given on finding GNG references. The submitter is fully justified in being frustrated with AfC, that was a pretty shitty thing to have happen. But that's a failure of AfC, not of draftspace, and by this point the submitter was well past autoconfirmed and could have put the article in mainspace themselves. JoelleJay (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  JoelleJay: But let's dissect that correctly declined from the reader's perspective: Women's volleyball is an Olympic sport; Serbia women's national volleyball team were the reigning world champions at the time, and (relatively unknown) Santarelli has replaced the legendary coach Zoran Terzić. There's no fucking way that a guy who comes to coach a world champion team in an Olympic sport is not (real-world) notable, and nobody gives a fuck that the submitted article by a new-ish editor did not satisfy {{shrubbery}} required by Wikipedian arcane policies and even more arcane interpretations. If a statement about a new national team coach by a major national volleyball federation is not WP:INDEPENDENT enough to warrant an article, then that policy (or its all too common interpretation) is seriously fucked up. Yet the editor was not aware of the navel-gazing policies, the reviewers did not know squat about real-world importance of the subject, and as a result the readership was left without an article that we ought to have had.
  There's a huge disconnect between draft editors (unaware of our arcane policies) and the reviewers (ignorant of many real-world matters). In an academic world, you will get your article peer-reviewed by subject matter experts who would have substantial knowledge to approve its existence. But in Wikipedia, you don't get any sort of subject matter experts at the first line of defense, so the articles just get stalled forever. Had the article had a test on an AfD, it would certainly be kept or improved, but we never got to that point. The system is broken. No such user (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Our notability and RS rules are not "arcane", they're necessary to prevent articles on subjects people think "must be notable" based on fandom or COI or whatever. As @Robert McClenon pointed out below, these types of article submissions are very common. The problem with those subjects is that if they don't have coverage in RS, we can't write an NPOV article on them--a situation that can have very real, harmful consequences in addition to degrading the quality of the encyclopedia. And organizations like sports confederations are never independent of their members: they have legal and financial relationships with them and therefore their coverage of members will not be neutral. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Whatever. Again, you're explaining Da Rulez to me, when I'm trying to explain that a blind algorithmic application of those, combined with a BITEy bureaucratic approach has led to a catastrophic result: Wikipedia not having an article on an important subject, and a frustrated good-faith user leaving in disgust. As an experienced user, I can find several sources that would satisfy Da Rulez, but the newbie apparently could not. I acknowledge that Da Rulez are there to prevent an inflow of spammy promotional articles, but the one in question obviously was not one. At the time of second decline [2], the article contained a clear claim of real-world importance In the summer of 2018 he took the position of head coach of the Croatia women's national volleyball team, a position he held until the end of the 2021 European Championship. During that time he won two silver medals in the European league, held in Varaždin and Ruse. sourced to Croatian Volleyball Federation (I suppose that was most convenient for the user to cite). Declining publication of an obviously significant achievement due to being sourced to an insufficiently WP:INDEPENDENT source is just wikilawyering, of the "not my fucking job" kind. No such user (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not arguing that AfC wasn't a shitty experience for this user, and I would support making it clearer to new editors that they don't have to go through AfC once they're autoconfirmed. It's very unfortunate the submitter ignored the instructions in the first decline asking for more SIGCOV sources and just resubmitted three days later with the same deficient references. I think that was what caused reviewers to avoid the draft afterwards, even though a quick look at it would have shown citations partially meeting GNG were added. Perhaps an automatic summary of the edits (like ref tags, net bytes of prose added) between latest decline and resubmission would help AfC volunteers prioritize which ones to re-review.
  
  

  That said, this user chose to go through AfC, which explicitly does not consider "claims to significance" sufficient for acceptance (If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason. Notability is a higher standard than lacking an indication of importance or significance) and does not directly enjoin reviewers to do the work of searching for notability-affirming sources. Treating "being head coach of X", sourced to a reliable but clearly non-independent website, as grounds for article approval is literally why like 1/6 of all bios were on football players, something so blatantly incongruous with the purposes of a general encyclopedia that we had a gigantic RfC on NSPORT to deprecate all presumptions of athlete notability. So while it would have been nice if reviewers had recognized such an achievement as probably corresponding to SIGCOV, expecting such valuations by reviewers is piling even more subjectivity onto the already subjective process of assessing GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would add that you appear to be arguing for notability by association. The notability policy states: "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context." The footnote (7) to that sentence includes: "... articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event." I think that applies to the above case. Donald Albury 16:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  No it does not. The issue here is that no one involved knew how to find "appropriate" sources, and there is apparently a wild disparity in definitions of "appropriate". No such user (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  Is Triboo Media "a blog" or "a WP:NEWSBLOG"? I don't know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Also should draftifications automatically land up going through the AfC process, or should they merely be moved to draft space? If someone's writing in main-space, and comes back from a tea-break to find that their article is in draft space but they get a genuinely friendly, collegial message explaining what's happened, they might not be too upset. If they come back and get a template message that their article has been draftified because it's rubbish, and they've now got to make the improvements that they'd already intended, hit submit, and wait potentially months before it gets accepted, they'll be frustrated. A lot would be solved if (1) we review the WP:DRAFT essay and make sure it reflects up-to-date views, and is sufficiently precise (the section on whether there's any active improvement is very woolly); (2) the messages were made more friendly; (3) it were made clear that, if you find the article you were writing has been pushed into the AfC process, it is totally acceptable to finish off the writing and move it into main-space yourself. At the moment there is definitely a stigma associated with prematurely exiting AfC and moving "your" article out of draft-space; AfD people don't like it, and AfC people sometimes see it as an attempt to bypass quality-control. But we should assess the article, not the editor or how the article came to be where it is. AfC should be seen as a helpful way to get a second person's help in checking an article is ready, not as a way to punish someone who's caught inky-fingered with an incomplete article in main-space. (4) I'd add, I'd personally have nothing against a policy saying that all articles should be developed in draft-space (or personal spaces) until they're deemed ready for main-space (probably either by an author of the article, or by an AfC reviewer after "submit" has been pressed, if AfC is in use); that's what draft space is for. Draft space needn't slow the process down, and adds very little effort. Elemimele (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well said Elemimele! It's important to consider the way a process makes a new (or even a more experienced) editor feel. Newystats (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Back in the day, before we invented DRAFTSPACE, articles were “draftified” by being sent to someone’s USERSPACE. This was initiated by request of a user who volunteered to actually work on “fixing” the article. They could take as long as they wanted to “fix” the article, but at least someone was responsible for doing so. Perhaps we need to bring that concept back? Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Agree with David Eppstein that a major problem is the two different classes of editor, one of whom (the paid spammers) we would dearly like to chase away, the other (the good-faith newbies) we wish to encourage & educate. Moving articles of the latter group to draftspace with brusque indecipherable boilerplate messages is stifling our population of new editors. I have said repeatedly over years now that the "incubate in draftspace" message is laughably inaccurate; there is nowhere one is less likely to get actual personalised helpful assistance on an undeveloped article than draftspace. There needs to be a lot more clarity over how one can move articles out of draftspace; very few editors (apart from the paid ones) understand that it is fine to address the problem and then move it back themselves. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  The latest example of chasing away the kind of editor we should wish to encourage & educate: Sergey Kislitsyn, most likely notable (the new article makes a clear case for WP:PROF C1b) and sourced to a reliable source for the brief biographical history it contains, authored by a well-known professor of mathematics at UCLA who is otherwise unrelated to Kislitsyn. User:WaddlesJP13 should be ashamed of their careless WP:BITEy behavior and take better care next time to more accurately distinguish promotional content from valid new articles by valid contributors. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I don't appreciate you shaming me for a simple draft move everywhere. I did not intend to attack the article's creator. I reviewed the article, clicked a few buttons, then went on with my day. I did not look at who the user was besides their username. Why am I supposed to see who the article creator is first, and why should veteran editors be treated differently from new editors simply because of the time they've been editing Wikipedia? If I'm moving an article to drafspace, I couldn't care less whether the creator had 5 edits since last week or had 100k since 2005. If someone makes an article that is not ready to be in the mainspace, then it's perfectly fine to move it to draftspace Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Your failure to realize that this behavior is WP:BITEy is exactly the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The alternative, proposing deletion, is far more bitey and disheartening to new users. To draftify is to tell someone "hey, this needs some work". Users who have their pages deleted often don't understand they can request the page be undeleted and interpret it as a loss of what they had been working on. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Hey man im josh, drafts are significantly less bitey than deletion. I'm also not convinced that sending a BLP sourced exclusively to, what appears to be, an employer-made publication listing to draftspace is an entirely unreasonable decision. W42 18:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I'd like for you to explain why it's bitey though. You keep saying it is but haven't specifically told me why. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I have said so, specifically, over and over in this thread, but apparently you're not listening. Let me try again. Because taking the time and effort to put together an article, only to be told by someone "that's not good enough, but I'm not going to put any effort into making it better or explaining what you should do, just move it out of the way and leave a boilerplate message on your talk page" is hostile. It's telling them that the hour they spent on putting together the article is not even worth one minute of your time to take seriously. It's telling them that their time is being wasted working on Wikipedia, when the Wikipedia editors won't take the results seriously. And if they do keep trying to improve the article and get it approved through AFC, it's worse, because the result will be months of being ignored followed by more templated uninformative messages, no progress towards becoming an article, and eventual deletion of all of their efforts. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: It's one thing if the article actually took hours to make, but if it's a quick BLP stub sourced by one external link, then moving it to draftspace is perfectly justifiable. Like Hey man im josh said, it's just telling the user that the article needs improvement before it can be in the mainspace and is far less bitey than tagging it for deletion. If the draft gets deleted due to WP:G13, that is their fault, not mine. They had an entire half of a year to submit it for review or make an edit as small as a grammatical correction to prevent it from being deleted for another 6 months, but I think someone as experienced as a veteran editor would figure that out themselves. Like I said though, someone with 15+ years of experience on Wikipedia shouldn't be publishing borderline BLP vios in the first place. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Marking the page for deletion, which is the encouraged action instead of draftifying by several people in this thread, is far more hostile and bitey than draftication. Nominating an article for deletion is way more likely to push a user away, and much more closely resembles telling someone they've wasted than time, than telling someone they need to improve their work. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It's telling them that the hour they spent on putting together the article is not even worth one minute of your time to take seriously. That might not be a pleasant thing to hear, but that’s often the truth.

On a descriptive point of view, the time spent by article creators is much larger than the time spent by NPP and AfC reviewers. I would be extremely surprised if the ratio was not 100:1 or worse. So yes, an article that takes one hour to create is "owed" less than a minute of evaluation on average, if reviewer time is to be split fairly. Changing the modalities of review (let it hang with a noindex in mainspace instead of being draftified etc.) cannot change that on average the time spent on review will be much lower than the time spent on creation.

On a normative point of view, some articles should be evaluated much quicker than they are created. I can take months digging through my grandfather’s photographs, archives etc. to put up a detailed account of his life, but anyone reading it will see it’s WP:A7 (plus WP:NOR to boot). (That is not a contrived example; look through the questions at WP:TH, 20% or more are "I created a draft about some borderline-A7 bio and it was declined at AfC".) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• While I agree with Cullen that we're at a point in time where we should focus on quality over quantity, the current processes around drafts can be made more friendly.
  • I see no reason why we can't wait at least 30 minutes to review articles (or even 1 hour), rather than our current minimum of only 15 minutes.
  • The draftify message people get imply that their edits may have been disruptive (where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption, a bit ambiguous whose disruption), and that they need to go through AfC (When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!"). We should improve this message (or give reviewers an option to ask for AfC if they believe that the editor may benefit). The user page message should ideally contain personalised feedback, even if it's just half a sentence.
  • Having DRAFTIFY policy/guideline established would solve a lot of tension; hope we can agree on something.
  • Bit longer-term is an improvement of the AfC process. If we can discourage spammers more, or get better software to deal with spammers faster, we will have more time to mentor good-faith editors. Femke (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Femke, the number-of-minutes-until-review has been mentioned several times, so let's add a little clarity around that. IMO the correct number of minutes until the first review by the first New Pages Patroller is: zero. Seriously. We want someone checking for attack pages, blatant vandalism, obvious hoaxes, and other CSD-worthy problems as soon as possible.

