Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

• Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals.
• Consider developing your proposal on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab).
• Proposed software changes that have gained consensus should be filed at Bugzilla.
• Proposed policy changes belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
• Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
• Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.
• Proposed new articles belong at Wikipedia:Requested articles.

« Archives, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213

Informing new creators of article guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm going to treat this as a proposal to approve a principle, and therefore as something that will require further discussion as it is developed. As such, I find that there is a consensus in favour of the proposal, but that development of the notice should be done collaboratively and should involve further discussion before the proposal is implemented.

I would note, as an aside, that it is most unhelpful for editors (whether with or without a "(WMF)" suffix in their username) to import their personality clashes from other areas of the project. I hope not to see it again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

---

There are currently 55,070 articles tagged for unclear notability.

One of the main concerns at Wikipedia is that new users are not adequately informed of what new articles should be. Proposals that creation could be limited to autoconfirmed users were rejected. Various substituted proposals for a new landing page are under discussion and/or development but this takes time. Many new articles have borderline notability and other important issues that require tagging but not necessarily CSD or PROD for deletion. More content and/or more research could probably turn them into decent articles. Many editors and those patrolling new pages may feel that it is not the remit of regular users to complete such articles on behalf of their creators.

While (when using Twinkle) CSD and WP:PROD leave messages on the creators' talk ages drawing their attention to issues, maintenance tags do not. Many new pages may be the creations of WP:SPA who might not return to the project and be aware of any tags, but this does not mean that their articles are necessarily any less worthy of inclusion. It is possible that if new users were quickly notified while still on line that their article needs attention, we may be seeing a step towards increased user retention, and over time, a reduction in clean-up backlogs, and other areas such as AfC that are snowed under.

I propose that:

Certain important tags such as (to cite a few examples) COI, Unreferenced, More references required, Close paraphrasing, Essay like, Tone, Written like an ad, etc. should automatically place a welcome and a friendly notice on the new user's talk page, making them aware of work that still needs to be done, and perhaps with links to the appropriate specific guidelines.

This may have been previously proposed, but as I don't immediately see anything listed at WP:PEREN this is just a suggestion that has occurred to me during my recent intensive use of the prototype Special:NewPagesFeed, and if it gains sufficient support it could be moved to RfC and further discussed and perhaps developed as an additional combined feature of NewPagesFeed.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it is certainly a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a related discussion (and related suggestions) here (down the bottom, just above "Can we do both")   LittleBen (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but such discussions often get convoluted and bogged down. This is a straightforward, unambiguous single proposal, and perhaps it can be handled quite quickly without any side issues. Hence the reason for seeing what support there is for a discussion before moving to RfC for a discussion on the pros & contras of the proposal itself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC).

Isn't the problem that such users don't know about talk pages and so would not look at them or for them?   My suggestion (3) is

(3) When a user who is not logged in (or who is logged in with an IP address) attempts to create an article,

it might be a good idea to display a link like "you might like to know the advantages of creating a logon alias, and talk page".

And my suggestion (2) is

(2) (When a user searches for a non-existent page "ABCDEF")

Instead of saying just "You may create the page "ABCDEF"...", also say something like "You might like to read Wikipedia Article naming guidelines". (It would be useful if this article were more clearly linked to the search engine tutorial which explains how to use search engines for research to satisfy Wikipedia requirements like verifiability and recognizability). LittleBen (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I like LittleBen's suggestions, except that I would have the user directed to the Article Wizard rather than the naming guidelines pages. (Maybe something like "if you have not previously created an article or not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies concerning articles, please consult the Article Wizard before proceeding further").--JayJasper (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, for te suggestions but such discussions often get convoluted and bogged down. This is a straightforward, unambiguous single proposal, and perhaps it can be handled quite quickly without any side issues. Hence the reason for seeing what support there is for a discussion before moving to RfC for a discussion on the pros & contras of the proposal itself. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'd be happy with this. I don't want to receive any such messages. How does Twinkle know whether I'm a new editor, so it knows who needs a welcome-refimprove note and who doesn't? Given the way some editors tag-bomb new pages with every conceivable problem, how would you handle multiple tags? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about you or your contributions. That said, you might not be aware that Twinkle is already able to discriminate between regular and new users. Editors who tag bomb articles are the totally inexperienced and/or young page patrollers whom some editors consider not to be a cause for concern although they make up 80% of the patrollers. This proposal is part of a move to improve NPP and new user retention, where other suggestions for improvement to NPP, and the introduction of a new, new-user landing page appear to have failed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung, could you please explain how "inexperienced and/or young" patrollers can make up 80 percent of the patrollers? The existing data says much different (on the young point, at least). And it's not really helpful to look at number of patrollers; the useful data is number of patrols. If 80 percent are 14, and those 80 percent each tag 1 article a year while the rest of the work is done by everyone else (hyperbole, but you get the point) then the situation is rather different from what your number would suggest. Ironholds (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

On the existing data front; the survey data (which you have seen, as you helped gather it :)) suggested that "Between 79 and 82 percent of new page patrollers are over the age of 18, in line with the editorial community overall, and this rises to between 83 and 85 percent with the high-workload patrollers". Ironholds (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in that survey and its data whatsoever. It was my initiative, following a couple of years intensive research by some concerned, mature, experienced users into the enormous problems concerning the quality of NPP. I helped launch it, and immdiately afterwards the survey project was adopted by the Foundation who months later suddenly published a report that had little in common with the actual empirical findings of those established users and admins who have hands-on experience of new page patrol. Hence, some mature, experienced users are still looking for new, alternative ways to address the continuing problem of poor patriolling (and possible mis-judged deletions by some admins who may occasionally take the tags on face value in good faith), and user/new page creator retention. Wikipedia is losing content creators due to the way they are treated by drive-by deletionists.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me to these empirical findings, please? And also to an example of how the report does not line up with them? And, ideally, either show how the report doesn't line up with the raw data from the survey or how the raw data was flawed? Ironholds (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I ask the latter questions because, well, either the report was wrong about the raw data, the raw data was wrong, or the empirical data gathered "by some concerned, mature, experienced users" is wrong. Ironholds (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As that survey project is dead as far as the community who initiated it is concerned, the volunteers are no longer interested in discussing it or digging for their empirical findings at this stage. The fact that some people prefer data driven explanations, while some prefer the reality of hands-on experience is one of the classsic breakdowns in communications where the WMF and the community are nevertheless working towards the same goal. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, as the top patroller in '10 and someone who still keeps their hand in I don't think anyone could accuse me of not having hands-on experience :). If you don't want to discuss the survey or talk about it, that's fine - I'm not going to force anyone to rely on data they don't like - but I really wish you'd stop pulling out numbers, here and elsewhere, that isn't supported by actual data, like " Editors who tag bomb articles are the totally inexperienced and/or young page patrollers whom some editors consider not to be a cause for concern although they make up 80% of the patrollers.". If it was "I see a lot of young patrollers", that's fine, but once you start talking about hard numbers, you're talking about quantitative data that can't be accurately gathered simply by watching and looking unless you're watching, looking and actively counting ages. And quite frankly, I think the community deserves better than numbers that aren't supported by hard evidence, because, well...they're numbers. Hard evidence is where they come from. Subjective experiences are great, but only if you're giving subjective outputs. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

WADR, your experience is, IMHO, possibly out of date, and nothing has been done yet to implement a concrete solution to the problem of what is generally very poor patrolling as witnessed by those experienced editors who do it seriously in an attempt to get to the root of the issues. Plain numbers can can all to frequently be interpreted by those who cite or extrapolate them to disprove the blatantly obvious, or to avoid the opportunities to discuss them face-to-face. If control over patrollers is to be ruled out, then other solutions must be examined. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "discuss them face-to-face" exactly? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Seems like a good idea in general. One concern is that if the note is too long, new users are likely to skim through it and miss something. I would suggest a very short note with a link to the article's talk page that contained more detailed instructions. Perhaps the detailed instructions could be formatted in a checklist fashion in short bite-sized segments that would be quick to read and could be checked off as they were completed. 64.40.54.4 (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kudpung that this is a simple and obvious change that, while it certainly will not solve all the problems, will probably lead to the improvement of at least some of them. it is something that any careful NPPatroller would want to do themselves manually, but even many experienced patrollers do not always have time to do. Better that it be done with a notice than not at all. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support The proposal is direct and to the point. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support New editors need more guidance when creating articles. David1217 ^{What I've done} 16:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Guidance is crucial. Theopolisme _{TALK 17:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)}
• Support Absolutely. When tagging a new page, I always fear that the page creator--sometimes blatantly inexperienced--won't return to his or her article either because he or she doesn't quite know how, or because of disinterest post-creation. Deletion notices posted to a user talk page usually inspire a kneejerk reaction (unfortunate, but better than nothing) to return and improve his or her article accordingly, so I fail to see why we shouldn't do this for tags as well. One of the major issues among good faith new editors is indeed not only a lack of understanding for relevant guidelines/policies, but also basic expectations for the subjects of new articles and the corresponding content. Beyond welcome messages--usually ignored--I can't think of a way to immediately rectify this issue pre-article-creation, so I feel this proposal would be the next best thing. --IShadowed 14:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - if it can be done in a way that doesn't piss people off too much. Some way to limit initial rollout to see how it goes would be good; a "big bang" approach might just fail spectacularly and kill what's basically a good idea. Opt-out option of course is essential. BTW email notification, enabled by default, will push messages out to new users via email, so they won't need to log in to be aware of the message. Rd232 ^talk 00:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I believe in keeping everything on-Wiki as much as possible. That said, the current proposal only concerns three or four templates of the most crucial kind - just one level down from threats of impending deletion. There is no reason why they cannot be worded in a very friendly manner (something we're not always very good at) - after all, the effort here is to retain articles that may benefit from more interaction from the creator rather than slumber unimproved for years with ugly tags, and to retain the editopr as a potential Wikipedian. I have found that my custom messages to users work very well, hence this suggestion for a proposal. A limited trial might well prove to be unnecessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I still see no practical method for limiting this to "new editors". There's also no proposal to limit it to tags added shortly after creation, tags that are actually warranted, tags that remained on the article for more than a day, etc.

So let's try this a different way: How many of you have created new articles? And how many of you are volunteering to get a {{welcome-refimprove}} or similar message posted every single time someone spams one of the hundreds of clean up templates onto that article for the rest of your Wikipedia career? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that I actually understand what you are suggesting here or the objective of your questions - the proposal, AFAICS, is simple and straightforward, carries no 'limitations', nor calls for volunteers, but my empirical experience does tell me that most tags are applied on, or shortly after creation. Perhaps you have misread the proposal. What I have suggested - for proposal - is for Twinkle to put messages on the talk pages of authors who have created an article that would risk being senselessly tag bombed (sooner or later) to receive little or no further attention for the rest of its life, except perhaps from those few brave souls who gnome away in the lonely cellars of obscure categories. In case you missed it, I'll repeat: I have found that my custom messages to users work very well, hence this suggestion for a proposal. Either you are in favour of progress towards retention of editors and their non toxic articles, or you are not; please consider stating your position clearly - alternatives are not requested at this stage of pre-proposal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the proposal is simple and straightforward. The proposal is that every single time someone spams a clean up tag into an article for which you are the first editor/creator, you personally will receive a "Welcome and notice of a clean up tag on the article you started" message. Every single time, no matter who you are, whether you're active, whether you actually created or care about the page, whether the tag is deserved, how old the page is, how many tags have been spammed to it today, or anything else. You've created 60 articles over the years. How many times do you want to be "welcomed" by a bot? If I added one new cleanup tag—and we have some 400 or so, so I'm sure I could find one that was passably appropriate—to each one of those articles once a week, you'd get 3,120 "welcome" messages each year. Is that what you, as a person with six years' experience and nearly 49,000 edits to your credit, really need or want? Do you need to be "welcomed" every time I discover a minor issue (or believe that I do) in an article that you're already watching? I assure you that it is not what I want. I do understand the proposal. "Understand" and "support" are not the same. I oppose this well-meaning but misguided proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What you have still not understood is that this is a pre- proposal in order to measure any support for a detailed proposal. Frankly, (because I wrote it) I do not see where the proposal statement suggests that the tags should be placed on the talk pages of regulars. Details are not requested at this time as has been repeatedly stated and you are preempting issues that are not yet up for discussion. Guys, I still see no practical method for limiting this to "new editors" - well, we can't all be programmers, can we?. Fundamentally, this proposal is about exploring new ways to retain editors and their articles - I believe, wrongly or rightly, that that is a fundamental principle of the Wikimedia movement. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Clearly this is a step in the right direction. The tags can be short, friendly notices with links, not warnings, so even if TW borked and sent me one, I can't see how this would bruise my ego. Providing this info to new editors who might not be in the habit of checking watchpages is an excellent way to increase education in a non-obtrusive way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 14:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support New editors come in all sizes and dispositions. lets retain as many a possible. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Very good idea! Jesse V. (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment (I already supported above): in terms of target audience (seeing WhatamIdoing's concerns above), the aim as I understand it is to notify article creators of problems identified soon after creation - especially articles created by new users who may not log in to monitor their article. This would suggest a simple time cut-off would prevent issues of users being told years later that someone stuck a tag on an article they've long forgotten about and maybe even dewatchlisted for lack of interest. A 30-day limit would probably be about right. The limit could also be customisable per user (eg by creating a user subpage with different settings). Other possibilities exist, including limiting notifications to "new accounts" (defined by time and/or edits; auto-confirmed limit would probably be too low), or limiting them to users who haven't logged in for a while (in the assumption that most target users will have email notification turned on, so a note on their user talk page will generate an email telling them they have a new message). The potential usefulness is certainly there, and there's absolutely no reason why, with proper design (including customisability beyond simple opt-out, which is obviously a basic requirement) and testing, anyone should ever be bothered with unwanted notifications. Rd232 ^talk 11:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

In view of the initial support, I have listed this proposal as a RfC (see thread top). All users are invited to discuss and debate towards a consensus for the possible implementation, upon which, the actual details can be further examined. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Anything that might encourage new editors to engage with the project and learn about its expectations is worth considering, and this proposal could bring additional benefits in terms of article quality. In theory, this seems like a very good idea. In practice, I'm sure the details can be ironed out before it's implemented. Rivertorch (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose we already subject even goodfaith newbies to an unpleasant and unwelcoming process of templating of their articles, I'd be very uncomfortable about escalating that to an increased number of hostile templates on their talkpages. Impersonal welcomes are different as they are at least friendly, but the way to deal with newbies is firstly to improve the articles they write. I'm happy with a friendly, untemplated note on someone's talkpage if after some time they are still writing like a newbie. But in my experience it is rarely necessary if you spend your time improving articles rather than templating them, as new goodfaith editors are more likely to learn by seeing their contributions improved than by having them templated. Rather than increase the amount of templating I'd suggest we try to reverse the trend to templating and encourage people to use templates less and spend more time improving articles and giving personal messages to editors. My aim is to remove more templates than I add - maybe one day I'll create a userbox for those who do that. ϢereSpielChequers 10:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That presupposes that every new user who creates a first page is a potential permanent Wikipedian. With all due respect WSC, I don't think that is accurate. A quick stint at NPP (which I know you have done plenty of) will show that a vast number of pages are created by SPA - we can see this clearly now with the meta data displayed on Special:NewPagesFeed. Now a lot of those pages are actually worth keeping, but although there are some rudimentary tasks that NPPers are supposed to do, if we expect them to stop and almost complete the articles, with the few patrollers we have, the job of patrolling will never get done - the back of the patrol queue is already at 30 days again - and the SPA will have logged out never to return; PROD is quite a good example of this. This is not a question of 'hostile templating', but one of leaving them a friendly but semi-automated message that would encourage the creators to do the job themselves, and in doing so they would learn a lot more about the processes here, and then perhaps stick around and do more editing. Take this for example: 'Hi xxx, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for creating xxx. The article still needs your urgent attention and as you are far more familiar the subject than I am, perhaps you could return to the page and add a couple of references/include the country/add the birth place/remove the bits that were copied from another source/reword the promotional bits/etc/etc/, and if you need any help with this, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. ' I find it works wonders, and it's better than simply tag bombing the article with a mess of templates, acronyms, or threats of deletion. Doing it with Twinkle instead of copying and pasting one of my custom messages each time would simply save time, and most new users don't even realise it's a template - I didn't when I was new here. The idea is just a stop gap until the promised Article Creation Work Flow landing page has been released (but no ETA as yet). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That presupposes that every new user who creates a first page is a potential permanent Wikipedian.

So does your proposal. If the initial author isn't a "potential permanent Wikipedian", then your series of welcome-warning notices are going to be unread and therefore worthless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, you have completely failed to understand the principle of this proposition. We're not talking about the trolls and vandals who are easily identified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Not every seed sown bears fruit. But that doesnt mean we should stop farming. Planting seeds (notices) presupposes success. Failure isn't worth considering```Buster Seven Talk 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support; if even a few new users every day notice it and either don't dump their awful article onto us or rewrite it up to standards, it will greatly help our overworked NPPers and should help reduce frayed nerves on all sides. It can't hurt to try, can it? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - So all someone has to do is add a template to a page and they can post such a message to someone's talk page? This doesn't sound like a good idea. Also, I'll strongly oppose on the grounds that this "friendly notice" hasn't been written yet. I've seen some rather overbearing welcome notices, and this notice is designed to tell someone politely that their article needs work? SOFIXIT comes immediately to mind. This proposal is just reinforcing the "tag it and forget it" mentality that we're seeing more and more as people use automated tools. - jc37 01:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course it hasn't been written yet. That what this proposal is for! It's explicitly designed to avoid the traditional 'tag and forget'. The whole idea of this proposal is to address the issues with the NPP 'mentality'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If that was "what this proposal is for", then it would have been a request for ideas on what the notice/message should consist of. That's not what I'm seeing here. I'm seeing a request for a blank cheque for something that hasn't been written yet. - jc37 03:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, an excellent idea. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:33, 21 August 2012 (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.

Activate section 0 edit link for everyone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus in favour of the proposal in principle. Several editors raise concerns that the section 0 link might be confusing for editors (particularly new, but also experienced editors who weren't expecting it) and these concerns are worthy of consideration. Support for the revised proposal to label the link in a way that would not cause confusion was unanimous.

I recommend that the wording of the link be worked out, and then that the applicable modifications be made to the interface, via a Bugzilla request if developer intervention is required. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_5#Template:Introedit; it would be useful and convenient to activate the section 0 edit link by default, so that entire pages are not conflict-prone when editing the non-headered section at the top of pages. This is especially the case for high traffic and current events pages that receive many edits and would result in many edit conflicts, as every edit would conflict with editing section 0. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You should start a request for comment using {{Rfc}}. It would also be a good idea to leave a note at WP:VPT. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 07:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Done; and, done. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

See bugzilla:156: "Add section edit link for 0th section".

In 2005 Brion Vibber wrote: "Please note that using the section-edit links does *nothing* special to avoid edit conflicts. Conflicts are merged (or not) from the full text, precisely the same way whether using section edit mode or not."

Does this still apply? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to know if turing MediaWiki:Gadget-edittop into an opt-out feature would have an effect on reverting edits. It certainly would reduce the chance for errors provided there are no software problems. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 05:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it still applies. There is no difference (from MediaWiki's prespective) of editing section 0, and editing the entire page but only modifying stuff in section 0. In both cases we just feed the entire page to diff3. Bawolff (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Though, it would still make editing an easier process, if you need to edit section 0, you don't have to deal with the entire page being loaded into the editor. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support regardless of the edit conflict issue. Primarily I believe the user-interface is conceptually cleaner that way. But to some extent my own support is selfish, I'd rather that my own configuration match the default, I actually *like* this feature, but currently have it turned off because the Wikipedia's caches work enormously better when one stays with default rendering preferences, and this can have quite surprising differences on page-loading times. Of course, if it does affect the edit conflict issue raised the nom, that would only strengthen my support. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per nominator, Joe Decker, and my own use of it, which, in addition to lessening conflicting edits, also makes the user interface more self-consistent. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 09:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support This turns up regularly at the help desk - new users often fail to spot the "Edit" at the top of the page and have to ask how to edit the lead section. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support per 76.65.131.160 and John of Reading. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I use this gadget myself, and I have no idea why it isn't the default for everyone. It occasionally speeds up editing by just loading the first section of an article, and I can't see any downside to it. Robofish (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support as opt-out feature. I use it, and I find it useful. Having this on by default seems sane to me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Use this myself; have extensive experience editing as an IP; would have been useful. Furthermore, no reason at all that I can think of to disable it (at least from an editor's POV) Unsigned comment
• I use it, and I like it, but I'm concerned that it might confuse newbies, who may expect it to work like the full-page edit button because it's at the top. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, this is very convenient for editing infoboxes and lead sections without opening the entire article in the editor. So why shouldn't we have it as a default feature. De728631 (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, its very useful and it also reduces the chances for edit conflicts. Jesse V. (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Reduces edit conflicts. Dan653 (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Waldir ^talk 14:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I believe this proposal has been rejected before, because some editors might mistake an edit link for section 0 (where exactly would it be placed in the interface?) for an edit button for the whole article and get confused as a result. It would be a good idea to have the WMF UI team gather some statistics on its use if implemented. —Ruud 15:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is such a no-brainer. More editors are probably discouraged by currently having to open the whole page, then would be discouraged by not seeing the edit link at the top right away. And the full-page edit link is rarely needed anyway. Many registered users do not know they can activate this in preferences. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the best method to correct information in infoboxes and article leads. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support—no reason not to provide this option to all editors. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - definitely worth having. Zangar (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose enabling for anonymous users at least. The section-0 edit link is in interface terms slightly confusing; all other section edit links are attached to a section header, but the section-0 link can only attach to the article header. This is bad UI. Users enabling this by choice can live with that, since it's a new link appearing after they've made a choice, and once understood it's fine. But for it to be default (i.e. the link appears without a conscious decision made), we should at least exclude the users most likely to be confused by this bad UI, i.e. those users who haven't got an account. But I'm not totally convinced we should be making it on by default at all. Rd232 ^talk 22:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The 'edit section' UI should provide a clear way for the reader to switch to 'edit entire page' mode. e.g. the 'edit' link could become 'edit page'. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• SupportAt least make it possible to turn on this feature Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 02:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • ? It's an opt-in gadget. You can turn it on right now in Special:Preferences. Rd232 ^talk 10:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. A poorly considered proposal. Put yourself in a newbie's shoes, people. A newbie won't realise the difference between this edit link and the edit tab at the top of the page. If they click the section-0 one when they want to edit something later in the page, they will be confused and frustrated, and will most likely not bother to make the edit. This feature's existing status as an opt-in gadget should be maintained. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per User Tto. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • BTW, it seems the gadget is actually broken in some skins right now. Nostalgia, cologneblue, standard and simple (so all 'old style'-skins ?). Probably a side effect from the editsection styling now applying only to content (changed after RTL enhancements of 1.19) and headers are outside the content. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - very useful! Samw (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ~ I've frankly been waiting for another editor to give a good reason why it should not be turned on, and I believe Ttato has hit on one of the significant ones. Aside from that, I feel that there are enough workarounds for people who have problems editing the whole page (due to slow Internet), and the fact that edit-conflicts are a non-issue, to definitely oppose this. --Izno (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment See refined proposal below to reduce confusion between editing the lede and editing the entire page. — Richardguk (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Hell yes. I have used section 0 edit link for years (yup, years) and the learning curve was not hard at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support as anything that makes editing easier is a good thing, but with the hope that the comments here about clarity of purpose in the UI are taken into account in implementation. Whouk (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I forgot I even had it enabled, but in the past I've accidentally clicked it when I wanted to edit the whole article. New editors and anons will be even more confused by this. Ryan Vesey 13:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I find this tool to be quite useful. It helps lessen edit conflicts as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I've personally turned this gadget on, but in practice I just click the edit (whole page) button if I want to edit a lead section. It's perhaps useful for experienced editors, not so much for new ones and—especially with the longer caption—adds whole lot of unnecessary clutter to the interface. Just leave it as an opt-in. —Ruud 14:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • N.B. This gadget is especially confusing if the lead section is long enough that the edit links on actual sections are not immediately visible on (sufficiently small) screen(s). E.g., today's featured article: Peveril Castle. Even with the longer caption proposed below new editors are still likely to confuse this for a "edit whole page" button, due to a lack of context. I also fail to see the actual benefit of editing the lead section over editing the whole page; as far as I'm aware it does not reduce edit conflicts. —Ruud 19:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I do think we should make the "Edit" button/tab more prominent, e.g. by making the link bold or giving it a slightly darker background than the other buttons/tabs. —Ruud 14:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    • If I understand this search correctly ("ca-edit" in Mediawiki space) the value given in the Monobook.css would need to be copied over to MediaWiki:Vector.css. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• comment, I've added threads at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-edittop and .js, linking here and summarizing a few points. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I used the gadget for a long time until it became buggy for me, maybe because of other gadgets. I'd love seeing it back. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Activate reworded section 0 edit link

Many of the above objections refer to confusion from inexperienced editors clicking [edit] at the top expecting to be able to edit the entire article, not only the lede. So, what if the text for this link were amended to make it less ambiguous before making it appear by default? — Richardguk (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Refined proposal: Change the lede edit link text to [edit intro] before making it appear by default.