  What you're describing is the work done by the 10th or 20th person to look at the page. It's not unusual for an article to get 50+ page views during its first day in the mainspace (examples: 1, 2). Since page views normally drop substantially after the first day (really, the first few hours), I think it's reasonable to assume that most of these people are editors looking for obvious problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Draft space is for articles on potentially notable topics where notability has not yet been demonstrated by the sources provided, or where sources do not yet even demonstrate verifiability. Those are I think valid reasons for not keeping an article in mainspace. I know it is a common practice to draftify suspected UPE spam but I don’t see the point myself, because it’s not clear what the UPE spammer should do do not be a UPE spammer and no one else is likely to touch their work. The idea that any article in mainspace will be improved at some undefined point in the future by someone else is I think contradicted by experience. Editors are prepared to work on well-drafted articles where they feel they can improve them, but very few people are willing to do extensive surgery on really poor starts. We also have the experience of editors like Carlossuarez46 spending many years filling the encyclopedia with utter rubbish that we are only now clearing out. We owe it to our readers to provide them with articles that are minimally factual and verifiable, even if their notability is questionable. Abolishing draftspace does not serve that end. No objection to a clearer set of rules to determine what gets draftified and what needs to be done to get something moved out of draftspace. Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Prior research shows that other editors are much more likely to edit articles in the mainspace than articles that have been moved to the draft space. If your hope is that "poor starts" will be improved, then you should always want them in the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• If it was mine to make one change to our method of draftifying pages from Wikipedia's main space I would discontinue unilateral actioning of the page move and instead, model a procedure closely resembling proposed deletions where one editor proposes draftification by clearly stating why the page is subject to deletion in main space and why it's better to draftify it instead. Then, after a prescribed period elapses where no contest has been raised and the problems needing correction haven't been corrected, a different, willing editor, would effect the page' move into draft space. The information pages about draftification already use language remenisent of proposed deletions, why not align out actions as well? Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is a fundamentally excellent idea. Instead of just summarily moving to draft there would be something saying, "Hey, X thinks there are serious issues with this article that are fixable. If they aren't fixed in (2, 5, 7, whatever days) and Y agrees, it will be moved to draft space for improvement. If it is not worked on for 6 months, it will be deleted." ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  I also think this is a good idea. A {{proposed draft}} process? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Draft is a place with zillions of possibilities of how and when articles articles go in and come out. Any "draft policy" would inevitably be an over generalization. If an article has established that it has met the "existence as an article" criteria (Notability and wp:NOT) it should be in mainspace. All of the other flaws are are about content within the article which needs removal, fixing or improvement and mainspace is the place for these. But there are lots of reasons for draft space. The most common is when wp:notability has not yet been established it should not be "let in" to mainspace (unless it's flagged for hopefully quick NPP review) As one example of the zillions of possibilities at NPP I had a new good faith editor generate >200 articles which should not be articles. What we came up with (rather then hitting them with >200 AFD's) is them agreeing to having them moved to draft space and I've been mentoring them during which they are learning and agreeing that they should not be articles and we are working on proper disposition for them. And yes, the draftificaiton messages are bitey. I had an experienced editor draftify a 2 minute old article of mine where I had GNG sources all set and they would have been in at the three minute point. The boilerplate messages had all kids of nasty and bossy wording on what I was supposed to do do next which is that case was also wrong. Again, the problem for those is that they were an overgeneralization. Next, wp:before creates a feasibility mess because it (at least prima facie) dumps the whole giant wp:notability research job onto whoever is taking an article to AFD and draft space is a good place to put that job back into the hands of of where it belongs....for the article creator to establish notability. Finally, a little side note. We should not talk like that the main thing for new editors to do is create new articles and structure things around that. With en Wikipedia maturing, it's usually very difficult for a new editor to find a suitable topic for a new article there is a gigantic amount of work to be done on existing articles.North8000 (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• I do feel some editors are in too much of a rush to move things to draft. I mean we have 90 days and it’s not a race. Generally I think it’s better to tag a new article in mainspace and leave it for couple of weeks. If there’s no improvement in that time then draftification is appropriate because it’s clearly not happening in mainspace. But I don’t think in most cases we need to make a snap judgement and rush it into draft. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I did a spot-check on Special:NewPagesFeed last week. About 97% of the articles had been resolved within the first day. Perhaps that was an unusually speedy day, but as Tigraan said above, most articles don't require a lot of time and thought. They're either easy keeps or obvious CSD candidates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: That's a very interesting comment, but I disagree with your stats. They're either easy keeps or obvious CSD candidates- maybe other patrollers get different impressions and review much quicker, but I don't see this being the case, most articles are borderline notable and not easy keeps. I'm just looking at the stats from Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022- 90% of articles are "patrolled", with the rest being mainly draftification (6%). Just 4% is deletion, which is mostly balanced between AfDs/CSDs/PRODs. Even if it's assumed that half of the articles tagged for deletion are CSD candidates, just 2% are CSD-worthy. Therefore, I personally disagree with this, as only a very small amount of articles are CSD-eligible. Further, looking at the last 500 page curation log (at the time of the writing), 59 out of the 500 entries are tagged with problems, which is just more than 10%, indicating that most of these aren't easy keeps IMHO. Therefore, I disagree that CSD-worthy candidates really make up that large of a percentage. However, a lot of the AfC drafts are obviously eligible for G10/G11/G12. VickKiang (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  A page is an easy keep if you don't spend days wondering whether the page should be kept. A page can be in bad condition (e.g., meriting many tags for problems) and still be an easy keep. Nobody would say that the first version of this recent article was in good condition, but nobody would say that October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election needed any slow or careful consideration by reviewers. Only a copyvio could have resulted in its deletion, and the rest is just a matter of clean up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, solid point per WP:NEXIST. Only a copyvio could have resulted in its deletion, and the rest is just a matter of clean up- of course, this is not always the case sadly as G12 thresholds vary, sometimes a 60%-70% infringement might not be deleted under G12. Occasionally just a matter of clean up for copyvios assembled from various different sources might be harder though, but I'm getting off-topic here in a discussion focused on potential changes and improvements for draftification. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also, not all of these tagged pages are necessarily patrolled/marked as reviewed, indicating that not all of these tags are for notable topics that needs cleanup, which is probably what you are implying here. Many thanks for your reply again, apologies I'm going off topic again. VickKiang (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• I sat down to reply to this and my answer got way too long, so I went ahead and created an essay: User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Thoughts on draftspace. Regarding the ideas mentioned in the above conversation, I think I see some consensus emerging that the draftification automated message needs to be improved so that it is warmer and more welcoming. I think this would be simple to do. We can propose a better message in a subsection, get consensus, then change the code for User:Evad37/MoveToDraft. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  To me this is an interesting essay, and IMO changing the Evad37 message to make it more welcoming with possibly an alternative version focusing on notability instead would be better than the current one more vaguely requiring sources. VickKiang (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm of the opposite mindset and would rather see all new articles start in draftspace with easy "Move to mainspace" and "Submit to AfC" buttons. We should lower expectations of new articles being instantly included in the encyclopedia. Additionally, get rid of the six months delete on Draft and better expose draft articles to experienced editors. Editors can sort drafts into promising, neutral and non notable with only non-notable being subject to deletion after six months. Slywriter (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with using draft as the initial state for all articles. Creating an article in the mainspace gives the user a sense of accomplishment; getting it pulled out feels like rejection and is going to be taken negatively, especially with the impersonal and blunt templates/messaging. The AFC process includes more guidance on how to write a good article than creating a new article does, and I suspect having a draft declined (which often comes with more constructive feedback than a Draftification) feels far less bite-y than a draftification. -M.nelson (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  You appear to not understand how draft space is actually used. Draft space is not a viable way of creating new articles. It is not even a way to get new contributors to learn their skills. What it really is, is a honeypot to attract spammers and promoters (or to push their content into via draftification) as a way of keeping it out of mainspace without going through the effort of a full deletion discussion. The rate of promotion of material from draftspace to article space is very very low. This proposal would effectively shut down all new article creation. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  If that's true, then we should define draftification to apply only to spammers and promoters (etc), and not to good faith article writers (obviously, tricky to define). It's too BITEy to the latter group. -M.nelson (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  @David Eppstein, I think it would be a good idea to get some stats on the likelihood of pages entering the draftspace and the likelihood of them emerging from it, and maybe even a random sample of what AFD says about their notability. We're not expecting perfection (a 1% error rate at NPP would misclassify about 20 new articles a week, which isn't terrible), but if what does happen significantly diverges from what should happen, that would suggest that we need to change urgently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• I had begun drafting a comment until I saw the remarks by Cullen328 who sums it up perfectly and most eloquently as he usually does. As one of the early and most vociferous proponents for the deprecation of the old incubator and creator of the draftspace, I couldn’t agree more. Any other arguments are simply a conflict of ideologies. Wikipedia has grown up and is no longer desperate for quantity of articles over quality of articles even though that is still the warped, doubled-down philosophy of the WMF (they think the quantity draws the donations and it's one of the underlying reasons they are avoiding upgrading the Page Curation software - indeed one staffer openly claims that NPP is not even a necessary process!) At the time of creating a user right in 2016 for reviewing new pages, most of the routine tagging, deletion tagging, and draftifying was left available to all autoconfirmed users. This has proven over the ensuing 6 years not to have been completely ideal.

Above, Slywriter makes a couple of valid points that which with refinement could be the proposal(s) for a separate RfC - cretainly that all articles from new users should be created through the Article Wizard and submitted to AfC. Much if the fault lies with the WMF for having abandoned the development of an excellent landing page when the senior dev left in the 2015 mass exodus. At the end of the day, the onus is on the creators to submit policy compliant articles, and thety should not expect other editors to clear p their mess for them.

A zero tolerance approach (Ovinus) would educate new users rather than alienate them, there is no such intention among serious NPPers to tell new users to clear off and don't come back; to assert anything similar is a collective PA against a dedicated user group. The kinds of nasty and bossy wording is the fault of allowing governance obsessives to draft them without some control. If some editors are in too much of a rush to move things to draft then it’s time Mccapra and Ovinus for you to train your colleagues at NPP to take more time over their reviews, not make snap judgments, and be less thirsty for barnstars whose value has been watered down anyway over the years. Finally, for anyone who is still unaware of what the thankless task of NPP really involves, this 2018 article NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers in The Signpost will remove any doubts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

A zero tolerance approach ... would educate new users rather than alienate them. Perhaps the humbler ones. But I'm confident that, were my additions rapidly draftified or removed when I was a newbie, explained with a half-hearted message, I probably would have left, and quite quickly. Ovinus (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I have a very low tolerance for disrespect and what I see as other people wasting my time. I could easily see myself running into the current bureaucracy that new editors face, quickly concluding that I don't have time for that shit, and moving my energies to other places than Wikipedia. I can (but probably shouldn't because of outing) name multiple high-profile academics, whose subject-matter expertise would be very valuable here, but who appear to have been driven away by exactly this sort of behavior. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I've met several academics who were trying to write articles covering notable figures in their subject area but had walked away when they encountered draftification or the AfC process, and were told their efforts were promotional because they were in the same subject area. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Since I am almost certainly the person referred to in one staffer openly claims that NPP is not even a necessary process, I would like to clarify:

1. I have said that I'm not convinced that it's necessary for anyone to use Special:NewPagesFeed, which is the mw:Extension:PageTriage software. Alternatives to that exist, particularly Special:NewPages, which is used at all of the other WMF-hosted wikis in addition to some page patrollers and admins use here, including the German-language Wikipedia (660 net new articles per day during the last year), French (560, just like us), Russian (520), Farsi (500), Spanish (480), Chinese (430), and Turkish (400), not to mention Commons (>10M new files per year). For comparison, when I checked last week, we had 560 new articles, some of which have since been deleted or removed from the mainspace. IMO if all of these communities can manage without this exact piece of software, then so could we. "This exact piece of software is not necessary" is not the same thing as "NPP is not necessary".
2. I have said that I believe NPP should focus on CSD, instead of trying to do everything, including tagging, gnoming, encouraging newbies, deciding what's notable, etc. Saying that "notability...IMO shouldn't be NPP's problem" is not the same thing as saying "NPP is not necessary".

Also for clarity, I've been working with the WMF since 2013, and I have never once heard a staff member say anything even remotely like "quantity draws the donations". I do not know where (some) editors get this idea. It's probably not true, either. Quantity probably doesn't draw donations; it's probably more relevant to have the information people are actually seeking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• I find myself strongly agreeing with North8000, Cullen328, Slywriter, and Kudpung here. First of all, draftification needn't be the opaque, condescending punishment it seems editors think it is. We can make it much more useful by including updated friendly feedback in the talk page template, including what the specific problems are and ways to fix them. The whole experience would also be a lot smoother if starting articles in draftspace and only publishing once minimal criteria were met was the norm; then being sent back to draftspace with a personalized note on what you need to improve would be a lot less discouraging.

But secondly, it is not some onerous chore to provide the reliable source you used to start an article. Why should we care at all about retaining editors who go straight to creating an unreferenced standalone in mainspace? It's not 2006 anymore: the average English-speaking internet user has encountered countless Wikipedia articles over the last 20+ years, and the idea that facts in general and on Wikipedia in particular should be sourced is so engrained in Western society (especially in post-2016 America!) that "[citation needed]" is an everyday phrase; there is really no justification for expecting anything less than a reliably-sourced claim to notability for an article to be in mainspace.° If a new editor can't even copy-paste one URL or write author name+year somewhere in their creation before submitting it, and would be so upset at their article being draftified that they would refuse to edit ever again, then they clearly weren't here to build an encyclopedia as a regular editor in the first place. To restate: someone who is desperate for their topic to have a page title on WP immediately regardless of merit or article quality, but is also totally uninterested in putting in the barest effort needed to keep it in mainspace, would never have stuck around as a long-term contributor anyway. Nor would someone who is so invested in getting their non-notable subject a WP article that they rage-quit when apprised of our notability guidelines.

Thirdly, we shouldn't be encouraging new editors to dive right into article creation at all. The possibility that a four-day-old account with 10 dummy edits has identified a topic of critical, NORUSH-superseding importance as a standalone is just not worth the burden placed on AfC/NPP of having to comb through however much poorly-formatted unsourced text in each submission just to identify whether it has even a claim to notability. Adding more pages that have to be patrolled, assessed, tagged, wikiprojected, and watchlisted--all before anyone even knows whether the topics meet WP:N!--is a much greater strain on editors than is adding the same content to existing articles.

°What would really resolve a lot of issues would be requiring everyone's first°° article submission fully demonstrate notability upfront, with checkboxes like "does the article [cite multiple SIGCOV SIRS of the subject]/[meet whichever SNG reqs]" and "could the topic be DUE as a section in an existing article instead, like [auto-link relevant pages]" and "does the topic violate WP:NOT" and "if you are unsure about whether the subject should have a full article, you can ask [auto-link relevant wikiprojects] for feedback". This would align the specs for creation with our actual standalone requirements, so people whose pages escaped CSD by having a claim to notability would be much less likely to be surprised by an AfD where they now have to prove it; establishing that the topic you chose to write an article on, which you should know is very likely to be notable based on the sources you consulted/are at least aware of, and then clicking a few extra buttons, should not be difficult at all for the types of editors we would want to retain; new editors would be forced acknowledge our P&Gs and so shouldn't be blindsided when other editors reference them; first-articles not containing at least two sources can be auto-draftified; and NPPers can just click through or google the provided citations to verify notability claims rather than having to do their own literature searches.