• Support as proposer of the revised link text. — Richardguk (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - also useful for those editors who choose not, or forget, to use an edit summary. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

  The edit section 0 gadget does not generate an automatic edit summary? —Ruud 19:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support new proposal. Rcsprinter (babble) @ 13:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Cuts the confusion. Ryan Vesey 13:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. "Edit intro" eliminates any confusion about what one is going to edit by clicking that link. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support This would make it clearer what that edit link is for. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I already use the gadget, and it's helpful occasionally. Renaming it "edit intro" will remove any misinterpretations. There's no consequences for making it default (with an opt-out button), so why not? LittleMountain5 16:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Makes it easier to edit. David1217 ^{What I've done} 16:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support: why not? Thine Antique Pen (public) 16:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support makes sense. Dan653 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• comment, I've added threads at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-edittop and .js, linking here and summarizing a few points. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support If an extra five-letter word avoids confusion, then go with it. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Something to remember, if we change the wording, we change it for other wiki's as well, because several wiki's directly load our version of the gadget. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support That'd be great. Nobody Ent 23:16, 18 August 2012 (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.

Speedy deletion of machine translations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus at this time for adding a new speedy criteria. Objections raised include that the current deletion processes should generally be sufficient and that even bad translations might prove to be useful. While those in favor of the additional criteria made strong arguments that such translations are often worthless (or worth less than nothing) those views did not carry the day. There is a discussion about a "BLPPROD-like" scheme which is too new to include in this close. NAC. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Machine translations from foreign language wikipedia articles are hard to clean up.

Consensus from the people trying to tidy them so far at WP:PNT: They should be deleted.

{{No-rough}} already says Please do not add machine translations of foreign language articles to Wikipedia..

No information is lost: Everyone can repeat Google translate as assistance when doing proper translation.

Requests for translation still prossible: Everyone can request a proper translation of a foreign language article using {{Expand German}} (template exists for all languages).

Suggestion: Create Speedy Deletion A11 Machine translation of article from other wikimedia project.

Lumialover (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As a member of WP:PNT I support this proposal. Machine translations are far from perfect and are prone to give ambiguous and confusing results. While they may be helpful in a process of proper translation from one language to another before posting an article to the live namespace, original output from translation software should not be used as the only means to create new articles. Simply because they are utterly unreliable. De728631 (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I see a problem with identifying machine translations. While we may all be pretty sure we know what one is, and while there are highly suggestive features, some editors produce poor translations while swearing up and down that they actually translated the material. At a minimum, they will usually have omitted some bits, added wikilinks. Some of these may be good faith translation attempts where they just had no idea how much they needed to re-work. It's going to be a continuum, and speedy deletion is a big hammer; only an admin will be able to see the page to reconsider the determination that it was a machine translation and not just a very inept machine-aided translation. Can we fairly determine where to draw the line? Also, and related, very often an editor will expand an article with machine-translated material, or material not far from machine translation. If we make machine translation subject to speedy deletion, we create a precedent for harsh treatment of those who expand using this methodology, which is often applicable to only one section of an article, or a temporary stage (the original editor may in fact intend to return and improve the translated segment). Again, I'm seeing problems with implementation. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We have the same problem with sockpuppets and have a solution: someone who is indistinguishable from a sockpuppet can be blocked as such. Thus, if someone did such a bad translation that it could be considered a "machine translation" and thus "failed a Turing test", we can delete it anyway. "Good faith" doesn't matter: the ones who add machine translations are no vandals too - they also mistakenly think that they are helping. And they should be forced to go away or choose a work that they can do well - although, of course, that must be done politely. Speedy deletion seems to be just that - harsh, but polite method to say that such work is not welcome here. Much of that is also applicable to expansions. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It occurs to me that "cut and paste into Google Translate" results are going to end up having unambiguous copyright issues. If they're from copyrighted material in the first place, that's a direct issue, if it's automated translation of other Wikipedia work it's *also* removing the contribution history of the original article unless that's indicated. I haven't run across many "just an automated translation" articles, is my guess here on-target? --j⚛e decker^talk 17:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Translations of non-free copyrighted texts can be disposed of by the usual means (CSD G12). For Wikipedia articles there's a talk page template {{translated page}} that points to the original version and that should always be applied. As to the automated translation process, the WMF has just taken a look into it at meta:Wikilegal/Copyright for Google Translations and found that Google can't possibly claim any rights in the output, so that shouldn't be a problem. :De728631 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • De728631: Thanks for the clarification, that makes sense. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support, no information is lost, and translating from scratch is faster, easier and more fun than attempting to clean up the products of Google's "translation" service. —Kusma (t·c) 19:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Such translations are deleted in Lithuanian Wikipedia and the process seems to work well. After all, translation must be done by humans who know both languages sufficiently well, understand the subject matter and are willing to do some work, not by computers. Bad translations are worse than nothing. And if someone wants to disagree, there was one discussion - Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 35#Was he a real person? - where a machine translation resulted in quite a misunderstanding. That was about someone who has died rather recently, but one should also remember that "BLP" problems are possible too... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Meh, with any support requiring that such translation is unambiguously "unimproved" (noting Yngvadottir's concerns). I'd also like to see a usage note suggesting that in general the tag not be applied in the first 24 hours or so after the text is applied, so as not to bite editors who want to autotranslate and then work in-place from the automated translation. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Proper translation requires speaking both languages fluently. Can you trust references in a translated article from an editor not speaking both languages? An editor speaking both languages will translate the original text line by line, not dump a machine translation and later try to improve that. When editors are doing in-place translations they sometimes dump the foreign language wikipedia text, not machine translations. Practical experience also proves that editors dumping machine translations are not able to improve the machine translation later. Lumialover (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• It depends on how the text is used. ScottyWong's hypothetical, where an existing article is translated and then used as a framework for structuring a rewrite a new source seems plausible. The copyright concern can be addressed. Sources can sometimes be verified through machine translation depending on the claim and the source, assuming some level of obviousness of claim and perhaps some level of familiarity short of fluency. I can't read this page without help, but I can come close enough to feel confident that the lesser prize has an age limit of 35. Automated-translation and then rewrite-on-top-of would be particularly useful for articles with certain types of list content, I suspect. Where the structure and enumeration was a significant part of the writing process. FWIW, I"ve downgraded from Support to "Meh" based on a variety of other issues raised. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• assuming some level of obviousness of claim and perhaps some level of familiarity short of fluency is not true. Just look at translating the simple German sentence Er hat keine Eier. That's He has no eggs., isn't it? The problem is that depending on the context this sentence might instead express a lack of courage with a correct translation of He has no balls. In such cases both machine translations and people short of dual fluency often produce nonsense translations. Someone with a basic understanding of German lacking a good knowledge of the expressions you don't learn in school will not even notice that eggs might be a completely wrong translation for Eier in some cases. Lumialover (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• We can dump stuff (foreign text, m/c translations) into user space to work on. I think article space should never be dumped into, and there's no need for delay in removing such dumps. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree 110% with Stfg (above) - article space is wayyy too polluted as it is. Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The articles can still be cleaned up, but machine translations shouldn't be used. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 13:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that even the cleanup process might not improve such articles when the translation output was wrong from the beginning. And in many cases, cleaning up the garbled results of machine translations takes much more time and effort than writing a new translation from scratch. Therefore machine-translated articles shouldn't be used at all and be deleted on sight so we may start from scratch with a man-made translation by knowledgable editors. De728631 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Any useful "cleanup" equals re-translating manually from scratch. There is no reason to give any credit to users for creating pages through automatic translation, while burdening other users with all the work to make it into readable prose. As for recognizing a machine translation for what it is, this is usually no problem if you know the source language. Things like very literal translations of proper nouns tend to give the game away. --Hegvald (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose; not all translations can be classed as "rough" which are done by machines. I've seen a good few village stubs which use {{Expand Turkish}} or such, which are translated perfectly. ⇒TAP 16:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• So how do you know that those were machine translations? Surely the {{Expand Turkish}} tag alone is not an indicator. De728631 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Does anybody who is voting "support" here know just how productive google translate has been for me and how many articles I've produced which have been quite rough initially but after being proof read develop into valuable articles? We have a severe lack of people trying to transfer content from other wikis as it is. People need to be encouraged to do the groundwork and invite our resident foreign language speakers to assist them. Altes Stadthaus, Berlin was a machine translation and with the assistance of fluent speakers checking it is now a GA in a short period of time. If it had been deleted because the translation wasn't initially word perfect we wouldn't have an article let alone a GA. We have Template:Rough translation for a reason. If the translation though is essentially gibberish because it so bad, then deleting it would be more appropriate I think, depends on the case. But from my perspective any missing articles attempted to be put into english is a positive step.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone is welcome to support the folks at WP:Translation. But rough translations should never be dumped into the article namespace without prior proofreading. That's why there are offline text editors and that's why we have a user namespace where people may have their own sandbox for experimenting with translated articles and having them proofread before posting them to the article space. This proposal is not meant to ban the general use of Google translate or other such services, this is about preventing the useless products of careless editors who copy and paste their automated translation and then leave it to others to fix it. If it serves your needs you're of course welcome to use machine translations for a first draft but please don't do that initial work in the article namespace. That's why we have {{no-rough}} too. De728631 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• It is absolutely fine to use Google Translate as a tool in your article work. This proposal is about deleting pages that are nothing but machine translations dumped into Wikipedia. I am happy to help with translating content from languages I am speaking, but I will not lift a finger to improve autogenerated nonsense. Altes Stadthaus, Berlin was carefully edited and obviously does not fall under this proposal. An example of the problem is Sulm (Germany), where somebody dumped a machine generated text five years ago, and it still has not been fixed, or Battle of Sinsheim from 2011. Nobody seems to like doing the cleanup, while a collaborative "let us write something together" or "let us translate together" project is fun and creates much better articles. We need to encourage translation and cooperation (most human translations need human copyedits) and discourage dumping of machine produced seminonsense. —Kusma (t·c) 08:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose You don't need any special tools to deal with it, it would be like having three different coloured shovels which are otherwise identical, when they all clean up the same way. There are already rules which cover removal of crap. "Machine translation" is just another stick to hit other editors with resulting in more silly arguments, this time across language barriers. Machine translations are brilliant for too many reasons, pick any major article and click another language, the pictures alone will get you mono-linguists started with the idea that there are plenty of simple things you can gain without a complete understanding. I contribute to more than 2 dozen language wikipedias in many languages I don't speak at all without any problems. All my problems are here on Eng.wikipedia believe it or not. Rough translations fit into the same cleanup categories which exist already. Penyulap ☏ 16:55, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• Would you then agree that {{db-nonsense}} is applicable for extreme cases? De728631 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply. So if you cannot understand it, it does apply, if that is unclear then yes, we can add it. Basically I think what the question here is, is a machine translation itself of any use in general, not so much if it is useful on wikipedia. If you answer that question by itself first of all, then you can answer the next question, is it useful on wikipedia to the readers. I would say, following years of experience with machine translations of the languages I cannot manage to master, that yes, it is useful. That is honest and must be stated, it IS useful. That said, what is the problem, yes, it's a surprise when you run into it in an article, so we should examine if the situation needs better explaining to the reader or not, if the reader understands the limitations and possible problems, I think, like me, they would find it useful. There are a few cases where the machine translation, just like any other edit, is an unhelpful edit. I'd say if you can't understand it well enough to verify it or consider it non controversial, then sure, like any bad edit delete it. But saying delete it just because it is machine translation alone is like saying delete the article because Daniel Citizen wrote it, that's patently unfair. There is a human behind the machine, as well, so there is another level to address it, to say, is this person editing very well, adding useful things, and if not, can I talk to them about it and so on. There are lots of shovels to clean things up now, so maybe it is best to examine if the documentation shows all the places the shovels are, to make them easy to find in case of emergency. What to do, where and when to do it and how. Let's not use a blunt instrument and throw away such a valuable tool. Google translate IS popular and we have interwikilinks for a reason. You should go and find your favourite article and click on a language that does have a star next to it. You will be surprised at how useful that alone is, even when you cannot understand the language, Images are the icing on the cake, and you can sneak a taste of the icing right now. Penyulap ☏ 14:59, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• This is neither a monolinguist issue nor do we seek a total ban of automated translations. As long as people keep such semi-ready articles to their userspaces or to "Articles for creation" I'm totally fine with using Google translator and other tools for a first draft. The problem is rather that many people tend to dump some auto-translated text into a new article and then forget about it. And even when a lot of such articles may be intelligible to the common reader without much improvement, I consider it bad encyclopedical practice because a) the machine translation may have changed or omitted important information and context because b) they are unreliable, c) the article will quickly be mirrored on the numerous Wikipedia clones and will then spread its factoids to the web and d) even if there is good faith behind such article creations, it is simply impolite to leave the major work of cleaning and correcting the article to others instead of creating either a readable stub or asking for a professional translation at WP:Translation. I have translated a good lot of articles from other Wikipedias in four or five languages and I do value interwiki links for that purpose. But machine translations are far from being usable for a standalone article without major improvement – and most machine translations I have come across at WP:PNT have not receiced this imrovement and copyediting from their original creators. One properly created translation has a much higher educational purpose for the reader than a dozen garbled or even halfways intelligible automated articles. De728631 (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of what you are saying, although possibly I do think that a big machine translation is better than a small stub, the rest I do understand and agree with. My concern is the manner in which the solution is rolled out. It's too easy for it to be abused. Like the other day someone was tagging and complaining about COI for a newbie they just gather up a bunch of templates and throw them all at the newbie with nothing to support their arguments. I'm not saying that is the mainstream, I'm just saying don't call it "Use this label if you spot any machine translation whatsoever, it's a great way to BITE without meaning to" or {machine translation} for short. If we can make the what to do if you see a machine translation docs better, so that there is just the slightest reading involved, it would be a small speedbump to balance against the language barrier and the shock to the senses of the rough translation. People have to engage their brains on this one, or you'd get a world of hurt in discussion. Let's look at cutting down the workload of dealing with the machine translations a different way, or improve the presentation of this proposal to illustrate just how hard to cope with the problem actually is. Penyulap ☏ 17:11, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

No offence Penyulap, but if you put in a bit of time at PNT you would realise just how utterly wrong you are when you say "a big machine translation is better than a small stub". this is a big machine translation, so is this and this. Can you honestly say that you think Wikipedia would be better off for having these?--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at three that I would keep, and label the first one with a newbie invite 'this is a machine translation, you can help improve it' the second one is harder, because the software and bots could help there. Find out how the other two editors did their articles, and look to make guidelines there. A template that says {does not meet minimum requirements for machine translation} would be better by far, and address that problem. You could get a slap-on template or a speedy for that kind of thing, but not the blunt instrument of {any machine translation} one I would look to deleting under copyright if it hasn't been attributed, and the third has problems so small they are nothing to get upset over. Overall however, you may be asking the wrong person in a way, because I am designed to read anything at all, not just text but everything beyond the text, vandalism, as well as body language, images, tones in conversations, dynamics, everything. But on the other hand, I can emulate a group of readers, so go with minimum guidelines for a speedy delete and you'll have it there, as a slippery slope no doubt, a foot in the door where people won't take notice as to what you are deleting or notice the stiffening up of the guidelines leaning too heavily towards deletion. But that is a price to pay for helping the people doing it to use better methods just to pass the test which you create. It's one compromise that is productive in the correct manner, rather than just producing BITE. Go with {this article does not meet minimum requirements for machine translation} as well as {this is a machine translation which means it is blah blah and you can help improve it} Penyulap ☏ 18:32, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Then what are the minimum requirements for a machine translation and who's going to define them? Ten correct words per line regardless of grammatical issues? A lot of machine translations are dumped here by newbie accounts who may be experienced editors on another Wikipedia in their native language but don't speak/write English well enough to do a translation of their own. Are we going to include a minimum number of constructive user edits over here as a requirement for keeping one's machine translation, assuming they are going to improve the article themselves? I see nothing useful and productive in keeping original machine translations in the article namespace since they only cause confusion and needless additional work. To employ another example of a recently created article, would you be able to turn this into a useful article without being able to read the original Russian article? Regardless of the notability-related Afd this has been tagged for cleanup so bilingual editors can have a try at it. But in the meantime the article would sit there in its present state that needs a lot of second-guessing and fantasy to understand the basic plot of the incident. And I'm saying this as a person who has done professional translations from German to English and vice versa (quite easy pairing given the linguistics) for a living. But what is even more important: while Wikipedia prides itself in requiring reliable sources for any article, machine translations automatically (pun intended) produce unreliable article content and are given the time to be fixed some day. Is that really productive? I think not. If we keep machine translations why don't we allow Facebook or random fansites as references for our articles? The results are the same. De728631 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I just had a go at it, I only know a dozen words in Russian, which is as good as nothing, here is what I came up with, I didn't use any other webpages or look anywhere else, with the exception of a list of aircrashes to see what the naming convention is on en wiki, but I didn't move the article. I would say that overall, it is sortof the same as writing an article, although I would say it helps to have the references and names and stuff there to cut and paste, as well as the plot and figures. I'm thinking it's like 'Oh here is another article I have to write' and tagging it with 'I'm too lazy'. I feel your pain because that was hard for me, I think i mention in the edit summary, but so is writing an article. So, was it difficult, yes, was it useful, yes. Is it a useful article ? Well that is not my department, I think it is fine the way it is now with a bit of polish and a move, but I'm no expert. After the process, I would say I haven't changed my mind, but I do feel your frustration a lot more now, yes, I agree it is frustrating, but so is writing from scratch. It's just different. But like I said, my brain is designed differently so what I get out of the article may be more than most people. I only have one vote at the end of the day, and my vote is keep, and I want to help find a way around this frustration if I can. Penyulap ☏ 13:45, 25 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, when you write I do think that a big machine translation is better than a small stub you miss the proper solution that is both: A stub with {{Expand German}} (template exists for all languages) gives users one-click access to a Google translate translation of the latest version (not a stale version of the article like when dumping a machine translation) of the foreign wikipedia article. A user interested in proper articles sees the stub. A user wanting to see a machine translation of a longer article in another wikipedia has one-click access to it. Lumialover (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty fair and true. But what about incremental edits and improvements ? I can't just bend over and pull out new articles the way the Evil Dr can, although I did quickly make the Chinese space station and the innocent prisoners dilemma was pretty darn good. But overall, I think we should go for warning labels {WARNING YOUR NOODLE IS ABOUT TO GET FRIED} or some such, and people can annoy the article a bit at a time. I'm NOT saying this is the solution, I'm saying it is one idea that will prevent the machinegun Twinkle tagging 'I am such a total hero I just deleted 500 articles in one day without any research' sort of thing that the proposal pretty much opens the door on where we have other ways already to delete crap and nonsense, in a manner less likely to be abused. Penyulap ☏ 13:45, 25 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• Question How is this anything at all except just another excuse to cause fights and arguments. Wikipedia isn't finished yet, it's a work in progress. (back to work you lot!) Penyulap ☏ 16:55, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
• I think that the key issue between the opposes and the supports is the usage of a machine translation. What Thine and Blofield are referring to are cases where machine translations are done properly, and only as part of the article creation, with proper formatting and follow up clean up. Obviously such articles are helping the project, not hurting it. However what does not help are the cases, which happen fairly often, where somebody just copies a foreign language article, runs it through google translate, pastes it here, sticks a rough translation tag on and leaves it for someone else to tidy. A case in point being one such article I IAR deleted today, 3асс, Григорий Христофорович - for those who can't see it was a direct machine translation of the front end text, meaning it included all the "[Edit] - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" sort of things and had been left for someone else to deal with. These are often useless, and cleanup doesn't happen, instead when we (people at PNT) get round to them we generally either stub them, or retranslate them using google as guide, just try tidying an article listed at WP:PNT without using the original and a fresh translation and you'll see why. Therefore instead of a new criteria I would support the inclusion that A2 can cover unedited and unformatted machine translations where no effort has been made to improve or inclination from the creator that they would do so--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Dumps without any formatting or attribution yes are problematic. but even then I think it would be better to incubate them and alert a relative wiki project as the article might be important.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Dumps like this? It was over a year before this article was made readable, and it wasn't tidied it was retranslated from the german article from scratch. And I've made attempts to reach out relevant Wikiprojects before, I've never received any help from one, even the ones that have any active users are pretty much useless. The simple fact is that a machine translated dump helps no one, if someone wants to look at the article so badly they would be better of using google translation to view the foreign language article on it's home wikipedia, if someone is interested in having the article here they should make the effort to do it properly, and having a the machine translation already here is more likely to hinder them than help--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• One example of a machine translation is Altes Stadthaus, Berlin, which I created a short while ago from de:Altes Stadthaus (Berlin) (FA on de-wiki), which is now a GA here. My most recent translation (under construction right now) is User:Thine Antique Pen/Köllnischer Park, which is entirely from de:Köllnischer Park, but has had many bits of it chopped, removed, but is being entirely rewritten. ⇒TAP 17:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  I do not see any problem with this article, as soon as it is in your userspace. I agree with the others though that putting machine translations to the article space should lead to speedy deletion as they most likely never get tidied. Whoever is willing to work on them is welcome to move them to their userspace.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's what I mean Thine (TAP? Pen?), that's how google translate should be used, I'm assuming you didn't just dump the machine translated german text into an article. As far as I can tell you and other editors instead created the article bit by bit, with proper formatting and presumably fixing grammatical errors and rewriting the parts that didn't make sense, am I right? In this way you've improved the project. However imagine you're faced with this to cleanup, it would be virtually impossible to fix (and took over a year and several noticeboard postings before a very talented multi-lingual person retranslated it, note that they did not "fix" the article problems, they retranslated the article section by section)--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Of course not. :) If I did, which I've tried before, there are messed up references with capital 'H''s in 'http(s)'. Also, the article becomes a load of gibberish if that is tried, and always has to be rewritten, unless a miracle occurs. ⇒TAP 17:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• "unformatted" shouldn't be part of the criteria - when pasting the source from a foreign language wikipedia article to Google translate the formatting stays intact. Except for a small ref issue User:Lumialover/Fritz Kortner is a verbatim output from google translate of todays featured article in the de wikipedia. It takes an 5 minutes and no understanding of the article contents to fix the obvious formatting errors and dump the result into Fritz Kortner. Lumialover (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Having pure machine translations is undesirable. I think this is not a situation suited to speedy deletion though; prod would be more appropriate and allow time for improvement of the initially bad draft. If prod is contested without improvement, AfD should follow. LadyofShalott 19:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• If there is no consensus for speedy deletion at the end of this discussion, we might in fact take up that thought. Articles that have been listed at WP:PNT for a full translation, i.e. new articles with non-English content and no corresponding Wikipedia articles elsewhere, are now usually prodded after two weeks without progress, or the non-English content is removed. As a weak solution (imho) we could then expand the prodding policy to machine translations. De728631 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Assume I dump the machine translation User:Lumialover/Fritz Kortner into Fritz Kortner today, would you also oppose reverting that edit?