°°Or how about every article? JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your second point, but very much agree with your third. A vanishing percentage of recently autoconfirmed editors have the capacity to write a modern-standards-compliant article; some statistics would be interesting. Ovinus (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Ovinus, if you want stats, why don't you ask for them, and include the number of good faith users who quit after their unsourced article was dumped in mainspace then sent to draft? FWIW we're already working on improvements to the system and you can be sure that the handling of drafts in a friendlier way is among them. The draftification script text was written by a user. I think it's fine and it can always be customised. Of course, patrollers in the race for barnstars have no time for niceties... 05:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

I disagree about forcing new editors through AfC. Firstly they may not be as new as they look: they may be people who've been using Wikipedia for years, possibly even edited occasionally as an IP address, and who write professionally in their line of business; some will be very familiar with citation requirements. Secondly, it's an unfortunate truth that AfC, with its over-stretched volunteer staff, is not very efficient, and probably never will be. New editors bringing valuable content to our encyclopaedia are going to be greatly discouraged if they see their effort disappear into what looks like oblivion; the best technical writers are busy people. We should let them transfer their article to main-space as soon as they feel ready, and AfD if it's bad. But yes, I very much like the idea of a submission check-box system: "Have you checked your subject is notable? Have you added citations and references?" Elemimele (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, Elemimele, how good they are at being professional writers, Wikipedia is not the same as writing an instruction manual for a combine-harvester, or a tourism column in a Sunday supplement. IMO, and from what I regularly see in Special:NewPagesFeed, almost every editor who is not extended-confirmed should go through the Wizard which has almost the kind of check box system you want (or was, before it was radically over simplified as to be almost meaningless). If they then choose to skip the step through AfC, many of them will end up there anyway. You seem to assume that every article brings valuable content to our encyclopaedia. The feed provides all the meta information on the creator at a glance, newbies and not-so-newbies are easily identifiable and what the feed and ORES doesn't tell us, their style of writing English (if it is indeed intelligible English) tells us the rest. Perhaps you might like do some New Page Reviewing for a year or two - every bit of help is needed there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

AFC is a process for telling people to go away. The AFC reviewers are mainly looking for excuses to reject content, and they will find those excuses over and over until the new editor gets tired. Forcing new editors to go through AFC is telling them to go away, that we don't want new editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Per DavidEppstein, AFC should always be optional. It was envisioned as an alternative to deletion, and it was initially thought to be a likely friendlier place where new users could get shepherded and guided through article creation, so they would get experienced users who could help them craft a proper article. Whoaboy, was THAT every not what it became. It's basically a gigantic faceless bureaucracy where new users get told to "fuck off" (in the form of rejections filled with arcane, alphabet soup policy pages that no one ever takes the time to explain) repeatedly until they actually do. It's a nightmare where WP:BITE is encouraged and no one gets any useful help. We were FAR better before it existed, when we just nominated the article for deletion. It was still a bit bitey, but it was at least an honest kind of bitey, instead of pretending we're being useful. --Jayron32 18:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm 100% with Jayron32 & David Eppstein. AfD actually provides much more tailored actionable feedback (even if it is of the form this is never going to be notable, try again with something else) and sometimes results in editors wading in and improving the article. The only successful function of AfC is to provide a barrier against spam/paid contributions. We shouldn't be putting spam/paid rubbish in with good-faith articles and expecting the same overworked group of people to deal with both. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele, @David Eppstein@Jayron32, I'm confused where this "forcing new users to go through AfC" claim came from? I didn't suggest that at all. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't you, JoelleJay. Kudpung quoted it as an opinion of Slywriter I think ("Above, Slywriter makes a couple of valid points that which with refinement could be the proposal(s) for a separate RfC - cretainly that all articles from new users should be created through the Article Wizard and submitted to AfC") Elemimele (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• There REALLY should only be the following ways something ends up in the DRAFT namespace:
  1. The page is created in the draft space, possibly through the AFC process.
  2. The page is undeleted by WP:REFUND per a request from someone who wants to work on it
  3. Community discussion has determined to move it there, usually as a result of an XFD discussion.
• I can't envision a time where someone who is NOT a major contributor to an article should be moving it to the draftspace. If it doesn't belong in the mainspace, take it to AFD. NPPers shouldn't be draftifying anything. --Jayron32 14:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that nearly all NPP-ers don't agree with the above claim, and in the end their opinions win unless someone spends time patrolling the page move log, and moves articles they know aren't ready for mainspace back to mainspace to make a point. From July to September, I systematically enforced the well-established "don't draftify articles than have been in mainspace for a long time" rule, but in the end gave up when I found myself falling into the same dilemma. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  It shouldn't be an option to do so unless the significant contributors agree to the idea. We definitely need stricter guidance on this stuff. --Jayron32 15:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

To be honest I have moved articles on BLPs to draft when I found them in the speedy queues, where there was some potential for notability but a lack of references. I always try to leave a hand-written message for the creator to tell them to add references, link the relevant guidelines, and advertise the Teahouse. I'm essentially giving them 6 months to improve it, rather than the week for the BLP prod. And occasionally for other topics as a slightly less-bitey response than speedy deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pppery, what you were doing is valuable and it could probably be simplified by using a bot/script. I don't think it would be difficult to make a list list of articles that have been in the mainspace longer than the limits of WP:DRAFTIFY and for which no AFD page exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem isn't finding them (they are already logged by Special:AbuseFilter/1076 and there are few enough of them that AfDs (and REFUNDs and draftifications of recent expansions from redirects) can be filtered out manually). The problem is someone being willing to do it and knowingly reinstate junk like Buddhism in Réunion or Chiiief to mainspace, probably someone who's an inclusionist rather than a deletionist with a focus on enforcing the rules like me. I just couldn't bring myself to do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks Jayron32. Case study #2: Draft:Cyclone Sitrang is an ongoing tropical storm that has badly hit Bangladesh. The article now at was created on October 23 on the first news of its arrival. On October 24, someone "helpfully" draftified it (as a very basic stub with an infobox) with the rationale Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace (via script)). Incubate my ass, of course: In no time someone else created Cyclone Sitrang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the mainspace (at a different title, originally), so for a while we had two independent copies that people have been working with, and now we have a problem with duplicate histories and attribution. Draftifying someone else's article without due process should be expressly prohibited. No such user (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have often thought that DRAFTSPACE needs to be cut in two… so we have one SPACE for actually drafting new articles, and another SPACE for fixing old articles. Perhaps we could call the second space: WP:FIXSPACE. Each would have different rules and expectations for when, why and how an article gets moved to it and how long it stays there.

The NPP could then focus on new pages without getting overwhelmed with fixing old pages. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I suppose that FIXSPACE wouldn't be managed in the way that draftspace is, it would be up to a major contributor to move the article back when they've fixed whatever problems landed it in fixspace?

Related to this, there are the exceptional situations at AfD where the subject of an article is obviously notable, the article isn't entirely without merit, but it is sufficiently bad that it shouldn't be in main-space, and there's no guarantee anyone is going to work on it where it is. I'm in favour of draftification in this situation. Yes, sometimes it just means deletion with 6 months' delay, but it's the least-worst option. Again fix-space would be handy. Maybe if we could add an automatic category of articles in fix-space that are 5 months old and teetering on the brink of deletion, we would attract a new crowd of Fix-space project people, repairing the repairable, and salvaging what is good. Elemimele (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fine thing because at least that's a community discussion, which is left open a week, where contributors to the article in question get a surprisingly good amount of feedback, and have time to work on things, and we have documentation of the problems in the article. Watching your newly-written work get shuttled off into the infinite abyss that is the DRAFT namespace with no meaningful explanation is not a good idea. --Jayron32 18:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like something like that could work. Moving an article from mainspace to draftspace is just "Articles for Re-Creation". Maybe "Articles for Repair" could be a thing. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

IMO all draftified/"fixspace" articles should be autolinked at the relevant wikiprojects, which the draftifier would select from a list of participants, by date of last edit. Then they'd be more findable and collaborative. JoelleJay (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think folk seem to be forgot the state we were in between 2008 and 2012 when the mad rush of UPE/Paid editors staking their claims to the free advertising platform, shows the whole "develop in-situ model" can no longer work. It is a busted flush.

  • Since AFC/NPP has went in, there has been huge increase in the quality of articles going into WP in general and quality is really important (A massive problem on its own). I think the idea that somehow we will go back to the situation is entirely untenable.
  • There is problems with drafting and AFC, sure. One of the big problems is there is no landing page for new editors. It like turning up at an airport with no idea where your going to go. It is the single most important thing for a company HR now.
  • There is also no known way of seperating genuine earnest editors from spammers and trolls. Perhaps AI driven software check followed a editor check, possibly. Its certainly possible that if we could do it with some degree of certainty, the "develop in-situ model" could go back in.
  • I disagree with the comments about AFC. I don't see any evidence for that. I've worked with loads of editors whose work has went into draft and the genuine editors don't mind working in draft or AFC to improve their article. That is different from what has been said above. There is a complete lack of acceptance of junk content and established editors who have no patience for it; which is different thing. One problem is we still see the same kind of problems in new articles that we did 15 years ago, but they're has no attempt to solve them. There is no guidance for new editors coming in, it is really patchy. They are more or less on their own and that's really never changed. Other organisations fix these problems, we don't. It like Soviet bunker software we use. We have a complete lack of real software.
  • Lastly WP is an old project. The fashionable days are long gone and people look at it with its quaint interface, rules and forget it. Anybody who want to write is on substack.
  • We won't get the same numbers we did in the past, so we really need to finesse the onboarding process properly and have much more interaction with new editors. I always message them, when I'm reviewing to suggest changes and if its great, tell them. scope_creep^Talk 19:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is a landing page of sorts for new editors now. They are shown a popup that encourages them to visit a personalized home page, which is also linked to from their username at the top of the page. See Wikipedia:Growth Team features § Newcomer homepage for more details. The home page lists suggested tasks. Ten percent of new editors are shown an assigned mentor; not all of them are provided a mentor due to concerns about having enough mentors to avoid overextending them. (There was discussion in September of increasing the percentage to 40% but I'm not sure of the current status.) isaacl (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Reading the responses here I would like to make the following points:

• People have been describing an AfC process at odds with the one I see. I frequently improve articles at AfC, either small things or (sometimes) enough edits to make them suitable for publishing.
• I like the WP:FIXSPACE idea. Apart from anything else I see some articles at AfD that would be an excellent addition to such a space and it would reduce wasted effort.
• I think that there is a strong arguement for better software for NPP and AfC (and possibly AfD).
• There is an even stronger arguement for more nuanced and finer divisions of notices for NPP and AfC.
• Sending articles to draft via NPP is often a much better alternative than PROD or AfD.
• A lot of articles at AfC (and probably seen by NPP) are truly terrible with a constant supply of YouTube, etc. content creators.
• A better onboarding mechanism would be great. Perhaps shortly after getting your account created a bot based introduction message to the user talk?
• From everything I see the people at AfC and NPP are doing their best to work within the current structures to make Wikipedia the best it can be. Gusfriend (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend, have a look at the overall activity. That's what experienced editors are doing in the draft space right now. Of the most recent 20 articles there, I could 12 being edited by the person who created the page, 5 moving pages into the draftspace (including three that are undoubtedly notable subjects plus already containing multiple sources), 1 declined AFC, 1 comment from AFC, and 1 instructor cleaning up a draft left behind from a previous class. The number of experienced editors involved in improving articles they didn't create in my sample: zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I try to improve at least 1 each time I do a AfC stint, if only so that I don't spend my whole time declining which gets to you after a while. Gusfriend (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I can imagine that being the "Deliverer of No" would really wear on most editors after a while.

As a practical result, I expect that the people who can sustain it through thousands of articles over the space of years are not typical Wikipedia editors. It's a challenge that we see in every area: the few who can avoid burnout at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement are the ones who end up making most of the decisions there; the few who have a passion for anti-spam work effectively control the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist; the few who can keep pushing the boulder up the hill at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations... WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

AfC, and later the draft namespace were created with the very best of intentions and their creation was not a willy-nilly idea done on the spur of the moment without any deep thought and deliberation. I absolutely do not buy in to the suggestions that drafts are being used as a back-door route to deletion or a catch-all for cluless NPPers, or that AfC reviewers are just looking for any excuse to reject articles. - David Eppstein, I see your name reguarly at AfC, are you telling us you've never rejected a draft? These are fanciful, unsubstantiated claims, and if I'm wrong, give me examples and the names of the culprits.

We smartened up NPP immensely when we wrenched the right to patrol new pages away from every newbie and all-and-sundry and created a user right for it. Admins are now finally (after being badgered for years) being more careful at handing out the user right, doing proper due diligence, and bestowing the bit on probation. The only thing I don't wholly agree with is turning NPP into a MMORPG every two months with a backlog drive that is a race for barnstars. No one can properly patrol a new page in 30 seconds. I've been patrolling on and off for 12 years and for the life of me, unless a page is a blatantly obvious COPYVIO, spam, attack, or unsourced 20-word stub, it takes me as much as up at least a minute or even more, and that's without doing any 'fixing' which, BTW Blueboar, is not in the NPP remit and we don't do it.

AfC is not overwhelmed, they have six times more active reviewers than NPP and only a sixth of the number of daily new pages to contend with - let's not beat about the bush that most of what they have to process is genuinely ulikely to have much of a future on Wikipedia. That said, AfC is not an 'official' process per se and apart from some vetting, it is not a user right. If there are any complaints about RfC they should be addressed to the user who coordinates it. NPP on the other hand has almost always had some semblance of coordination and/or leadership since 2010 and it has a good, new team now working hard in the background to address all the reasons for the anti NPP and AfC sentiment expressed in this thread. Moreover they've badgered and browbeaten the WMF into forcing the new Director of Product & Technolgy to publicly admit that she is going to be ultimately accountable for addressing the problems of what's wrong with the way newbies are onboarded and create their articles, and the way their articles are processed.