If you would support reverting that edit, you should consider supporting this proposal.

There is already a proper way to request a translation (that is also already used in Fritz Kortner): Short article (might be stub) with {{Expand German}}. This also gives all readers a link to the Google translation without the machine translation being dumped into wikipedia.

Assume other editors would improve User:Lumialover/Fritz Kortner, would they improve only the obvious formatting problems, or also verify that all of the contents is correct, especially the contents with refs?

Lumialover (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Speedy deletion is already a problematic area with a lot of newbies getting bitten. If we allow people to speedy delete something because they think it has been machine translated then we will inevitably get a load of editors whose English is imperfect having their articles labelled as machine translations and deleted incorrectly. There's also the issue that machine translation itself is an improving technology, but our policies have considerable inertia, and if you introduce a policy against current machine translation it will be difficult to reverse until long after the policy has become obsolete. ϢereSpielChequers 11:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  The most common case, a Google "translation" of a foreign language Wikipedia page, is easily checked before deletion. I do not believe machine translation will be possible before the advent of artificial intelligence, which is probably so many years away that we shouldn't hold our breath and freeze our policies until then. —Kusma (t·c) 11:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose PROD is good enough. Most of the supports are based on an unsubstantiated claim that nobody ever cleans up poor translations, which just isn't true—but they could make it true with this proposal, because it is true that people don't clean up material that they can't read because it was speedy-deleted while they were working on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Well, proposed deletion as given in WP:PROD has one disadvantage: it can be "cancelled" by anyone who thinks that, in principle, the article could be cleaned up. Yes, such cleanup does happen. But do we really know how often it only masks the problems instead of solving them? Also, the presence of such garbage prevents the formation of a good stub article - technically, writing it would get close to violating WP:PRESERVE (thankfully, we can "ignore all rules"). Now, I suppose something similar to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people could be more reasonable - delete after some time (week, two, month...), unless someone actually does the cleanup; also encourage to write a stub even without preserving anything from the translation. It would also be fitting because of possible masked "BLP" problems (as I have noted previously). Would you consider that a good compromise? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Example of machine translation

da:Fodsvamp	Machine translation
Fodsvamp (tinea pedis) er en infektion med hudsvampe (dermatofytter) som lever i det yderste hudlag hvor cellerne er døde, det såkaldte hornlag.	Athlete's foot (tinea pedis) is an infection with fungi that cause ringworm (dermatophytes) live in the outer layer of skin where the cells are dead, called the stratum corneum.

I picked a random medicine-related stub and did a machine translation. This is Danish, which I can't read at all. Now I think we can agree that the machine translation has some problems (I assume, but don't actually know, that the Danish grammar is correct), but is this really the sort of thing that's so impossible to clean up that we need to delete it instantly, even if we hadn't all already agreed that deletion is not a valid form of cleanup? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup is impossible. If you can cleanup User:Lumialover/Fritz Kortner without removing any contents or refs I pay you $100.

{{Expand German}} does everything that makes sense (see Fritz Kortner for example) including one-click access to Google translation of the foreign article and notifying translators that an editor wishes a translation - without dumping a machine translation into wikepdia.

Lumialover (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Shall do so. ⇒TAP 18:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it is possible to try clean it up. Let's look at the possible results:

• Athlete's foot (tinea pedis) is an infection of fungi that is caused by ringworm (dermatophytes) living in the outer layer of skin where the cells are dead (called the stratum corneum).
• Athlete's foot (tinea pedis) is an infection caused by fungi that cause ringworm (dermatophytes) to live in the outer layer of skin where the cells are dead (called the stratum corneum).
• Athlete's foot (tinea pedis) is an infection of ringworm (dermatophytes, living in the outer layer of skin where the cells are dead, called the stratum corneum) caused by fungi.
• Athlete's foot (tinea pedis) is an infection caused by fungi that cause ringworm (dermatophytes) that live in the outer layer of skin where the cells are dead, called the stratum corneum.

Well? Which of them is closest to the truth? Let's look at the article Athlete's foot: "Athlete's foot (also known as ringworm of the foot[1] and Tinea pedis[1]) is a fungal infection of the skin that causes scaling, flaking, and itch of affected areas. It is caused by fungi in the genus Trichophyton and is typically transmitted in moist areas where people walk barefoot, such as showers or bathhouses.". So, the fourth one is close, the three other are not. But, at the first sight, they do look "clean" - and that only makes disinformation worse and harder to detect.

And let's note that it was an example of translation from one Germanic language to another (and, presumably, an example of a relatively good translation). If we end up translating between languages that are more different than that, the results will be worse. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To anyone with subject knowledge, only the last one makes sense, and only it would make sense even if they were completely ignorant of German. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are all discussing the wrong problem. All those 'bad examples' are any editor on any given day, go ask Auntie Pesky. The problem doesn't lay in the merits of machine translation itself. The question here is "Hey everyone I am the one who has to clean up this mess, how can I possibly cope with the deluge" so the question is how to formulate guidelines to dissipate the deluge in the most productive way. Stop arguing that machine translation is OK. This proposal is proof enough that it is causing problems. Denials just waste effort. Penyulap ☏ 20:23, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

But it is not proof that the problem is with someone trying their best to start a new article, instead of with a few perfectionists who want to delete good-faith contributions with the least oversight possible. Nobody "has to clean up this mess". We're all volunteers here. People who are tired of seeing the wealth of potentially interesting articles to clean up can stop looking in the translation cats and start doing something that sounds like fun to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has to clean up this mess? Fine, that's like saying "nobody has to use reliable sources." And why do we need cleanup templates at all? This has zero to do with people being unwilling to do cleanup for a few hundred articles. It is about one of the few cases where good faith edits are actually disruptive or even harmful to the project. Good faith edits include writing a biography stub of your best friend or your favourite local band but those articles will routinely get deleted per speedy deletion criterion A7. Good faith edits include adding an overly enthusiastic original review of the latest film you've just watched but those edits can be removed as original research by simply clicking "undo". It's not like "good faith" always equals "good for Wikipedia". De728631 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support basically per Jac16888; machine translations are a lot more work to fix than they're worth, and definitely harder than just creating a new page or doing a proper translation. And to give you an example of what happens when you step out of Germanic languages, have a look at what a short sentence in Japanese I wrote as an RfA comment got turned into. It makes absolutely no sense, and I can assure you that, if you were to attempt cleaning it up without knowing any Japanese and only going on the machine translation, you would never get to the actual meaning of the sentence (and as a side note, I wrote that out in Japanese, because the English to Japanese machine translation is just as incomprehensible in Japanese; I had a laugh when I finished writing it and compared it to what the machine put out, but it doesn't help for writing encyclopedia articles). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Dōmo arigatō. I don't speak Japanese but it's these kinds of results we only get too often from all sorts of languages. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blade - would there be any point in restricting use to Germanic an Romance languages? Also there is a Google elephant in the linguistic room here, n'est ce pas? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Google translate gila dong! it gets Penyulap wrong, it's insulting ! delete it !!! Penyulap ☏ 17:43, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• Follow-up comment. I see Altes Stadthaus, Berlin is being used as a (good) example above. I am afraid it is a good illustration of the practical problems both of fixing a machine translation, of the difficulty of spotting one without close examination, and of the low level of awareness some editors have of what needs to be done before moving a translation to mainspace. This was what the Altes Stadthaus article looked like when it was moved to mainspace. (The edit summary for that diff is misleading; the article is entirely a translation of the German Wikipedia article with bits left out, some of which I added for coherence. Also the article was then at an inaccurate title, although that misunderstanding is comparatively easy to comprehend.) Please note sentences like: "It costed 7 million goldmark to build" and "The main axis with the entrance hall and the ballroom is located between the five-axis Mittelrisaliten the Jews and the monastery road", the fact that the translation program has been allowed to translate the titles of all German books and newspaper articles, and that the article creator has not realized that "Verlag & Munich" are not co-authors but the word for "publisher" and a city. It took me a week - during which I would otherwise have written another article myself, not to mention doing off-wiki things I had promised to do - to fix this article up so that it could go on the main page as a DYK and be considered for GA status. Here's what it looked like when I handed it off to other editors, who also put in considerable person-time. While I was working on fixing that article, the creator made changes showing a continuing failure to understand the material, including confusing the year a sculpture was created with the year it was removed and asserting that it was the Wehrmacht that seized power in Germany in 1933. I have just spent this morning fixing another article that the same editor placed in mainspace 2 days ago looking like this and has not edited since. After work by me and others, it looks like this. I am essentially pulling an all-nighter to fix this, because it had been accepted for Did You Know on good faith acceptance that a German speaker had looked at it. Hence I apologize, in replacing the references with ones that I cannot see online (in several cases the ones in the German article), I removed the original referencing system from the article, because I find it an almost insurmountable obstacle and it adds even more time to fixing this editor's work. .... What these two articles are a good example of is how much work it takes to fix a bad translation (and consider what I could have done instead on-wiki, and that also applies to everyone else who helps with such translations); how hard it is for the editors who produce such translations to understand the material and what they need to do with it to make it accurate and readable; and how easy it is to miss the fact that such work is barely cleaned up machine translation if you don't look closely or don't know much about the subject matter. And this editor is not the only person producing this kind of translations; I'm aware of another (with a similar speed of creation) and I'm sure there are more. This is why I don't think making it a speedy deletion category is practicable; but it is a very real problem. PROD might be the way to go, since it does correspond to what usually happens at WP:PNT. But I still have my doubts about recognizing these articles; and I would still obviously prefer editors who do this kind of work to become aware of the pressure of work they are laying on those with the expertise to fix them and either stop translating articles or translate only from languages they have studied, and check things very carefully. (When I translate or fix a translation, for example, I follow the wikilinks in the original to determine whether they have an en. interwiki, rather than guessing and producing unnecessary redlinks or inaccurate links. That kind of care I think we have a right to expect.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't there already a "policy" that gibberish and incorrect information should be removed? Bad machine translation is just one way in which this could arise... I don't really see why anything new needs to be done... 86.179.4.43 (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  The problem is that most machine translations aren't actually gibberish (see the example above: it's not great, but you can figure out that it's some sort of infection), and that there are people who are unhappy when they see evidence that Wikipedia isn't finished yet. Their solution is to be able to delete any and all contributions that aren't up to their high standards from the very beginning, ASAP and without an opportunity for the community to look it over, because otherwise we might have an imperfect page, and imperfect pages lead to people saying, "What a mess! I could do better than this. I wonder if that 'edit' button actually does anything", and we all know what that leads to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  Actually What many of the people supporting this are the few people who actually help out at PNT and do bother to try and tidy these articles. It's not about imperfection or incompleteness, it's about allowing people to create articles that make Wikipedia worse. It's not a valid contribution to spend 2 minutes pasting another language article into a translator then slapping a tag on it for someone else to deal with, and Martynas has quite clearly demonstrated how your example is wrong and in fact many of these articles which may seem comprehensible can easily be filled with undetectable errors --Jac16888 ^Talk 22:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. I disagree that a good-faith effort to start an article on a missing subject is "making the encyclopedia worse".
  2. If "the few people who actually help out at PNT" don't want to be cleaning up articles that have translation problems, then they can stop helping at PNT and go do something that they enjoy. This is a collaborative environment. That means that you don't destroy someone else's small gifts just because you dislike having hundreds of articles in a cleanup category. Nobody is forcing these people to fix these poor translations. They can ignore them if they don't feel like cleaning them up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  You're wrong on both counts there. People adding things like this (originally posted to mainspace then left by the OP for someone else to deal with) is not helping anyone. And for your second point, if we don't clean them up nobody else does, I don't see you stepping up to help, and these articles are not a contribution if anyone with access to google can create the same thing in 30 seconds. There is already a very simple method for creating articles from foreign language articles and it's described at WP:TRANSLATION, you'll note that it doesn't say "dump pages of rubbish for someone else to fix"--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We have different opinions. I still oppose your proposal, and your "arguments" in support of it make me even more convinced that I'm right. I can agree to disagree, but you will have to keep counting me as someone firmly opposed to your idea that speedy-deleting such pages is a means of helping the encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you emphasise that it is the "speedy" deletion that you object to, would something like "BLPPROD" be more agreeable? Actually, I have already mentioned something like that in [1] - some time to clean up before the deletion and an explicit permission to write a decent stub instead. Maybe that would be a reasonable compromise that everyone would support - at least for now?

And then about the arguments - could you, please, consider answering the ones that specify some problems with the cleanup of those articles - [2] and [3]? I see that they have been left without answer...

Also, considering your "I disagree that a good-faith effort to start an article on a missing subject is "making the encyclopedia worse"."... Would you consider explaining what exactly did you mean by that? On face value it would mean that no one who means well can end up writing anything false. That is obviously not true, thus you must have meant something different - but I don't know what exactly...

Oh, and one final thing: could you, please, try to soften your tone a little bit, avoiding the declarations like "But it is not proof that the problem is with someone trying their best to start a new article, instead of with a few perfectionists who want to delete good-faith contributions with the least oversight possible." ([4])..? You know, we "perfectionists" try to edit in good faith too... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As someone who supports their speedy deletion, I'd be fine with a BLPPROD-type system as a compromise. Although again, I'll challenge someone who doesn't know any Japanese to get the actual meaning of my example above or a sentence more likely to be found in an encyclopedia such as this going only on the machine translation. If you can do either one, I might be persuaded not to go for speedy deletion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

They are excellent examples, but they are small examples, who can find me an entire article as good as that ? you can't delete a whole article for one sentence, even if it is as fantastic as that. Penyulap ☏ 17:48, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Let's take the article "Drąsius Kedys" from Lithuanian Wikipedia (lt:Drąsius Kedys, [5]), since it has caused some problems previously. Look at the translation by "Google Translate" - [6] - and tell us what did you find out. I suspect that we will get a good laugh... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Prod is generally insufficient particularly when the creator can simply remove it immediately. That's not the case with CSD. Usually these are done en-massse by somewhat experienced editors; concerns over "biting" newbies seems entirely misplaced to me. This is a necessary and productive change. I expect that 99% of cases will involve larger creations of similar articles at a time: otherwise it's difficult to spot them as machine translations. If it doesn't violate the machine translation policy now, it wouldn't apply for CSD either. Shadowjams (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose PROD and AfD are sufficient for handling problems that may exist. Speedy criterion are generally widely misused and misunderstood, and so they should be limited to completely incontrovertable things. The last added speedy criterion has resulted in quite a number of appropriate DRVs, so I'm disinclined to add an even-more-tenuous one. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  Well, if you think that speedy deletion would be misused, would you consider a weaker, "BLPPROD-like" proposal ([7]) to be more suitable? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as someone who has attempted to machine translate something for another language's wiki and had it speedied, and as someone who has fixed up machine translated articles on en. It can be pretty discouraging to try to add a notable subject to another language and have it dumped unceremoniously without any feedback or help. An article that makes absolutely no sense can already be deleted via the nonsense tag, and if the article is at least somewhat coherent, time should be allowed to improve it, so PROD is a more appropriate recourse. There is no emergency action required for such articles, and speedy deletion precludes other editors from having an opportunity to attempt fixing the issue. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose. Our basic policy is not to remove what can be fixed. Straight machine translations normally need editing, not removal. Almost always some knowledge of both the subject and the source language is needed--the amount of knowledge usually proportional to the complexity of the subject. To give an example, with my mediocre knowledge of French from two years of college study in the US, I can make a sensible article out of a Google translation from the frWP, (unless its a specialized subject that I do not understand & would not be able to work on in the enWP either.) I could do it from the frWP directly, but at a much slower speed, and not with any greater accuracy. There probably are some machine translations on some subjects from some languages that nobody available can fix, and PROD will always get rid of them. But I doubt this would ever happen for the languages known by a substantial number of editor in the enWP. The position that these translations more generally are useless is therefore not correct--they are quite weak compared to what someone with near-native ability and skill in the subject can produce, but this is also true of those without near native ability in English writing in the enWP. We deal with such articles by fixing them, except in the occasional cases where they cannot be deciphered. The comment that "translating from scratch is faster, easier and more fun than attempting to clean up the products of Google's "translation" service" may be true for some people (very few of whom, unfortunately, will be in the US) , and when they see a machine translation they are of course perfectly free to replace it with one of their own, just as the might replace any other poorly written article. But the number of user to whom this is applicable is not large, and there is no reason why we should lose altogether the articles the experts cannot find time to translate more ideally. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  Well, if you think that "PROD will always get rid of them", would you consider a weaker, "BLPPROD-like" version of this proposal ([8]) to be more suitable? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Per DGG. don't remove what can be fixed. Ryan Vesey 20:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

¶ Observation (having reached no conclusion): An example of what can go terribly wrong with a straight machine translation is History of the Jews of Thessaloniki (Salonica), which was a good article in French, that had been quite successfully (according to its author), translated into Spanish. But he just did a disastrous machine translation from French to English that translated everything, e.g. giving an English title [which might or might not be the title of a real volume] to a French book, with the original French work's page numbers and publication data. Other editors (several, like me, having a curious interest but no independent knowledge of the subject) have spent a lot of time trying to decode, clarify and fix the translation over the last few years. The author, user:Kimdime69, said on the Talk Page that he wished he'd started from scratch. See Talk:History of the Jews of Thessaloniki —— Shakescene (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with references in translations is a separate problem, equally a problem in manual and machine translations. Most people using machine translations realize it--unfortunately, they tend to cope by not including the references at all, which results in an unsourced article, likely to end up on PROD, which is where I usually see them. The minimum I do in such cases is to simply remove the references that won't work or are incorrect, and add the references just as they appeared in the original. But as in all translations at WP, it's better to do more than the minimal. The skill necessary to do more is not language skill to the same degree as manual translation is.

If the subject is a national topic in the source language area, usually all the references will be in that language. By our RS policy, this is sufficient, but it is always better to try to find at least some English language references as well, and I generally succeed unless the topic is very local. If the article is on a topic elsewhere that we happened not to have in the enWP, then it is particularly important to identify English references, as the source's references were probably not optimal, but merely what was convenient to find in that language, and there are usually at least equally good ones in English. Then I replace all the references for which I can find better English sources, keeping those that are unique or in the language of the place being written about.

There are special problems: If the reference is in fact a translation of a work originally published in a third language (or in English!) I replace it by a reference to the original (or supplement it at least if the original is in one of the less-frequently read languages here). The best place to check for this is Worldcat and the KVK. The more difficult case is if the source article contained in line references, in which case they need to be manually worked on one by one. Fortunately, such references are not as common in most other WPs. There's a further complication here: the level of referencing on many of these articles, even very good ones, is much less detailed than the current preferred practice in the enWP, so to maintain our enWP standards of article quality, significant further research is needed, often requiring true subject knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Great idea if we could reliably identify machine translations, but we can't. How do you know that it's a machine translation and not a poor-quality human translation? As well, we'd need a bright line for "rough"; the lack of one isn't a problem for discussions or for wait-a-week-before-deletion, but it is for shoot-on-sight. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As stated by many above, it is difficult to identify a bad machine translation from a bad human one. In addition, this seems to bely the long-standing belief on the site that it is work-in-progress. If a translation is poor but salvageable, why should we delete it over endeavoring to fix it instead? Machine translations that are complete unintelligible garbage can already be deleted under criterion G1. I don't see much of a problem beyond that. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, essentially per User:Hegvald and User:Kusma. I invite the opposers (if they have not done so already) to spend some time at WP:PNT to get a good sampling of the articles that have been machine translated and end up there for cleanup. Lectonar (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - if it's rough or broken, fix it, don't delete it. If it can't be fixed, odds are it can already be handled with existing criteria and/or processes. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 23:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since it's already quite a blizzard here, I'll just make this one quick. There is no deadline and deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. While it can be quite a pain to fix such articles, it is possible, with some dedication and patience, to clean it up. All we need are sources to expand it. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:19, 19 August 2012 (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.

"BLPPROD"-like modification?

I guess that the original proposal isn't going to be implemented in the nearest future. The main objections seem to be related to possibility to fix such articles. But some of them would indicate a weaker opposition to a "non-speedy" proposal (for example, "[...] the lack of one isn't a problem for discussions or for wait-a-week-before-deletion, but it is for shoot-on-sight." of "Elektrik Shoos"). So, I would like to "repropose" the modification somewhat similar to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people:

1. Obvious (that is, clearly bad) machine translated articles (and other new articles of such bad quality that they cannot be distinguished from such machine translations - in a sense, "failing a Turing test") are to be marked with some tag.
2. The tag should say that:
   1. It is not to be removed unless the article is cleaned up to the point that (at least) it wouldn't be an obvious machine translation any more.
   2. Anyone who can write at least a short stub is encouraged to do so and remove the previous text (and the tag).
3. If nothing gets done with the article for, let's say, a month, it gets deleted.

Maybe it would be more agreeable? Perhaps later, after some time (maybe a year or two), we would be able to collect some data: how many machine translations have been detected, how many were fixed by writing from scratch, how many were fixed by cleanup, how many were "fixed" by a bad cleanup..? Then the right course of action might become clearer. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My subpages

For convenience and as a help for new editors, I propose to make a new link to the pages in ones userspace that would be displayed at the top of all Wikipedia pages when you are logged in. So instead of seeing

Toshio Yamaguchi My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions My sandbox Log out

like I do right now, I would see something like

Toshio Yamaguchi My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions My subpages My sandbox Log out

I know clicking My contributions/Subpages isn't complicated or anything, but here goes anyway.... -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Looks useful to me. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Given one's sandbox is also one of their subpages, I'd say just replace "my sandbox" with "my subpages". And that certainly would be a useful addition in my mind as well. Resolute 22:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That would impinge upon the discoverability of the sandbox. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• The large majority of registered users have no subpages so I think the link would be unnecessary and confusing for most users if it was displayed for everybody. I don't think MediaWiki can test whether there are any subpages and only display something if there are. We can make a user script to add the link. I don't know much JavaScript but I made a working test. Add the below to Special:MyPage/common.js (for display in all skins) or Special:MyPage/skin.js (for display in your current skin):

importScript('User:PrimeHunter/My subpages.js');

It could also be a gadget in preferences but I'm not sure it's worth it. A long list of gadgets makes it harder to find the important ones. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this makes me think, it would be great if the toolbox contained a link to all of the subpages of the page you are on. The current process is pretty difficult. Ryan Vesey 22:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