Much of what is wrong is due the Foundation's own wrongdoing. Since around 2015 there are no staff left who are experts at UX. T can read the research that a lot of money pays for but they don't know what to do with it. They may be excellent at working with php and js but they are no good at knowing what needs to be built with it, so they build what they 'think' might be useful, and generally, they don't build it very well. PageTriage was an exception because we had a say in what we wanted and what it should look like. The WMF needs to be told, and they need to be told by us who do the work for free.

Over the years there is a litany of wasteful, expensive developments and experiments that they got wrong and which nobody wanted anyway. They are trying to do it again with some costly weird new landing pages and mentorship schemes that will never have a significant overall impact. On their admission it's using up all their bandwith and they are telling us that if MediaWiki needs fixing, we should f-off and do it it ourselves. The problem is they don't and won't listen to the communities and the ideas we offer them. So please, let's not come down too hard on all the volunteers who are doing their best to keep this encyclopedia clean with the resources we do have at AfC and NPP - both human and technical. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung "They are trying to do it again with some costly weird new landing pages and mentorship schemes that will never have a significant overall impact." - Have you tried out the new landing page? I honestly hadn't paid much attention to what they were doing until yesterday, but you can go into your preferences and enable it like you're a new user and try it out. It doesn't seem terrible to me. It's certainly better than most of the software changes they've sprung on the community over the years, and it's better than nothing, which is what we had before. It's sort of a combination of the task center and suggestbot, with some additional features and guidance. It's reminiscent of the tutorials you get when you start some mobile games which, for all the gamification of editing is not to be encouraged, feels familiar and helpful. I'm concerned that the mentoring aspect won't work as well as it could, but I don't think the landing page is bad. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

ONUnicorn, to me it's all just another classic example of the WMF not having a clue what's needed and even less understanding of UX. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Well said and I totally agree. The more that I think about it the more that I am surprised that there hasn't been more angst to do with AfC and NPP reach the level of ARBCOM and the need for formal proposals. Gusfriend (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The issues with AfC NPP, and the onboarding of new users are not within the remit of Arbcom which is Wikipedia's high court for judging and sentencing users and admins for serious infringements of policy. We can all rest assured that a team of users is now actively working with the Foundation to obtain engineer time to address bugs and discuss the development of new features for helping new users and and to improve the processing of their new articles. .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Draft space was tried before – the WP:INCUBATOR and that failed too. There seems to be more paraphernalia and process now but this mainly adds lots of bureaucracy and complexity. The biggest problem seems to be that AfC might take weeks or months to review a draft and this is contrary to the essence of Wikipedia, which is that it should be quick – that's what the word Wiki means. What Wikipedia is being turned into now is a "You kids get off my lawn!" kinda place – hostile and intolerant. Some changes are needed to make the place work better but draft space isn't the answer. There are sensible alternatives such as userfication which is what experienced editors seem to prefer for drafts. So, it would be best to consolidate and simplify the article creation workflow, eliminating such experimental bits that don't work. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't any evidence that article creation needs to be quick. Nowhere is the notability policies does it say that the criteria are time dependent and transitory and you must get it as quick as posisble. That whole idea is contrary to the ethos of Wikipedia 5P. Editors sometimes take months to complete an article if the complexity of the subject warrants it and that is standard. Quick here means the quickness of the editing process not the quickness of article creation. I've not seen any research to say that draft is hostile to new users. scope_creep^Talk 07:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree there is nothing hostile about drafting an article that is not ready. With that said I stopped doing it recently. I instead tagged the deficient articles at NPP for "no refs" and shortly after other NPPrs sent them to draft. My own opinion is competency is needed. There is no shame in working on a deficient article in draft space. Bruxton (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Ending Draft Space

From time to time, including above, the idea is advanced that draft space should be ended. I think everyone understands that this would mean an increase in AFDs. One question that I think should be addressed by anyone who wants to end draft space is what the effect would be on the ability of new editors to submit articles. Would we take away their ability to submit articles, or would we go back to allowing them to dump crud into article space? A system could be set up for them to submit draft articles in user space, but that would amount to a version of draft space that has all of the disadvantages of regular draft space.

I think that the idea of doing away with draft space is not fully thought out. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it would lead to a significant increase in AfDs. Anecdotally, NPPers who lean heavily on draftify do so when they know (or are worried) that an article would be kept at AfD, but feel there is something else "wrong" with the article. We're more likely to see an increase in cleanup tags, especially {{Notability}}, but I don't think that's a big deal. I know there'd need to be hard data on this to convince anyone, As for your second question, personally I'd say we just stop offering non-autoconfirmed editors a way to create articles. Practically speaking that is what we do now, but I think it is kinder to say "sorry you can't do that yet" than "sure you can do that, just fill in this form, and wait for a reviewer, and..." with the same effect. – Joe (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It might be anecdotal Joe, but: NPPers who lean heavily on draftify do so when they know (or are worried) that an article would be kept at AfD, but feel there is something else "wrong" with the article is going to need some pretty heavy concrete evidence. It's something a lot of users claim who have never, or rarely done any New Page Reviewing, so it's jusy pure conjecture unless someone has gone through the tens of thousands of draftified (from NPP) articles. I would seriously caution against this kind of scaremongering because any curious new(ish) users reading the VP might believe it quicker than they can be bothered to read the rules before they dump their crap in mainspace.

On the second part, yes, I wholly agree with you that it's time to take ACPERM to the next level. Probably to extended-confirmed. In no way would it conflict with ' The encycolpedia anyone can edit' which is the meme people try to use when some restrictions are suggested. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any of us have data either way, that's the problem. I'm drawing on experience monitoring CAT:R2 and "previously deleted" articles in the new page queue (usually R2s or drafts moved back to mainspace), where I see a lot of arbitrary moves to draft with no explanation to the creator beyond the canned summary and message. I can recognise the picture you paint as how the Ideal Reviewer, and to be fair a lot of our more experienced and prolific actual reviewers, would approach draftspace, but unfortunately it isn't what everyone is doing. I agree that we shouldn't rush into making changes here, but with the backlog eliminated, this is an excellent opportunity to take a detailed look at what is and what isn't working with new pages. – Joe (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• We don't have to wonder how we'd manage without draft space. It was created at the end of 2013 and so Wikipedia managed fine without it for over 10 years – a period when it was most successful in recruiting new volunteers. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Being successful at attracting new volunteers was great when the focus was on quantity… but today the focus is more on quality. Blueboar (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

And who do you imagine will be doing the work to improve that quality? – Joe (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

A smaller, but more dedicated group of volunteers. Yes, we still want new volunteers… but we need a different kind of new volunteer. Focusing on numbers won’t get us that. Blueboar (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to say two things in reply: 1). I disagree that we need a different kind of new volunteer. We have always valued volunteer editors whose selfless priority is the building and betterment of Wikipedia (then, now, and in perpetuity). And: 2). While I am certain that your comment is given in good faith, and further certain that you did not intend to marginalize the old school volunteer or diminish the value of their tenure and presence, I must say that your comment's letter absolutely depends on knowledge of good faith (as I know of you) or an assumption thereof (as some may depend). For it carries implications that would, otherwise, be hard medicine, impossible for new editors of yesteryear to swallow, if inversely parsed from a literal sense. --John Cline (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to say for the record that I have over a thousand drafts in draft space right now, and I know of other editors who have something in that range. That's down from my high of more than 1,600 drafts, with 600+ having become articles so far, some quite good and useful (I would point to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia, Eric Chappelow, Battlefield, Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Hesitation, and Charles Erasmus Fenner). A fair number of these have benefited from community editing that I don't think would have occurred if they were in another space. Draft space, used properly, works. BD2412 T 14:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

1600! Sounds like Article creation at scale. But I'm not understanding why BD2412 is doing it this way. They have autopatrolled status which indicates that they know how to start a respectable article and, if they were put directly into mainspace, there would be no work for the NPP. But putting them into draft space seems to make additional work for AfC and I don't see why the articles would get more project attention in draft space than they would in mainspace. Is there some pattern which explains this? Andrew🐉(talk) 22:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

How does this possibly make more work for AfC? Anyone can just move articles from draftspace directly to mainspace, no one ever needs to go through AfC unless they're not autoconfirmed or there's some sanction. JoelleJay (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Going through AFC even when you don't technically need to can provide some protection against an incorrect review at NPP or a trip to AFD, especially if you write articles about businesses or other spam-prone subjects. You might spend months waiting for AFC reviewers (who might also give incorrect reviews), but if you get their imprimatur, editors mostly assume that the article is okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, when, if ever, have you done any new page patrolling? Your post 2015 colleagues at the WMF have no clue what a serious process NPP is and that is why they automatically assume that somehow, every newbie already has a perfect knowledge of notability before they even register an account, and why they won't allocate any resources to do anything about the reality of the situation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I stopped doing new page patrolling at this wiki when a special user right was required for it here. Before then, I patrolled about 500 pageshere. It looks like I was fond of PRODs. For comparison, looking at the other names in this sub-section, since this is public information, JoelleJay has done zero, Andrew Davidson has done 117, BD2412 has done 44, Blueboar has done zero, Joe Roe about 1300, Robert McClenon has patrolled zero, and I assume that you've done thousands. In other words, of the seven editors you're talking to here in this sub-section (not counting yourself), I seem to have the second-most experience with page patrolling.

I wonder why you keep making assertions about what WMF staff believe. In discussions with me, WMF staff have expressed exactly the opposite view. They seem to believe that it is extremely difficult for newcomers to understand the notability rules. Where do you get these ideas? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A quick note- I might be totally wrong with my stats, but the stats for Robert McClenon probably isn't exactly zero patrols, I do remember this editor patrolling one of my pages... just saying, minor point with no comments otherwise though. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that correction, @VickKiang. I was very surprised but those results. I wonder if I mistyped his username. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and clarification! Another note- I believe the page curation log is now more widely used. I know that you object to numerous elements of Page Triage (for which let's respectfully disagree), but there is indeed a discrepancy. It displays that I have done 300 page curation logs but just around 100 patrols, though. VickKiang (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The page curation log includes all actions performed with the page curation extension, including adding tags etc. (which many NPPers do with Twinkle). The patrol log shows patrols only (i.e. clicking "mark as reviewed"), regardless of whether they were done using the extension, so is probably the more accurate way to count patrols. – Joe (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the page curation log, with the log filter "Reviewing" applied, is best. More info at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Patrol_versus_review. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: My motivations are multivariate. Most of my drafts are one or two line substubs on U.S. state supreme court justices (inherently notable, but requiring sourcing) along the lines of Draft:John F. McAuliffe or Draft:Henry Y. Webb. I improve and move one of these every few days on average. I also tend to pick up strays like Draft:Fairness, Draft:Errand, or Draft:List (information), for which we currently have a disambiguation page or redirect, and need an article, if a coherent one can be written. Lastly, there are things I come across somewhere for which I put down a few notes to revisit later, like Draft:Johnny Mac Soldiers Fund, Draft:National Center for Employee Ownership, and Draft:Association for a Better New York. Sometimes I prefer to move those to mainspace myself (almost always with the judges, as there is no question of notability), and sometimes I prefer AfC review, particularly if I am proposing a broad concept article to displace an existing disambiguation page. BD2412 T 03:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

BD2412, I only recently discovered that one of the first articles I created was one of your drafts! Curbon7 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Curbon7: The system works! BD2412 T 03:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. It seems that most of these pages don't have an AfC header or any categories and they so will be largely invisible to most editors. In your view, how are editors supposed to know that these drafts exist?

For example, Henry Y. Webb is a redlink at Justice Webb. I reckon we'd be better off with the draft in mainspace to fill that redlink and so provide some information for readers, albeit stubby.

I very much like the broad and commonplace topics such as errand and fairness. They would be best developed in mainspace but our current disambiguation rules tend to get in the way of developing such pages into articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I generally advertise the judge drafts on their respective Wikiprojects (like this) and on talk pages for their courts and lists of judges (like this and this). As for the disambiguation resolvers, those are more commonly addressed to the disambiguation project. BD2412 T 23:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

When I click on that redlink at Justice Webb, I get a big pink box at the top of my screen saying, "There is a draft for this article at Draft:Henry Y. Webb." Don't you? —Cryptic 03:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Draftification is too easy

Pushing the button to move an article to draft space is easy. Writing an AFD is work. I think that the ease of moving an article to draft space sometimes results in less-than-appropriate draftification, including moving an article to draft space more than once. I, and some other editors, think that the guidelines are clear that the originator of a page may object to its draftification, and that moving the page back into article space is a form of objection, so that a page that has been draftified once should not be moved back to draft space, and that if another editor thinks it is not ready for article space, that is what AFD is for. It appears that some editors disagree, or at least think that there are exceptions, such as conflict of interest, in which a page may be draftified repeatedly. We may need to clarify again that moving an article to draft space twice is move-warring and is disruptive.