See Help:My subpages and Wikipedia:Subpages for scripts. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you can always do a search for "User:Toshio Yamaguchi" and the search bar should autocomplete your subpages in a drop-down menu. That's the approach I usually take. • Jesse V.^(talk) 02:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a link at the bottom of Special:Contributions to your subpages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know that :) This is mainly targeted at new users, who often might not know this and I see no particular reason to hide the link to the subpages behind a barrier so that you have to click My contributions first. PrimeHunter above said "The large majority of registered users have no subpages". I don't have any statistics, so I can't comment on this. I think the first articles a new user creates are often of a quality insufficient for mainspace, so this could encourage more use of user subpages by new editors and perhaps avoid some Why was my page deleted? questions. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been active here for six years and I didn't know that I had that link. Nyttend (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a small benefit to including it, but the line is meant to be for core functions (userpage, talk, etc) and is already very cluttered, especially for new users. I'm not sure adding a relatively low-use report here is worthwhile. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. Add this to gadgets. I also like the idea of a subpages link in the sidebar toolbox menu to find subpages of any page. Add that as a gadget too. There seems to be this phobia about adding more gadgets. I think this is clueless. Anything that helps editors is a good thing. If there is a need to separate higher-value gadgets from lesser-value gadgets (and who judges that?) then create 2 gadget tab pages in preferences. We need to stop this "just say no" naysayer attitude lately on Wikipedia to new ideas. Editors are leaving in droves. Ask yourself why? As for adding either one as a default gadget maybe we can do so after awhile after having it an an optional gadget. There is plenty of room for more stuff in the sidebar especially if we add more menus. Look at all the closed menus in the MediaWiki sidebar. See mw:Main page sidebar. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that this proposal is to add this link to those at the top of the page (the "Personal tools" area), not to the sidebar. Also note that adding a second tab of gadgets is not something we can do locally, as it would require a change to the extension code itself. BTW, I doubt editors are "leaving in droves" because of a lack of gadgets. Anomie⚔ 19:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

They are leaving for many reasons, all of which should be addressed, and not naysayed, or ignored. Ryan Vesey suggested putting a subpages link in the sidebar toolbox menu. I agree. Maybe a table of contents could be added to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. That would allow more gadgets to be added, and still be able to find them fairly easily. While waiting for the change to mw:Extension:Gadgets to allow more tabs. You are a developer. Maybe you can work on that, or suggest it to others. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support a sidebar link. On the other hand, the gadgets page is getting a little overstuffed... David1217 ^{What I've done} 17:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Menubar is already cluttered. If anywhere this would belong in the Toolbox on the sidebar. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Add this to toolbox menu in sidebar. I suggested adding this to gadgets also. But I don't see a reason registered users should not have easy access to their subpages. I could use that myself. So I prefer it in the toolbox, or if that is not possible due to all the naysayers on Wikipedia lately, then add this to gadgets. A gadget that puts it in the toolbox, or on the top of the page. Why is there this phobia against making life easier for editors? --Timeshifter (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - there should be an easily accessible link to 'my subpages' somewhere, and at the moment there isn't. I don't particularly mind if it goes in the top bar or on the sidebar, but we should add it somewhere. Robofish (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support as gadget - a reasonable gadget to have. I have had a variation of this idea for a few years now to give myself links to pages I often visit. SFB 23:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I've been away and was pleasantly surprised to see a link to "my sandbox". This is wonderful and should have been done long ago. New users boldly experiment w/ articles and get told to experiment in the sandbox. Now they have a clear link to a place for experimentation. Dlohcierekim 04:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support the idea of an easily accessible link to "my subpages". Don't care where the link is placed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Additions to the sidebar

Note: Discussion started at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar#Recommendation for a couple more links.

I recommend adding a couple more links to the sidebar that I think would help a lot of folks.

1. Add a link to the Article creation wizard under Toolbox
2. Add a link to the Teahouse under interaction

I think both of these are high value links that a new or even a veteran editor would find useful. The only negative I can think of would be an increased workload for the Article creation/New page patrollers. Kumioko (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Teahouse link in Interaction menu. Editors are leaving in droves. Anything that attracts and assimilates more editors, especially women, is a good thing. There is plenty of room for more stuff in the sidebar especially if we add more menus. Look at all the closed menus in the MediaWiki sidebar. See mw:Main page sidebar. "Assimilation is the process by which the Borg Wikipedia integrate beings and cultures into their collective." ;) I also support putting a search link in the sidebar. In the meantime I have to use this JavaScript import gadget. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Very strong support When I work with new editors, two of the most common questions I get are "How do I create an article?" and "How do I get help from experienced editors?". This would help fix that. David1217 ^{What I've done} 17:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Note: I left links to this discussion at the Teahouse and at Articles for creation. Kumioko (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Sounds like a good idea to me! • Jesse V.^(talk) 04:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm supportive of both these additions. Article creation wizard is self-explanatory, but I'm wondering if new users will know that Teahouse is a place to get help. 64.40.54.58 (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats a good point. I think we could put something like Help - Teahouse to clarify. Kumioko (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support with "Help - Teahouse" as suggested by Kumioko. Thine Antique Pen (public) 14:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Both additions would be helpful to new editors without being intrusive. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Can't hurt. Or "Need Help? Visit Teahouse" but that's too long I guess :) SarahStierch (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Interesting thoughts. You might want to ping Mediawiki talk:Sidebar also. --Izno (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Kumioko went there first ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Reservations: To quote: two of the most common questions I get are "How do I create an article?" and "How do I get help from experienced editors?".
  1. Article creation was left out of the sidebar in the past, because we didn't want more cruft that we needed to instantly delete again. I agree however that it is one of the most common issues that new users are faced with. Perhaps however, it would be wise to redo part of that first page of the ACW again, because it already looks 'polluted' again with rules and tips. If needed, make step 1 an click trough tutorial of 4 pages with a bit more tasks. Line one should be: "Become an editor before you become an article author" :D
  2. I'm all for the Teahouse, but seriously, how will people get there any better by a sidebar link (Why would you ever click on something named 'teahouse' if you need help). In my opinion, clean out Help:Contents or create a new Help:Welcome or a Help:Your first steps and if need be make the Help link a bit more prominent by moving it into section 1. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of editors, even relatively active ones don't know what the Teahouse is or what its for. I receive Email's periodically asking about it form people who don't want to look, as a couple have said, "Stupid" by posting to a WP Talk page. Since I get one or 2 a week, it seemed like a problem that could easily be addressed with a link. Essentially as was said above 2 of the common questions are where can I find help and how do I make an article. These should be prominantly displayed without forcing the users to dig for it. Lets be honest, if you don't know what the Teahouse is, you probably aren't going to search for it. Additionally, with our new search filters to prevent Google from displaying non article stuff, in order to find them accurately you have to search for them by Namespace and a lot of folks won't know that. Frankly I would like to include a link to the User page creation wizard too but I knew that would never pass so I didn't try. Kumioko (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. You are confusing problem and solution. Your problem is that people can't find a good place to be helped. Your solution is to add a new link. I'm saying that what is behind the current links is probably the problem and that changing the content there might be a better solution. If i'm gonna look for help, i'll click Help. If that lands me at Help:Contents, then in all honesty, I think I'd get lost. So instead of adding more information (By adding a link to every page), consider creating better user guidance behind the current targets. So perhaps we should change the Help link in the side bar to point to a new help system that is better at getting people where they need to be, instead of dumping them in the index of an incomplete and confusing book. One of the first items of that guide might very well be 'Visit our Teahouse, where fellow editors will help you with any problem you have in a friendly and welcoming atmosphere." —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

With respect I am just trying to find a relatively low impact solution to a problem. Yes there are many problems that need to be fixed and you bring up some excellent points but using the case in point, if we meet such opposition to adding a link, how much are we going to see doing a major revamp of Help as you suggest? Kumioko (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

At the 'it will stare everyone in the face'-level, you will find much more opposition than one level down, no matter what you propose. I think a Help revamp would be much less controversial than you think, IF you put in the time to build it right and don't launch it too early. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

These days I think it would have more success coming from someone else but me. With my recent history if I said cats meow someone would argue they purr. You may be right that it could get more support but I don't think the community would support much with my name associated to it at this point. Kumioko (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this will cheer you up, but for what its worth, there is a project that wants to take on improvements to Help:Contents, so maybe we'll see some movement in that direction sooner than you think! Agree it would be great to make it easier for new editors to find the help they're looking for, Teahouse included, where this is appropriate in the interface. Siko (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's great news but if the links are buried in Wikipedia and are not easily accessible to people then we are not advocating their use. We frequent editors know where to go, but the casual editors and the folks who don't edit all the time do not, nor should they be expected to know that they need to go digging for help. I would also say that I am perfectly fine with the decision not to put these links on the side menu but IMO if that decision is based on the premise that we are going to make more work for ourselves and we don't want more work, then that is a very wrong reason. Kumioko (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There is the concern of the Teahouse being flooded with reference questions and so forth. While we surely need more questions and we're here to serve as a space where people ask questions about CONTRIBUTING and EDITING, I fear that there could be a flood of IP's coming by and our hosts will be burdened with questions that they didn't sign up to answer, so to say. SarahStierch (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just spent five minutes thinking about this, and finally worked out that by reference questions you mean questions of the form "my plane tickets haven't arrived yet, where is your local office located?". Yes, there would very likely be a large influx of such questions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose AFC is the only option for IP editors, but logged in editors have a better chance creating articles in mainspace where they belong and where others might help them improve them. And the Teahouse is for newly registered editors - so not appropriate for the sidebar. ϢereSpielChequers 18:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine by me. It doesn't really sound like there is much support for this idea so you can withdraw the request. Kumioko (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Fwiw, there is a strong desire and ongoing project, to overhaul and update as much of the Help system as possible. It's ongoing in various places, but Wikipedia:Help Project is attempting to provide a focus and center for the works. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Support Help:Contents and Help:Teahouse in sidebar. "Teahouse" implies a more social help community. "Help:Contents" sounds like the more typical impersonal help pages people are used to on many websites. My proposal for moderators was a first attempt to help resolve content disputes in a more authoritative, but more cooperative way. Wikipedia is sorely lacking in cooperation of a more social, friendly nature. 90% (I believe) of editors and admins are male, and the common consensus of many people is that Wikipedia is a fanboy clique with a strong off-putting groupthink. "Teahouse", like salon, is understood by feminists and cooperative people in general. So they will click the link. It is the Facebook effect. Or Wikipedia can continue to live in the past if it wants to, and naysay most new ideas, per kneejerk normal at the Village Pumps. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Question - as a Help Desk regular, I have to ask why not also a direct link to that page. We get far more questions there than the Teahouse does.--ukexpat (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

ukexpat, I agree. We need a separate help menu, as suggested elsewhere by Kumioko. We could put Help:Contents, Help:Teahouse, Help desk, etc.. there. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, these pages need to be seen by new editors. They all have these two questions and this should help solve that. Swordman97 (talk)

Just a thought but why don't we add the Article creation wizard under interacton, create a new group entirely for Help, move the existing Help from interaction to the new Help group along with links to the Help desk, Help:Contents and Help:Teahouse? Kumioko (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

An interesting proposal, but much larger scope than the current thread-topic encompasses. I'd recommend looking over here (WP:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign) for old code-to-copy (and old discussions to skim through), and making up a clear demo of all the changes you suggest, and starting a new thread in a few days. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, I like your idea. A separate help menu addresses many of the concerns expressed in the discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment My concern is that it's hard to make clear what the Teahouse is for in the limited space available, and that it will likely result in a large influx of misplaced questions. Note that links in the sidebar do get a huge amount of traffic:

Help:Contents has been viewed 275548 times in 201207 [9]

Wikipedia:About has been viewed 384856 times in 201207 [10]

Compare to the current Teahouse pageviews:

Wikipedia:Teahouse has been viewed 5896 times in 201207 [11]

I'm worried that the Teahouse, which is supposed to be a calm and personal experience, will simply be overwhelmed. Perhaps Wikipedia:Questions would be a more suitable addition to the sidebar, with the title "Questions" or "Ask a question". It does allow us to highlight the Reference Desk a bit more too, which I do think more readers should know about. Or does it overlap too much with Contact Wikipedia?