It might also be worth considering making it harder to move an article to draft space, possibly by requiring that the reviewer write a statement rather than using a canned statement that is often not the reason for a draftification anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert, the canned statement is easily customisable. If NPP wasn't a MMORPG race for barnstars, reviewers should take time over their reviews. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Kudpung - I know that it is customizable. I edit it when I use it. But I don't see tailored messages. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you do Robert, but like me, you're not on a paper chase for awards. I have never draftified without editing the default message. The default message is an essential aid however. Without it most reviewers wouldn't know quick enough what to say. It's really only a prompt but I think it's quite a good one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Please be careful speaking ill of barnstars. Our two recent backlog drives are a major reason the backlog recently reached zero. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on the editor who wishes to include the article in mainspace to demonstrate that it is ready for mainspace. BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

That is policy thumping in the face of new editors, who haven't a clue how to "demonstrate" an article is ready. Experienced editors, sure. Ovinus (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

No, Ovinus, it's yet another demonstration that landing pages designed and implemented by the WMF are a clear example that they have no effect whatsoever in informing new editors what they can and can't do. It's the WMF that doesn't have a clue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Well that is what the canned summary in the draftification notice tells them. ‘Please add sources to the article you’ve created.’ We can’t assume everyone knows this when they start, so at what point do we make this expectation clear? Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I looked at ONUS. It's only four sentences long. It does not say anything about demonstrating that an article is ready for mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I propose we require a summary, including at least one specific suggestion for improvement, if the article is likely to be a good-faith creation. Canned summaries should only be used for promotion and promotion-adjacent. Ovinus (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Already placed by Robert McClenon below—thanks. Ovinus (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to make three different points that I rolled into one, and so was not as clear as I meant to be. The first and main point is that draftification is too easy, and so is sometimes used lazily when AFD would be better. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

There's all this hand-wringing over draftification scaring away new editors, but where's the evidence that they would've continued editing if their article wasn't draftified? Why would we think someone who isn't willing to work on their article in draftspace, or doesn't even notice it's been moved there, would become a regular contributor? Is there a way to quarry the return rate of new editors whose first article creation was retained in mainspace? I'd also like to see what percentage of our regular editor corps started out as article creators versus gnomes/talk page complainers/info-adders (depending on how we defined it, I could arguably fall into all four of these categories...). JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay, I'm pretty sure that your question could be answered at Wikipedia:Request a query. From memory, back in the day, when we were new, as much as a quarter of registered editors' first edits were to create a new article. Looking at 20 editors who created an account yesterday and have already made an edit, I find that two of them started articles in the Draft: space with their first edits, 16 made edits to existing pages, and two more I don't know about, because their contributions have been deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate Draftification Message

The second point is that many draftifications use the canned summary which says that reliable sources are needed, when there is a different reason why the article is not ready for main space, such as notability. Because it is easy to press a button, reviewers sometimes press the button and use the standard draftification message when the problem isn't the sources. This sometimes causes the originator to reference-bomb the draft with low-quality sources, which is the natural result of being told to add sources. Because there is one standard canned draftification message, and other reasons for draftification, sometimes the result just completely misses the point. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This is true, but NPPers (the majority of draftifiers?) are encouraged to edit and tailor that message as appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I've mentioned above that the draftification message is obviously supposed to be customised. If NPPers would take more time over their reviews it would not be a problem. One can only wonder who does not read instructions - the NPPers or the creators who dump their crap in Wikipedia. Incidentally, the 'Move to draft' script was developed in total good faith by a user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

My observation, although not statistically controlled and so not scientific, is that draftifiers very seldom edit or tailor the message. The message is good for articles with no sources or cruddy sources, but is wrong and harmful for articles with notability problems. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen a tailored message, either. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI, Espresso Addict, I have rarely come across a draftification I do where I didn't need to customise the message. Perhaps better training the reviewers is the answer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I never use the custom draftify script, just do the move myself, and leave a hand-written message for the creator. It does take longer but it seems less offensive, though I don't know how often the creators actually work further on the article; not very often, I fear. I do think the custom tool may have made moving to draft too easy an option. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Customisation in this context means you can rewrite the entire message if you want to. It's as easy as that, Espresso Addict. Try it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I personally currently use 4 customized versions of the canned message, along with it, depending on the circumstance: UPE; UPE with additional ref concerns (although that one is rarely used); GNG concerns; and VERIFY concerns. That last one is for where an article is most likely notable, but large swaths of the article are wholly unsourced. I could mark it reviewed and leave it in mainspace, but if I removed the unsourced material, it would gut the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Sounds like those would be good templates for improving the current, one-size-fits-all summary. Would you be willing to share them? – Joe (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing: User:Onel5969/Draftify templates. I forgot, there was another one, for NFOOTY stubs. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, you say, "many draftifications use the canned summary which says that reliable sources are needed, when there is a different reason why the article is not ready for main space, such as notability," But, how is one supposed to demonstrate notability? Through sources - specifically reliable ones that are independent of the topic. So the message saying they need mor reliable sources isn't wrong, just incomplete. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 03:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

ONUnicorn, most of us reasonably experienced users know what notability means in Wikipedia's concept. What we get is new users insisting 'But he is notable because he's famous.' With the exception of a few sng like those footballers who have only played one match as an injury reserve and the only source is a listing in the club's squad, it's easy enough to supply some alphabet salad in the text to point them in the right direction. It all comes down to the volition of the reviewer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

User:ONUnicorn - The message is wrong in that what it advises the author to do will not improve the draft and will waste the time of the author and further reviewers. You are right that notability is established by sources. If the subject is a run-of-the-mill businessman, and the article is draftified with instructions to find reliable sources, the author is likely, in good faith, to look for sources, and will find sources, that will not be independent and significant. So the author has been sent on a useless quest. That is what is wrong with the incomplete advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: We have a longstanding Wikipedia:Userfication essay, which precedes the existence of draft space. Much of that could be adapted towards a draftification policy. BD2412 T 05:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• While I fully defend the use of the draft space, I now have conclusive proof that not only are reviewers not customising the 'Move to draft' default message, but some reviewers are not using the script and not leaving a message at all. Good faith creators are being left to discover for themselves that their articles have been moved and to find out why. This is just one example of why two-stage reviewing might be a good idea. Admittedly the WMF is at fault for not making it clear where to find the instructions for creating articles, but two wrongs don't make a right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Double Draftification

My third point is that, because draftification is easy, sometimes an article is draftified more than once, although the guidelines say that an article should only be draftified once. If the originator thinks that the article is ready for article space, and demonstrates this by moving it back to article space, the reviewer should either write an AFD or tag the article. In my opinion, an article should not be moved back into draft space twice. Some experienced reviewers apparently think that there are exceptions, such as conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

IMO draftification should be done only once. If a draft gets moved back to mainspace and is still not appropriate (even if moved by a AfC reviewer) then AfD should be the next step. AfC gives plenty of advice to the user but is not a clean up station any more than NPP is. Strictly speaking nor is AfD but it does very often start a successful clean up campaign by those who are willing enough to do it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The guidelines say that an article should only be draftified once, but some reviewers, even some experienced reviewers, have their own interpretation. I am not sure whether their reason for draftifying more than once is that they don't think that COI editors should be allowed to move articles to article space, which they should not, or that it is just easier to send it back to draft space. It is true that COI editors are not allowed to move articles to article space, but maybe it should be made clear that move-warring is not the right sanction, and that the non-compliant editor may be partially blocked or blocked, and that the article can be nominated for deletion, and draftification is a valid close on an AFD. Maybe we need to restate the guideline even more clearly. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the draftify guideline should be modified that the exception for only draftifying once is COI/UPE editing. The rationale is that there is really no other way to discourage COI/UPE editing, since that is not grounds for AfD. This appears to be a conflict between two guidelines: COI/UPE are not allowed to move articles into mainspace, but if they do, and it's been draftified once, other editors are not allowed to correct their error? The article can be AfD'd, except COI/UPE editing is not grounds for deletion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

If you suspect COI problems, but you believe the subject to be notable, you can stubbify it down to a bland "Subject is a foo in Location" with an assortment of independent sources, and leave it like that. The reason we care about COI/UPE is that it produces biased articles on doubtfully notable subjects. If it's notable, and if you can solve the bias problem, that's enough.

Of course, if you have any non-COI-based reason to doubt the subject's notability, then that is certainly grounds for sending it to AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

There should be only a single exception: explicit consensus. Everything else is move warring and should be treated as such with warnings and (partial) blocks as appropriate. If you think an article subject is not notable, nominate it at AfD. If you think it just needs improvement, tag it. If you have COI concerns then tag the article and explain in detail on the talk page. If you think it should be merged into an existing article, nominate it. If you think there is some other reason it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia then nominate it at AfD. Never move war. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Double checking

Introducing a user right in 2016 for reviewing had a huge, positive impact on NPP, but the process is of course still far from perfect. Because it demands a high level of knowledge of notability and deletion policies, and has a complex array of functions more than any other Wikipedia process (except maybe Twinkle), it only attracts a very small number of editors. Some find it too complicated and they give up because they bit off more than they could chew. A few others were probably hat collectors, and a small number obtained the right with the express intention if abusing the system (none of this is conjecture - it's all documented). There are currently 727 NPPers but in reality there are abut 20 regular active reviewers who are doing around 90% of the work.

Now that the backlog is really down to a handful of articles (sorry to say, but it will probably creep back up when the reviewers have relaxed their efforts), it's time for the active reviewers to take more time and use the features of Page Curation more often to their advantage. One solution could be a fail-safe by double checking - a simple system of double reviewing. It does not add more than 2 or 3 seconds to a review (tested). The first reviewer does their thing, and a second reviewer either endorses it or makes a suggestion for a different solution.

This does not mean being a Stasi, Gestapo, or the KGB, with reviewers assuming poor work and ratting on each other. Outside Wikipedia, such collaboration is called 'teamwork' and no one resents having their work checked by a workmate. It would avoid a lot of bad faith and enraged newbies stomping off in disgust for having their unsourced 3-line stub which 'took three hours to create' being draftified or listed for deletion. Let's not forget that the way good faith newbies are treated at NPP and AfC makes a huge difference to their early Wiki experience. After all, the WMF is always yelling "Retention, retention, retention!" even if they don't have a clue how to go about it themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This would also a great way to mentor newer reviewers. They would do a first review, and then see if it was endorsed by the second reviewer. MB 04:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

A proper second review would likely take as much time as a first review, which is a significant amount of time when done properly. So in theory this would double the amount of time it takes to review everything, and double the backlog. I would be hesitant to support something that doubles our backlog. Don't forget the NPP backlog was unmanageable (over 10,000) earlier this year, and only our bus factor reviewer getting active again and two backlog drives got it under control again. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, bus factor... We don't get to hear about the mistakes because the complaints are made on the creators' talk pages. When I look at the speed of reviewing during a drive, I really do not think the 3 seconds more for an endorsement would negatively impact the process especially if the backlog can now be kept down to manageable proportions. I actually see enough dubious reviews to give me pause but I don't say anything because to do so on Wikipedia is big no no. It would be an interesting exercise after 6 years of the NPR right to examine the hundreds of thousands of reviews to see how good the performance of NPP actually is. But if course that would be impossible. I just believe 'Prevention is better than cure', and the bigger the Wikipedia gets, and the bigger the WMF gets (rumour has it that it will have nearly 700 employees by the end of next year), it's time for Wikipedia to install some better checks and balances. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Like. Curbon7 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I like this idea broadly, though I see significant issues if it is enforced via software implementation or that policy prohibits clicking the review button until a second NPPer approves. Something I can envision is the creation of a program which is more comprehensive than peer review cohort that effectively does this and perhaps there are certain time based requirements to have been in this program and pass or be a "mentor" in the program to retain the user-right if active. —Sirdog (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Ultras and Other Types of Editors

User:David Eppstein wrote:

The problem is that draftification fails to distinguish two classes of new articles by relatively new editors: (1) spammers, paid editors, and self-promoters and (2) enthusiastic and potentially valuable contributors who have not yet written and edited enough articles to have a firm grasp of what is needed in the way of notability and sourcing in a new article.

Yes, and there are at least one more class of editors who write low-quality articles, and are sometimes mistaken for spammers or self-promoters. Those are editors whom I call ultras, who should be recognized as a distinct class of editors requiring a different sort of attention. These are editors who are "fans", which we should remember is short for "fanatics", about a particular topic, often a film director or studio, or subgenre of film, or a particular celebrity, or a particular sports team. I am taking the name ultras from the hard-core groups of fans who follow particular association football teams, who sometimes both have in-stadium ultras and in-Wikipedia ultras. They have some of the same characteristics as paid editors and promoters in being disruptive, but are in good faith. When they are asked to make a conflict of interest declaration, they say that they have no conflict of interest, because they have no conflict of interest, but they can be just as tendentious as paid editors.

They require different handling than either paid editors, or run-of-the-mill enthusiastic inexperienced editors. One practice that is in particular characteristic of ultras is gaming of the titles of articles, changing the spelling of a title, or adding an unnecessary disambiguator, or similar devices, to try to get by a history of previous declines or deletions. We recognize that paid editors are a serious problem, and that enthusiastic clueless new editors are a potential resource. We don't always recognize that ultras have some aspects of both.

There may be more other classes of problematic editors, but I don't know. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder what inspired this section? :) JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay - That's one example of ultras, the most recent example to be obvious. There have been others. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh I am very familiar with "the others". JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert, I agree with everything you're saying, but NPP already demands a knowledge of policies beyond even that of some admins. There aren't many genuine NPPers, to require them to be even more specialised and recognise social sub-groups of article creators would drive them all away. And then there were none. And one WMFer would have a field day because NPP would finally be gone. And after 16 years of it, we could all pack up and go home, play snooker, go sailing, or watch telly. Or go contribute to a Wiki fork or WO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

So what are you saying that we shouldn't do? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Cry? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

This is recognised sub-group already in-part. I don't how you address this though at NPP. It usually through coi on a per case basis. scope_creep^Talk 07:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

If User:scope_creep is saying that concerns about these editors must be addressed on a per case basis, I agree. If they are saying that we can address them via conflict of interest, then I may not have been clear. Concerns about these editors cannot be addressed via conflict of interest policy, because they do not have a conflict of interest. They are non-neutral and are sometimes tendentious or otherwise disruptive, but they do not have a conflict of interest. In that respect, they are like nationalist editors, because the policy that is applicable is neutral point of view, which is the second pillar of Wikipedia. They are often thought to have conflict of interest, but they don't, so that trying to use the COI policy is unproductive. They must be dealt with on a case by case basis, but not through COI. Do I need to explain further? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do. scope_creep^Talk 19:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Changing the titles re: "Battle for Dream Island" which is gaming the system, is classic behaviour in this class of editor. scope_creep^Talk 19:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

But how do those editors have a COI? JoelleJay (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It was assumed due the fact they really desperate to get the article in, beyond all reasonable expectations, they were being driven by a client, maybe an agency something like that or perhaps expecting to get a bonus when the article is in. So they get more and more desperate. Very rarely does it seem to be a fan or a sports editor, although it might be one here. So there was an assumption that its some of kind of coi. There doesn't seem to be a reason for it. Its so bizarre. Its worth looking at that "Battle for Dream Island" on the main admin noticeboard. There is multiple accounts, multi changes in the article names, multiple avenues being in attempts to create it. Ultra is a good name. The Admin Corps will address this, as it another avenue to WP:GAME the system. scope_creep^Talk 12:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Might be simpler than it looks

Well there's the OP question, and then there the other 30 questions that we've been discussing. The OP sort of combined other considerations with the structuraly most fundamental question which is: Is the topic of the article allowed to have a seperate article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? (which are basically wp:notability and wp:not)

• If the answer is a known "no" it needs to get deleted
• If the answer is a known/established "yes" it should go/stay in mainspace which is the best place for all other article improvements including expansions and fixes
• If the answer is "unknown/not establised" then there are three posibilities: Deletion. draft, or spend a short time in the NPP que tagged for improvement regarding that particular question

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

That is kind of how it works now, but a firm "no" doesn't necessarily mean deletion. There's certainly items that aren't notable, but go to draft space as they may be in the future. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

?? A known "no" means GNG suitable sources couldn't be found for the topic and (if such exist) it failed any applicable SNG criteria. Changes in that status would typically require creation of additional coverage by RS's or real-world changes in the topic's compliance with any SNG criteria. That's unlikely to happen in a draft space time frame. But my main point with respect to the OP question is that if a topic is wiki-OK to have a separate article, it's best to put/leave it in article space for handling of all other issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Create all articles as drafts

I'm a strong believer that all articles should be created as drafts which are then moved the main space when ready. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

What's the point of that if an article is already written to a high quality? You'd be putting in a technical restriction for no reason. Once someone is autoconfirmed, you can simply move your own draft to mainspace regardless, so we don't gain anything from only creating in draftspace. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

We make draftification feel like less of a punishment and more like a normal place for new articles to exist. It's literally only two more clicks to start in draft. What do we gain from everyone publishing directly to mainspace? JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Not seriously annoying established contributors, who actually create a large proportion of content? Not losing some large fraction of newbie articles to G13? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This would be in conjunction with something like what Kudpung suggested below, where drafts would be patrolled and the ones that are actually encyclopedic can be rolled into mainspace by reviewers or anyone who is autoconfirmed. And I don't see what we're losing with abandoned drafts that don't meet extremely minimal standards being G13'd. JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This would take a complete rethink of how draftspace is used, as currently one has to submit a draft for anyone to take any notice of it, or move it into mainspace. Otoh, nothing needs to be done in mainspace to make the article visible to NPP. And anyone who thinks nothing usable is wasted at G13 has never looked at the G13 heap; there is no test whatsoever for minimal standards, it's just essentially automated deletion, the more so now the one person I know of who combed through them systematically has reduced his contributions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Who would decide when they are ready? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The draft approval process is already completely overwhelmed (as well as being far too variable in quality), & this would jam it up completely. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No, not necessarily it wouldn't. Why not simply pool resources and merge AfC with NPP? All new pages have to go through NPP anyway. A single process: 'Mark as patrolled' does just that. Listing for deletion works as usual. Tagging works as usual. 'Tag and leave as draft' leaves as draft and moves the article to the draft queue which already exists in the feed. Merge the user rights of both AfC and NPP (insisting on the same due diligence before according the right. Actually this suggestion s noting new. We were talking about it in 2016. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง's fleshing out of my initial idea is great. I do both AfC and NPP and there's a _lot_ of similarity to the work. Many of the straight-forward cases are very quick (we recently cancelled an NPP drive mid-drive when we got to zero), what makes AfC slow is dealing with the COI issues and other problematic cases. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Except no one who can create an article in mainspace needs to have their draft approved. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Not their draft, but certainly their mainspace article comes under even stricter review at NPP, JoelleJay. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? Articles from new editors should be under stricter review. JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"Draft" is a place not a process. AFC and NPP are processes. I think that AFC is both different and more stringent than NPP, maybe too stringent. Because someone who approves an AFC article sees it as sort of putting their neck on the line for various aspects of the article including that it is reasonably good. The core NPP function is controlling whether or not the topic of the article is allowed to exist in mainspace as a separate article and trying to implement/apply the big fuzzy defacto community standard regarding only that criteria. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose No, no, no, 1000 times no. We need to be reducing barriers to quality work, not adding meaningless bureaucracy. I liked it much better when we just deleted inappropriate articles; the entire AFC process and the draft space is just an insult to new users in a highly WP:BITE way, at least AFD is an honest and open process about why something isn't appropriate for an article topic, and WP:CSD is similarly so blatant as to be obvious and easy to explain. AFC and the draftification process is arcane and the entire thing is the opposite of helpful. Furthermore, as noted above, experienced users create good articles all the time, hundreds of times a day. Why must we get in their way by forcing them to go through some pointless bureaucracy. This is a terrible idea. --Jayron32 21:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron32. This is solution that will simultaneously not fix the problem it attempts to while making existing problems worse and also creating new ones where they don't currently exist. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
• I'd opposd any such effort for the reasons given and the many other reasons not given as yet. Please focus your energy on changes that could be an improvement; this is not. --John Cline (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC: change "verifiable" to "verified"

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.

---

Which of these two statements for the lead of WP:V ("verifiable" or "verified") is better?

1. (status quo) All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.
2. All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verified.

RFC advertised at WT:V and WP:CENT, and launched at 16:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support #2 (as proposer RFC initiator). It's time for us to make this change. English Wikipedia is now at the top of Google search results, and our content is reproduced by Google, Amazon Alexa, Siri, and elsewhere, which we are encouraging with Wikimedia Enterprise. English Wikipedia is, generally, the anglophone internet's first stop for information. Our most important duty is to not misinform readers. The use of Wikipedia to spread misinformation and disinformation is a serious threat: see, for example, this study from 17 Oct 22 (and this article about it)--the latest of many such studies and articles.

  In the early days of Wikipedia, it made sense to allow unsourced mainspace articles, under the rationale that by putting them into mainspace, they would be more likely to be improved. As long as the information in the articles was verifiable, there was no risk of misinforming the reader. Today, with over 6.5 million articles (6,912,498 to be exact), we do not have enough editors to check or monitor each and every article. We've added over 500,000 new articles in less than two years (WP:6M was reached in Jan 2020). Category:All articles lacking sources contains over 136,000 articles. It is unrealistic to expect that we can have unsourced information in mainspace and not misinform our readers, and in 2022, the risks of misinformation and disinformation are too high. Wikipedia is too important, too widely-read, too much relied-upon, to risk it.

  If this proposal passes #2 is preferred, enforcement policy text changes of the "verified" requirement would be a separate issue, beyond the scope of this RFC. (I note that "verified" does not mean "must have an inline citation": general references can provide verification.) What to do with existing unsourced articles, and new unsourced articles, are nuanced and complex questions, but the first step towards answering those questions is to all agree -- to come to global consensus -- that mainspace articles should be verified, not just verifiable. If this much has consensus, then I expect future RFCs will be launched to explore what other changes should be made to policy to implement this change (e.g., renaming the "WP:Verifiability" policy to something like "WP:Verification"). But it's time to make this change: it's time to ditch verifiable, and agree on verified. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose (will return with reasoning) Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The policy relies throughout on the current wording. Changing that one word makes the policy self-contradictory on many levels. As an example, the change would require that common knowledge, such as universally-accepted everyday orders that are taught in early elementary school, be, at a minimum, be looked up in a general reference while writing an article. Nobody would do this, so it would make all editors rule-breakers. Making everyone a rule-breaker devalues all rules. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I reaffirm my opposition after the changes by User:Levivich at 17:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC). The burden of looking up well-known information before writing it in an article would be so burdensome that it would be impossible to maintain one's train of thought. To borrow and modify a thought from Edsger Dijkstra "The use of COBOL the policy change cripples the mind; its teaching the policy change should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense.

  Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1816853-edsger-w-dijkstra-the-use-of-cobol-cripples-the-mind-its-teaching-s/ Jc3s5h (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. What's the goal of this proposal? Is this an oblique way to try to get a certain behavior to change as well? Forgive me, but I am not clear on this after reading the proposal and first !vote. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Since we're still in the first half hour of the RFC, I've changed the RFC statement to clarify. The goal is to determine if the community prefers "verified" to "verifiable" as the guiding WP:V principle. Pinging Beyond My Ken, Jc3s5h and Novem Linguae to let them know of the change. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

    @Levivich, I read your statement, and I repeat the question from @Novem Linguae: What are you trying to accomplish? I know what (un)cited material is. I know what (un)verifiable material is. But I can't make out from your description what "verified" material is. Usually, when people talk about whether content is verifiED, they're talking about the actions they took immediately before slapping a {{failed verification}} tag on it.

    Here are some questions that might help me understand your proposal:

    • Do you mean that there must be at least one source named somewhere in the Wikipedia article?
    • Do you mean that there must be at least one source named somewhere in the Wikipedia article, and no content in the Wikipedia article that isn't also in one of the sources named in the article?
    • Do you mean that I need to check a source before I add basic information like "Joe Film is an actor", because I might have misremembered that, but citing the source would be optional (unless WP:MINREF applies, as it very often does)?
    • Do you mean that if I add basic information like "Joe Film is an actor", that someone else needs to check to see whether Joe Film really is an actor?
    • Do you mean that editors should be systematically checking articles to see whether they contain content that requires citations but doesn't have them?

    If the answer to the first question is "yes", then I think you'll want to withdraw this RFC and try again with a proposal that the WP:BLPPROD rules should be extended to everything. That has a chance of being accepted, possibly even with enthusiasm. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

    • Yes
    • Yes
    • Yes on checking first, but citing a source should not be optional, the source should be cited somewhere in the article (not necessarily inline)
    • No, the person adding the information should continue to have the WP:BURDEN (and WP:ONUS, etc.)
    • No, although I think some already do, and it's good for that verification work to continue

    I've already changed this from a proposal to a broader question, and I don't think I'd support expanding BLPPROD to everything. Levivich (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

    It sounds like you want editors to take a hardcore Wikipedia:Amnesia test approach to writing articles: Forget everything you ever knew, because you can't even be trusted to correctly remember that water is wet. It'll be a tough row to hoe in terms of marketing, but if you want to get to that place in the end, I think you'll have better luck with a frog boiling approach than a single massive change. The first baby step might be getting a simple glossary installed in WP:V, to differentiate between verifiable, sourced, and cited. From the comments below, they're not going to let you call your idea verified, but you might get agreement to call it sourced, and leave the term cited for inline citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

    Yup, I agree, "sourced" is the next logical question. Levivich (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Oppose - these are two vastly different things. The current means that if someone sees something uncited, they can leave a tag. If this were to change, literally anything that was uncited should be deleted. This feels like it goes against WP:SODOIT Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Requiring content to be verified does not also require unverified content to be deleted. For example, the rule could be that before deleting unverified content, an editor must make a good-faith search for a source, similar to WP:BEFORE. Another possible rule is that unverified content can only be deleted if it's had a {{cn}} tag for a certain amount of time. A third possible rule is that unverified content should be moved to the talk page, or only moved to the talk page after a {{cn}} tag has been applied for a certain amount of time. There are many different ways to enforce a verification requirement (WP:NOCITE lists several), but requiring content to be verified doesn't mean literally anything that was uncited should be deleted. While I support #2, I would oppose any such draconian enforcement measures. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - would make it so any reversion of say a 10k vandalism removal of material requires the editor to themselves verify the content to restore it. As far as the reasons to make the change, WP has been the top google result and had its material reproduced by google longer than Ive been here, so I fail to see what has changed to require such a wide scoping change in our core policy. nableezy - 17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Hizzell to the nizzo. There is NO WAY this is a good idea. Verified means that someone official has done some kind of confirmation, and signed off that the material matches the source. Verifiable means that any reader could do that by themselves. Verified carries the notion of official approval. Wikipedia does not operate on that model. Material needs to be verifiable, which means that I, as a reader, can check sources myself and confirm it. The current wording is not just arbitrary, it literally matters to how Wikipedia works, and changing it fundamentally changes the whole ethos behind Wikipedia. No way. --Jayron32 17:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Verified doesn't mean that someone official has done some kind of confirmation, and signed off that the material matches the source, it means there is an WP:RS cited as a reference (not necessarily inline; general references are already permitted). Levivich (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Once you start the RFC, it's up to the community to decide what the language of the RFC means. Just cuz you proposed it doesn't mean you get to decide what it means. I say it means exactly what Jayron32 says it means. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  The applicable guideline is WP:CITE, and the sections WP:CITETYPE and WP:WHYCITE cover how/when/why to cite sources. Changing "verifiable" to "verified" in WP:V wouldn't change anything in WP:CITE. Complying with WP:CITE already complies with the "verifiable" requirement (as well as in the case of challenged content, per WP:BURDEN); complying with WP:CITE would also comply with a "verified" requirement. We don't have "someone official" on Wikipedia who verifies content; any editor can do that. Levivich (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Good rule of thumb… when proposing a change in policy wording (even minor changes) ask: “how might some other person misinterpret the language I am proposing?” Don’t assume your intent is clear to others. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that things ought to be cited maybe more than they are but I think this is not the way to encourage that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose What will this actually achieve? Forests of tags, and random removals. In my experience, "referenced" material is often little more accurate than referenced stuff. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose In addition to concerns already raised there are also problems with things like SKYISBLUE. I presume we wouldn't expect people to cite that Paris is the capital of France but this change suggests we would. In margin cases it would suggest that facts that are grayish blue would need to be removed if the original editor incorrectly felt they were blue enough. The current wording allows for content to be retained when it falls into these edge cases. That's probably better than the alternative. Springee (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Springee and others. This change will not improve Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• I believe it's snowing here. nableezy - 17:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - impracticable notion with a possible significant consequence if adopted. (The more I think about it, the more I'm sure that this is not a good idea. (See opposing notes above) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Readers, and the editors who write for them, should be credited with a modicum of intelligence when it somes to deciding what needs to be verified. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron32. The point of verifiability is that I as a reader of an article can verify it by checking whether the source says what the article says it says. "Verified" means that someone has already done that and confirmed it (so I do not have to do it anymore, or have to be able to). That means that there has to be a system in place that ensures that before a user adds text and a source, they have to submit it to another user (not of their choice) for checking whether the source actually says that. Only after that check, the text can be added. That would be too much bureaucracy and would contradict the Wiki principle. Without that bureaucracy, the word "verified" would be a dishonest boast. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I would be in favor of requiring all articles to cite at least one source; but a sourcing requirement of some sort is a far cry from requiring a citation for every fact in an article. The change proposed in option 2 would logically lead to a requirement for a citation for the assertion that "the sky is blue". Just as an experiment, I hit the random article button and got Guy-Michel Nisas, a stub about a Martiniquais football manager. That stub currently cites 3 sources for its 2 sentences. I count 6 distinct facts in those 2 sentences - if option 2 passes I would expect that article to need footnotes by each of those 6 facts. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Hizzeck to the nizzo, per above: while the large-scale removal of uncontroversial content pursued as an alternative to simple verification is certainly a phenomenon that happens here, I do not think we need to have more of it endorsed by policy. jp×g 19:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Utterly impractical. I recognize that standards are ever rising, but this is too sudden. {{Citation needed}}, {{Dubious}}, and {{Better source needed}} tags alert readers to potential issues of accuracy. Article-quality processes already require "verified" status. Aggressive removal of uncontroversial but unsourced information is a common form of biting the newbies and has drives away potentially highly skilled writers. I would argue that experienced editors should follow this as if it were policy, but that is a matter for their respective user talk pages. Ovinus (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose to match wording of article title/topic is “verifiability” the text should be about “verifiable”. A “verified” is an inappropriate term as that would indicate some third party checking cites against text and recording the check. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for many of the reasons stated by others here, but also because WP:WIP. This change is more likely to lead to reliable, informative (albeit lacking an inline source) content being purged rather than improved. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Editors should only add material when they have a source supporting that material, as otherwise they are engaged in WP:OR. Since they must already have the source, it is reasonable and efficient to require them to provide the source when adding the material.

For editors worried about 10k vandalism, there is a difference between adding and restoring material. BilledMammal (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't agree. I can add "The capital of France is Paris" to an article without a citation, and without "having" a source, and I will not be engaged in OR according to the second paragraph of that very policy, which gives that exact sentence as an example of content that is never an OR violation regardless of whether it's sourced.

Also, BURDEN explicitly applies to anyone "who adds or restores material" and says that challenged material "should not be restored". There is presently no difference between adding and restoring material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - “Verified” is inaccurate and an entirely different, unrealistic standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarm (talk • contribs) 20:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Besides the fact that verified and verifiable mean two different things, I can see the clear intent this RfC is trying to greenlight. Curbon7 (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment despite the so-far solid opposition to this proposal, it is actually merely attempting to ratify a point of view that many Wikipedians already hold. At the moment we're in a very unsatisfactory situation: we have guidelines that say don't knee-jerk delete unsourced stuff unless it's wrong or got BLP issues: instead first look for a suitable source or consider a citation-needed tag. But we also have a clear statement that if you choose to ignore this advice and delete it anyway, no one can put it back without a source. No one is ever going to get sanctioned for deleting unsourced information, so in effect, we already have a "must-be-verified" policy, wherever anyone chooses to enforce it. Logically it's like saying you can't pinch someone's chocolate, but if you do, they're not allowed to ask for it back. I welcome this discussion - the topic is very close to that which I raised just above - because I think it's a huge chasm between two groups of Wikipedians and needs sorting out. But I also prefer "verifiable"; deleting probably-correct information is disruptive, and makes articles less readable. It's lazy. It's much better to assess whether the information is verifiable, and if it is, verify it. Elemimele (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is nothing murky about the way things are. Any editor is free to challenge uncited material, and any challenged material requires a citation be provided. If that is not done then challenged material can be removed and should not be restored without a citation directly supporting it. Needlessly challenging material just because there is no citation may however be treated as disruptive. If you think something is wrong, ask somebody for a source to prove it. If they dont, remove it. nableezy - 21:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per the many statements above and this should be SNOW closed. Andre🚐 20:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because Wikipedians are first and foremost encyclopedia writers and not blind citers of content. While citations are important, requiring citations of everything would bog down our editors and readers alike. Per User:Novem Linguae, this sounds like a proposal that was made in order to discretely stop a behavior that they don't like. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Verified is a goal everyone should strive towards in the long term, but making it an essential prerequisite would be catastrophic to the model we work on here. I've done some work on unsourced articles and I'd say at least 90% of the content is correct and readily sourceable with the growth of online access, especially the recent Wikipedia Library expansion. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose— the big problem, if this were passed, is who will do the verification? As I read the proposed text, verified would imply that someone has actually, well, verified the content added by others. That would imply all articles, new or existing, would have to have Pending Changes protection enabled to allow someone to verify edits before content appears to our readers. That also brings up another issue: not all of our sources are accessible online. Some are locked behind geofences, some behind paywalls, and some are locked in print in libraries requiring physical access. Instead, we operate on a principle of verifiability, meaning that readers should be able to verify the content they read, either through supplied references, or through their own research. (In the latter case, one would hope they'd give back by supplying a reference for previously uncited content.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  "Verified" might mean that the editor adding content has looked in some source to verify it, and made sure the source is at least listed as a general reference in an article, if not an inline citation. But when working in an advanced article, even that is an unacceptable burden. For example, Date of Easter is a fairly advanced article, and it uses the word "remainder", referring to the arithmetic operation of division. Sorry, but when I finished fourth grade, the teacher collected my text book, so I no longer possess a book to cite on how to do long division. Even if I did, I shouldn't have to interrupt my thinking to bother with stuff like that. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  That's certainly another interpretation, but if we start advertising that we have a policy that our content is verified, a very reasonable interpretation by the general population would not include such self-verification. Either way, a verification requirement, not a verifiability requirement, would fundamentally alter how people can contribute with a variety of poor consequences. Imzadi 1979 → 00:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. By aiming for "verified", we're saying "trust us, we checked", and barring some major change to how Wikipedia is edited, we can never be that trustworthy, because you always might get to the article after someone has added something inaccurate. "Verifiable" sets the goal of having a reference so that the reader can check some more structurally reliable source; they don't need to trust us. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose impractical and poorly thought out. If you want to throw away every single uncited thing by bot, be my guest, but that seems irresponsible to me. --Rschen7754 01:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I see where the proposal is coming from, who will be the arbiter of what is a verified source? –Fredddie™ 01:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would raise the bar for editing to a ridiculously high level. Also, it's snowing in October. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support the idea behind this (we should more aggressively remove unsourced content), but agree with everyone above that the specific wording proposed here is unworkable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia should never be the "fact checker" by claiming that all its contents are "verified". To my limited knowledge, "verifiable" means that the editor is expected to verify themselves as the content can be verified, while claiming "verified" means that we claimed that it has been vetted and should not be checked anymore, placing Wikipedia to be on a similar level with "truth checkers" which in my opinion, is not the goal of this project. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:15, 20 October 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.

proposal to improve reliability

Hello.

i made a mockup for a technological solution of improving reliability of wikipedia.

To be blunt, i am disappointed that an encyclopedia that has many thousands of contributors, many of which are working each day to improve accuracy, cannot already provide any substantial reliability guarantees, and provides little technical assistance to make citing more economical.

Looking for feedback to evolve the proposal. Nowakki (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and no amount of "verification" will make it one. You are now suggesting (basically) that we have a subset of individuals who audit our content the moment a reference changes. If you would like a completely fact-checked encyclopedia, look at Brittania, or any other suitable text. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

you are interpolating my proposal to such extremes that it becomes easy to disagree with it.

i propose "reliable enough" to be used as a reference inside wikipedia (where there is no deadline). like a reputable journal is reliable enough, even though journals can be wrong and issue corrections.

all that happens is that a reference becomes flagged. i am not proposing to create an army of slave labor that solves resulting problems.

i am not proposing a completely fact checked encyclopedia, but rather an encyclopedia that contains fact checked tables, lists, sections that provides a guarantee that the external reference has been properly quoted. wikipedia at this moment already does proofreading of citations. that is nothing new. Nowakki (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

If a reliability of a certain section is determined by checking its sources, why not just cite those sources directly? CMD (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

go through 5 pdfs and a book that is not on your shelf, instead of linking to an already produced summary. saves time. if further references are added to improve the reliability of the original, both places where the references are used as a source benefit.

the mere reader of a page can confidently believe in the accuracy of the data, without even having to worry one second about vandalism.

if a fact is established in one place and used in many places, it is much more likely to receive scrutiny because of the larger potential impact of a correction.

editors will be incentivized to be more careful about citing something.

an articles value can be improved if it can be established that parts of it have gone though a peer review and that it has always been one version that all peer reviewers have agreed to over time. Nowakki (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It's worth noting that vandalism, as it is understood on Wikipedia, really isn't part of the problem when it comes to verifying content in articles. Our bigger problems are systemic bias and savvy POV-pushers. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

yes and murderers may use knives.

if a POV is pushed by very accurately quoting a source, that is nothing i can do anything about. Nowakki (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposals for locking verified content preemptively are perennial, even when solely talking about featured articles, our highest standard of vetted content. See Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Protect_featured_articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

but this concerns whole articles and the objections revolve around featured articles not being finished and continuing to improve.

that's different from establishing a set of facts from sources. A data table or a section of an article or its infobox. the facts are not going to change. Nowakki (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not deal in facts, it deals in claims, and claims change all the time. I would suggest that you get more familiar with Wikipedia's processes before making sweeping suggestions that include a half dozen nonstarters in them, or at least bring them to WP:IDEA before VPP. I'd recommend Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth as an entry point to Wikipedia's discussions of epistemology. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

i don't read about a single non-starter.

wikipedia can be verified. people who verify wikipedia can be given tools. wikipedia can become as reliable as the references linked to with a high probability of correctness.

the whole thing could be run off-site and wikipedia wouldn't have to change one bit. if a wikipedia article uses facts established by a secondary source that gives the primary sources for verification itself, then that would be a good source to link to.

sorry i meant to say claims, not facts. Nowakki (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

But what does "reliable enough" mean? This is another fuzzy term. Either a statement is reliable (i.e. based on easily discovered source material that is easily verifiable as factual) or it is not. If a statement is "mostly reliable" (?) then further analysis is needed to determine whether the lesser, unreliable part of the "mostly reliable" statement is in any way related to what the statement purports to support in wikitext. Or whether any depemdencies exist between the mostly reliable part and the other, less reliable part. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"reliable enough" refers to the probability that the verification process was flawed.

in the mockup example i made, do you attach different chances of accuracy to the before and after? Nowakki (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, basically then you propose a process for 1. validating citations and 2. determining citations are contextual (not just reliable but pertinent to the wikitext)? How do you arrive at the probability numbers? 50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

the ratio of verifications that are still not falsified by a user versus the total number of verifications. it is based on the track record of the user giving the thumbs up. Nowakki (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Validating citations for reliability and relevance is not a bad idea, it is actually necessary. If this website was publishing an encyclopedia (just because Wikipedia says it is an encyclopedia doesn't make it so) then the existence and validation of citations would be some of the mandatory requirements for publishing an article. This wouldn't make the article overall reliable; there are more criteria to consider. Also, per your proposal, I would not protect anything unless WP:PP has a reason to apply. And there are other, technical considerations.

I don't think any such proposal has much chance of success. The great majority of the miniscule minority of Wikipedia users that participate in these discussions seem content to let the mainspace area be filled with content of the same apparent quality as any random internet site. Vast swathes of unverified internet posts masquerading as knowledge, even when they look good. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

actually i was hoping this problem was already being worked on and i would be redirected in no time to a project page where technical details would be worked out.

the the logical next step in the evolution of wikipedia Nowakki (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church

There is a request for comment about mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church. Please contribute there. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC LGBTIQIA+phobia

Hi Please look at this RFC about non-nominative insults and death threat against LGBTQIA+ people to integrate them in the oversight policy Scriptance (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

policy question

if somebody shouts across a crowded room, asking how many votes Joe Biden won in the 2020 Arkansas election, what should my personal policy be:

1. meddle for 20 seconds and read the number on the wiki page
2. meddle for 20 seconds, read the number on the wiki page and add: "but i don't know if that's accurate"
3. meddle for 2 minutes with the sources on the wikipage and read out the number from the cited source

Nowakki (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Shout “Next round’s on me!” and change the subject. (Well, that’s my policy anyway).Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Article titles for years: BC/AD or BCE/BC

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Article titles for years: BC/AD or BCE/BC. Interstellarity (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I propose that an article being tagged for over a decade as completely uncited should be a reason for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lane sharing Chidgk1 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, a link to a deletion discussion isn't a policy proposal. Even if it were - we shouldn't delete notable items because they are uncited. If you see such a thing, why not cite it yourself? It's a different matter if there are no sources. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please explain how any so-called "article" can be characterized notable when there are no sources indicating so. 104.247.55.106 (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles aren't notable. Subjects are. Just because we have a poor quality article on a subject doesn't make that subject non-notable. And we don't (and shouldn't) delete articles on notable people. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Evasive. Obviously what was meant was that subjects of articles are notable. So, how can one tell that subjects are notable if there is no proof? Because Wikipedia says so? 104.247.55.106 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don't talk to me like that and have a read up at WP:N and our general notability guidelines. If an article is written poorly for a long time and lacks citations, we don't just delete the article. Either we go to WP:AFD/WP:PROD for items that are not-notable (ie, that sources do not exist), or we should improve them by adding sources. That's what a WP:BEFORE search is for. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

At least one should make sense. The notability guidelines presume notability according to so-called "reliable sources". Above it is posted ... items that are not-notable (ie, that sources do not exist), which is exactly the counter-argument. Can't have it both ways. Deleting an unsourced piece of rambling prose is not hurting Wikipedia, on the contrary. It also does not matter in the end. Anything on Wikipedia can be found elsewhere if one really wants to learn. In other places, and with proper sourcing to boot. 104.247.55.106 (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

As multiple people have said, we draw a distinction between “no sources exist” and “no sources have been cited (yet)”… so the question is: are there sources that could (should) be cited, but have not (yet) been cited? If so, the solution is to add them to the article, not to delete the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

And that distinction (not there vs. not yet) is obvious to readers? In another tack, is there a furious pace (relative to the need) of proving the wikitext claims of uncited/poorly cited articles? If so it has escaped attention. 65.88.88.194 (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. All content should be sourced, and we should tag and fix articles that are poorly referenced. But, there is also WP:NODEADLINE for fixing them. It's not great that we have items unsourced, but that is a reason to work through our backlogs and find suitable references for items. Deleting items because they are poor but notable isn't really helpful. As for readers, they don't really care if an item is notable or not, just whether or not we have an article on that subject.

On a separate note, we do request that if you have an account that you remain logged into it unless there are specific reasons in place. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This is going in circles. How is one to tell that an item is "poor but notable" if there are no references, or no reliable references? If a subject is notable, it should be relatively easy to prove it is so, by supporting references. If notability cannot/will not be demonstrated, the article may be a piece of fiction and doesn't belong.

The only thing one can reasonably assume is that readers are looking for accurate information. The distinctions made here are meaningless to them, and so far as they perpetuate the status quo, a disservice. All these endless discussions are constantly tackling problems, but never solving them - except by often producing yet another "guideline" and moving on to the next item, in rotation.

Your request was noted. Do discuss the argument, not the participant. The fact that you are using an account is immaterial, and has nothing to do with the weight of your current argument. We are all anonymous, whether so-called "logged-in" or otherwise. Imbuing anonymity with an artificial personality and a history is not a concern of mine. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The Lane sharing AfD failed because you neglected WP:BEFORE. It had nothing to do with the rationale "uncited for over a decade". -- GreenC 14:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Having engaged with the completely unsourced articles heap recently, I can attest that nearly all of the articles in my subject areas are fairly readily sourceable with the aid of the Wikipedia Library, often from bullet-proof sources such as Oxford encyclopedias. In the early days of the encyclopedia, there was no requirement to source anything and often editors didn't, but their information nearly always came from somewhere. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Being tagged as “unsourced” for a long time is certainly a red flag that proper sourcing (ie sources that discuss the topic in reasonable detail) might not exist, but we can not make an automatic assumption one way or the other. We have to do a proper WP:BEFORE search.

Also, rather than deleting the article, consider merging it with a related article, or moving it to DRAFTSPACE so editors can bring it up to minimal standards and then move it back into MAINSPACE. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Moving a decade-old article to draftspace is not supported by policy. There is no action less likely to result in improvements. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Forced moves to draftspace are always a disaster. If the creator or major editor requests it, that's one thing, but not like this. --Jayron32 14:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Why would you merge something that may well be total bullcrap (without sources there's no way to tell) into an article? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's really simple: if it doesn't have sources, add some. If you can't find some, PROD or AfD. No special rules or exceptions required. It doesn't matter how old the article is. -- GreenC 14:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Not the community's view - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lane sharing has rightly closed as keep. Just out of interest, do you think anything in the article is actually wrong? Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• FYI - I note that a lot of the sources that discuss Lane sharing conflate it with Lane splitting. Are these topics distinct enough for two articles? Perhaps a merger? Please discuss at Talk:Lane sharing. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think this type of article is part of a larger problem that many editors feel that "every topic must have its own article", and do not readily consider more comprehensive articles, merging multiple closely related topics (such as here, what feels like would be a glossary of driving terms) and using redirects to make sure topics are still searchable. A paragraph or two bare of sources inside such a more comprehensive article that is otherwise reasonably sourced is far less of a concern than these source-less standalone articles. Masem (t) 15:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yuck. Had I know of the AfD, I would have voted to delete. If the topic really is notable, somebody should write a good article about it based on WP:RS. In the meantime, this is just a bunch of WP:OR. Maybe articles like this were acceptable 15 years ago, but I would have hoped our standards would have improved by now. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  [re Masem]: It's not just "every topic must have its own article" (though I agree that's an element); fitting one topic into another article can be tricky and verge on original research unless multiple sources directly address the way the topics fit together. It's easier to have an article on lane sharing (using sources that talk about lane sharing) and another on lane splitting (using sources that talk about lane sharing) than to try to work out what the interface between the two topics might be. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that at some point an article that has been taagged as needing citations has had its chance and should be deleted. How long? Not sure, but a decade is definitely too long. If it upsets you enough to make you go out and find actual sources, great. But until you come back with them, the page is no better than fanfic and should be removed.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand why something tagged as unsourced for a decade is problematic, but as others have noted here, the article shouldn't be deleted solely because of a lack of sources. Do a WP:BEFORE, take it to AFD, consider adding sources yourself. Everything is a work in progress here. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1I would suggest a voters guide after the AfD for Lane sharing, that the ones who vote keep also add the RS for it. And to @Johnbod, if the AfD were on a subject which was not common sense in some English language culture, the whole article would be considered WP:OR and deleted. That an unsourced article was kept even without added sources... I don't have the words for it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - While it's not entirely clear whether this is a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion or if it merely intends to establish "uncited for more than a decade" as policy compliant rationale for deletion in discussions at AFD, I would oppose its addition in either regard. Our policies are sufficiently robust in these regards and no allusion to lessor requirements wp:before pursuing an article's deletion would serve to improve Wikipedia. This is not an argument for keeping articles on non-notable topics, it is an argument for maintaining the current level of wp:before work that is minimaly expected to have been performed.--John Cline (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. We add sources or we delete because there aren’t any decent ones, not because something has been around for ages. Mccapra (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• The argument at AfD should always be about whether quality sources exist about a subject, not about whether the article as currently written cites quality sources. Mz7 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment As you can see at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources there are still tens of thousands of articles which were tagged as unreferenced over a decade ago. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No surprise there about the old ones, but the newer ones bother me. A handful will get through NPP but it looks like hundreds of unsourced articles a month must be being created by autopatrolled editors. Worrying. Maybe we should focus on stopping any more new ones getting added to the pile rather than mopping up the old ones? Mccapra (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like those are categorized based upon when they were tagged, not necessarily created. For example, Farm museum was created in 2007, but not tagged until September 2021. I checked ten random ones on the first page of Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2021 and all were created in 2014 or early. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And? What you are suggesting is to delete tens of thousands of articles with no vetting for being unsourced, rather than trying to find sources for items on notable subjects. I agree it's a good thing to try and reduce, but deleting on mass is not the solution. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t propose it is a reason for speedy deletion but a reason for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it's a reason to improve the article. If you try looking for sources (WP:BEFORE) and nothing is found that supports notability or veracity, then take it to AFD. The existence of aging maintenance tags should *not* be the sole reason used to delete something. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s actually a bit more complicated than that… When you come across an article that has been tagged for a long time, AND have done a reasonable WP:BEFORE search, THEN it is appropriate to mention BOTH facts when nominating. The long standing tag can add weight to the fact that your BEFORE search came up empty (presumably others may have searched as well). But the tag should not be the ONLY reason to delete. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

+1 Totally agree. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as official guidance; if you find such an article, try WP:BEFORE and if you can't find anything yourself, WP:AFD also exists. If you can't be bothered to look or take it to AFD, then feel free to do nothing. No one will do anything to you for just letting someone else take care of it. --Jayron32 13:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• IMHO, articles without sources should not exist, and editors who grievously fail to perform WP:BEFORE when nominating (and in some cases even participating) in WP:AfD should be sanctioned. Now that I've made my diatribe, on a practical level Oppose, because common sense dictates that if something is obviously notable, we shouldn't be making arbitrary rules to delete it. A pox on the houses of both the editors who create sourceless articles and those who want to make arbitrary rules to punish them, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Jacona (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• I don't care enough about that particular article to look for sources myself. However proposing deletion(not speedy deletion) of an article is very easy and quick nowadays. I suspect a lot of readers on mobile are unlikely to notice the "unsourced" tag. If they then read duff info it may reduce their trust in other articles. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

If the community is going to support keeping unsourced articles, an incentive for adding sources to unsourced articles (which at Lane Sharing was not done) would be helpful. An unsourced articles backlog drive for example or if it would be possible to nominate a formerly unsourced article to DYK, I assume several of them would be worked on.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a lot more common than you think. For example 180 (video game) was unsourced when it was created in 2007 and remained that way until sources were finally added in 2017. It took 10 years to get 4 sources, and the article mentions two more reviews without citations that can probably be located sooner or later. Had the article been deleted the day before the sources were added, it would be gone now and likely never recreated. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

But what if it had turned out to just be something somebody made up back in 2007? Then we would have been lying to the reader for 10 years. I find that a much worse proposition than the possibility of deletion leading to a permanent lack of an article. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Having done some work on the completely unsourced articles heap (there are 135,520, fwiw) I have not found a single hoax, nor anything with obviously fundamentally incorrect content. Generally the information in areas I'm familiar with turns out to be verifiable. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's worth noting that, whilst a good argument, there's nothing stopping sourced articles being complete hoaxes without checking what's in the sources. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As mentioned above WP:AFD is more than sufficient to deal with these. IMO this seems to be a way to avoid WP:BEFORE. Lee Vilenski is correct that sourced articles can be complete hoaxes. User:Rhododendrites/Chaney is one of the most extraordinary examples that I ever saw of that fact. MarnetteD|Talk 16:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Circumcision related pages and discretionary sanctions?

The controversy over the issue has given rise to repeated consensus being later over-written or deleted for at least the last eighteen months that I've been editing. There are multiple issues on a number of pages continuing Foreskin - current discussion on repeat from last year - some deleted content now restored. I'm not looking for dispute resolution here - talk is ongoing - but some pages suffer so badly it makes wikipedia look wrong. Masturbation does not contain the word foreskin, it does contain the word lubricant. I post this because I read a noticeboard discussion about cabals. I think we need to do something about the entire subject area but I have little experience in the admin world so apologies if this is in the wrong place. I'd welcome broader feedback about bias problems across subject areas. Thanks.Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

What issue? What consensus? Back up and explain what you are talking about. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion on the talk page, but no formal RFCs yet. ECP is also a possibility if there really is a problem with instability and disagreement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

How to make edits on behalf of people without internet access

Wiki Education, the organization I work for, runs an extensive program where college and university students edit Wikipedia as a class assignment. We have one university instructor who's taught with Wikipedia through our program several times who is teaching a course beginning in January where her students will be inmates in a correctional facility (see Prison education). These students will be taking her course for college credit, but they will not have internet access. She is interested in printing out our how-to-edit trainings, printing out an existing article, and working with the students to collaboratively improve an article with citations to books or other physical sources they have at the facility or that she would bring with her. When she comes back to her office at the university where she has internet access, she'd then incorporate the edits to the article.

So my question: how does she do this in a way that follows policy? These students obviously can't create their own accounts because they don't have internet access. Should she make the edits with her account and provide credit to the person's name in the edit summary? Or is there a better solution? --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

One issue is copyright and attribution. Normally we would not allow putting in others work, but if the students were prepared to sign a permission sheet releasing their writings under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 saying what attribution they would like and who is going to be uploading them, then the instructor would send that to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Then when the instructor inserts contributions on the writer's behalf, they can put the attribution in the edit summary, along with the ticket number where permission can be confirmed. However if the only work is adding references, perhaps that is too simple for copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Deleting articles: AFD and Article overflow

Articles for deletion is overwhelmed. There needs to be no discussion over this - everyone knows it.

And that's because there are not enough people to do source search checking.

Patrolling articles is also overwhelmed. Deletion of articles is often done without WP:BEFORE checks.

There might be no WP:DEADLINE, but unmaintainable articles(not notable articles, hoaxes etc.) continuously accumulating in Wikipedia is not acceptable either.

We need a solution to the problem that takes these problems as facts or solves these problems.

One possibility is blanking; replacing an article with a template "This article was removed because of quality concerns" if the problem is notability, no one has claimed to have done a WP:BEFORE check, and there is no valid redirect target, and the article subject isn't a BLP. But that leaves out BLP's.

But it is something that needs to be solved. Deletion is generating ANI threads at high speed, and got already one arbcom case. Let's not end with DS on deletion. (I submitted this here because the idea lab is not for policy discussions)Lurking shadow (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a non-issue to me. Let's say an article is deleted. Let's say that any time in the future after that you decide to create that article again, but when YOU do so, it has enough sources and context to easily overcome WP:N concerns, complies with all of Wikipedia's content policies, isn't a copyvio, etc. Guess what? Nothing happens. The article just exists at Wikipedia, from that day forward. I'm failing to see the problem here. --Jayron32 16:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This just seems like another example of #I propose that an article being tagged for over a decade as completely uncited should be a reason for deletion. I don't see what blanking a page does to help other than being a soft delete that means no one sees the article. If there are hoaxes, then these can be dealt with at CSD. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It would be an alternative for soft deletion... or when consensus to blank exists.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

But this is just one idea. Let's not just focus on that. Do you have a good idea for fixing one or several of these problems?Lurking shadow (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)