As for Help, as Siko mentioned above I'm going to be proposing a major redesign of this page in the next few weeks. Nothing's finalised yet, but I can definitely say that both the Teahouse and Article Creation Wizard will feature prominently there. the wub "?!" 22:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I had just suggested adding a couple links I thought would be non-contentious and easily done. I don't have the desire or energy these days to get embroiled into another major contentious food fight. For what its worth though if we create these things like the Teahouse and the ACW then we should advocate their use not bury them in the site so only those that are familiar with the site know about them. It defeats their purpose. If we are going to be worried about making more work for ourselves then we shouldn't even start. It defeats the purpose of the pedia IMO. Kumioko (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Your idea, Kumioko, of a separate help menu could address some of wub's concerns too. People can choose the help method they prefer: Help:Contents, Help:Teahouse, Help desk, Wikipedia:Questions. Additional menus are a good way to help people navigate. Look at MediaWiki.org's sidebar. Its sidebar menus are directed at their audience, of course, but it illustrates the usefulness of more menus. Wikipedia's menus would focus on Wikipedia's readers and editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A Help submenu would definitely be a good idea if we do add more links. the wub "?!" 09:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose both, would support Help leading to Help desk. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Unnecessary clutter that would not be used by the majority. Also, there are any number of ways that an article can be created, and if an editor wants to use a particular method they can bookmark it on their computer. As for the Teahouse I am unsure how useful it is for the project and since it is not high usage a generic link is not required. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Per KillerChihuahua and Alan_Liefting. I think for many, many people the word "Teahouse" has no meaning at all relating to "help editing Wikipedia" so Help:Teahouse would be meaningless also. I also would support Help leading to Help:Contents. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment One link that is already there is the Wikipedia:Community portal, for which see Wikipedia:Community portal/Redesign 2012. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANDIDATE

Re: WP:Notability (people)#Politicians, I would like to edit that guideline as follows:

• Create shortcut WP:CANDIDATE as follows: "Any candidate for election to nationwide office is considered notable if formally nominated by a party which drew at least 30% in the previous general election cycle for that same office. In the United States, any general election candidate for governor or U.S. Senator is considered notable if his nominating party drew at least 30% in the previous general election cycle for that same office. A special election candidate for governor or U.S. Senator is considered notable if the candidate won a primary in that same election cycle AND his nominating party drew at least 30% in the previous general election cycle for that same office. These two or three facts must be demonstrable by reliable sources."

The fact is that the vast majority of these candidates are already notable, but a handful require disproportionate work to demonstrate their notability and such candidates perhaps tend to hail from areas with smaller populations and assumedly fewer Wikipedia editors. It may be that time passes for the publication of sufficient reliable sources, and additional time passes for editors to identify sources and then write the article with demonstrably significant coverage right from the get-go. That delay (and with an uncertain resolution) is a disservice to Wikipedia's readership, many of whom are interested in the candidates as soon as the major-party nomination is secure, and even a stub will encourage non-autoconfirmed editors to participate. In practice, the standard I propose will simply allow us to avoid delay to create articles on the two major party candidates (while not restricting us to those two) without well-intentioned but time-wasting interference from editors overly committed to bureaucracy and rules. I believe it would be a mistake to include candidates for the U.S. House or non-governor statewide offices, as a far higher percentage of those candidates are of temporary "notability". Occasionally, parties toss any old name in for special elections, so my proposal there includes a slight filter on the least-notable names. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason for choosing 30% as the threshold?--JayJasper (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm flexible on the exact percentage. Looking at numerous disparate elections, a 30% threshold will nearly always convey instant notability on the two official nominees of the two highest-vote-getting parties, and very occasionally could convey notability on three candidates. Intuitively, that seems "right" to me. Of course, a candidate below that threshold could still derive notability otherwise. I believe Wikipedia is well-served by requiring a relatively high threshold for assumed notability. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like pointless WP:Creep, when it comes to candidates for major offices, it should be extremely easy to find sufficient reliable sources to establish De Jure Notability. Monty₈₄₅ 21:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the crux of 24dot's rationale, but am reluctant to support a proposal based on an arbitrary voting percantage which could easily turn into a political football. If a more objective standard can be found on which to base a voting %, I could support it.--JayJasper (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How about ignoring percentages and simply conferring notability only on the nominees of the top two vote-getting parties from the most recently-concluded general election for that position? That's already how states decide what order to list candidates in (the #1 or #2 vote-getting party for an elected position has its next-election candidate for that position listed first or second, respectively, even if it's a different individual running as ran during the previous election). Incidentally, I've written more on WP:CANDIDATE at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Clayton (politician)

In particular, I contrast Senate candidates Alvin Greene (South Carolina, 2010) and Robert R. McMillan (New York State, 1988). McMillan is plainly more notable than Greene in every encyclopedic sense of the term, but what editor cares much about either one and is going to write an article Robert R. McMillan likely to be summarily deleted without a real effort. I contend it'd serve Wikipedia well for the article to be stubbed and pecked at bit by bit over time without an editor fearing the wasting of his time to add one fact and one source here, and six months later maybe another editor does the same. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but a major flaw is that the U.S. Senate is included and the U.S. House is excluded. It'd make more sense for it to say "member of the national legislature." Any guideline needs to be easily applicable across-the-board to all country governments. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this would definitely be overreaching. I've seen many AFDs for major-party parliamentary candidates in the UK, and a significant proportion are deleted by clear consensus; they'd be presumed notable under a "national legislature" approach, which suggests it doesn't reflect general practice. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be designed to work well for countries with two big parties and to work poorly for countries with three or more big parties. Three parties could split 41-30-29, with nearly identical performance resulting in one party's candidates being excluded. In a country with an enormous number of parties, this could be completely useless. No party in Israel has cracked the 30% barrier since 1992. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is part of my point, I guess. The proposal reads like a "U.S." proposal, and doesn't take into account the situation elsewhere. I really don't think we need to go down the path of having a policy that isn't generally applicable. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is intended to strike a balance. I firmly agree that we want to avoid creating hundreds of articles annually for candidates of temporary "notability", but I submit that Wikipedia's interests are served by allowing the expeditious creating of an article for each "top-two" candidate for major office (the hypothetical third or fourth candidate article can still be created without prejudice). I readily acknowledge that I am most-familiar with the United States, but I'm open to suggestions. In the USA, each candidate for "the lower house" is elected by one of over 400 congressional districts; a particular congressional district's populace may overwhelmingly favor one political party, and so the opposition party may nominate no opponent or a merely token opponent who is unlikely to be elected or attain encyclopedic notability. So I exclude those USA House of Representatives candidates, and insist that each attain notability the old fashioned way. The situation may be similar for other-than-national candidates in other countries, but I'm not pretending to know that for certain...

By contrast, I submit that even long-shot top-two-party candidates for state governor or U.S. senate are not non-notable sacrificial lambs but are almost always individuals already with (or certain-to-attain) notability; the problem at Wikipedia is that without "stipulated notability", a candidate is at the mercy of experienced Wikipedia editors who can suppress the article by insisting on the type of WP:SIGCOV which may take weeks to establish (but the entire election cycle may only be ten or twelve weeks!).

If we grant 'stipulated notability' for the two candidates of the "top two vote-getting parties", that absolutely does not disallow 'earned notability' for the third- or fourth-party candidates; thus, I don't see how this idea is discriminatory or even arbitrary. The number "two" seems less arbitrary than choosing any other number of candidates-parties. So I'm happy to forget percentages. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This might be workable if limited to the United States, but as a general proposal it's a bad idea and goes against previous consensus: e.g. for British elections, the general consensus has been that unsuccessful electoral candidates are presumed not to be notable. Even for the U.S., I would be reluctant to agree to it as a fixed rule; I don't think we need lots of articles on failed politicians whose only content is 'so-and-so ran as the X-party candidate in Y election and lost'. These biographies should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and only kept where there is serious evidence of notability. Robofish (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't need a complicated, let's-argue-about-the-details proposal like this, when we currently have a very straightforward consensus at WP:POLITICIAN: namely, that if a person is notable ONLY as a candidate for office, and if the only coverage found about them is related to that candidacy, then their name gets redirected to the article about relevant election. This preserves the article's history if they should later become notable (say, by winning the election), and it redirects users to the very place where information about their candidacy is most likely to be found. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Articles about failed candidates and candidates running for election are covered by WP:BLP1E; relevant information should be merged with the event (i.e. the election). As others have pointed out, this proposal has specific issues pertaining to a US-bias and a subjective standard for inclusion. Location (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A new featured article candidate requirement: expert review request

The concept is simple: for every article that is nominated as a candidate for Featured Article, one of the nominators must contact one or more experts in a relevant field (for example, by e-mail) to request a review of the article, for the purposes of fact checking, ensuring completeness, and any other information the expert elects to provide. The results are posted, with an appropriate license release, on the review page. If an expert cannot be found who is willing to spend time on the review, for example because the area is too specialised, the requirement can be waived; only sending the request is mandatory. The point is to get as much feedback as possible on the article at a time when it is already prepared for review; experts are not expected to edit themselves. The burden of sending this request is miniscule compared to the Herculean task of writing the FAC in the first place.

For example, a featured article nomination for George Washington might solicit feedback from a historian studying American history, ideally one who has studied George Washington in particular, such as Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. or Edward G. Lengel. Even popular culture topics (such as movies, games, celebrities) would be amenable to review by scholars, critics, and journalists of pop culture.

The skills of the expert would complement the skills of Wikipedian reviewers well, with the former focusing more on correctness and completeness and the latter focusing more on complying with policies. Because the number of FACs is relatively small this is feasible and would not excessively burden scholars. For scholars, in turn, this would be an opportunity to reach out and create better public awareness and understanding of their discipline. Thoughts? Dcoetzee 21:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify - do you mean a expert who isn't already a wikipedia editor? Someone who can comment by email/phone? Fayedizard (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is an expert who is already a Wikipedian I think that would be sufficient, although it'd have to be someone who hasn't already been closely involved in development in the article, since their input would presumably already be incorporated into it. Dcoetzee 21:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose making it mandatory. For some subjects, probably most to be honest, this would not be feasible to find a reviewer outside who is actually willing to review article after article. --Rschen7754 21:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What if no historian appears at all? The article won't pass? I find rather difficult to find enough reviewers for my non-American (or non-British) articles about Brazilian history, things will get even worse if I'm required to go after a professional historian. --Lecen (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, "If an expert cannot be found who is willing to spend time on the review, the requirement can be waived." Only making the request is mandatory, not receiving and posting a response. I edited a bit to emphasise that. Dcoetzee 21:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For highways, this would not work at all. Either we are the experts, or the experts are the ones writing SPS that are not RS under the guideline. How would you be able to tell if someone made the request, since it would be off-wiki? I can foresee not being able to get a review for 70-80% of FACs, at a time when the number is already declining. Finally, what problem does this solve? --Rschen7754 21:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Not an FA, but this is relevant. I would consider Wikipedia to be the most complete source for HMS Phoenix (N96). That said, I don't need to find an expert on Phoenix I need an expert on submarines. We'd have to determine what could be considered an expert on highways, but I would assume it is someone who studies infrastructure in America, Infrastructure in Europe, Infrastructure in third world countries, etc. Ryan Vesey 21:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, as I've said above, they tend to be roadgeeks, the hobbyists that study roads. Another concern: what's to say that the "experts" wouldn't push their own views of scholarship on the article? --Rschen7754 21:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's my biggest concern, the scholarship point. On the needing an expert point, someone like Anthony Tomazinis might be elligible. He's an expert in transportation. Ryan Vesey 21:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And at the rate the roads projects send articles to FAC, would this be practical? Last year we had about 10 FACs. --Rschen7754 21:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your original comment above: if you can't get a review that's okay, even if it's 70-80% of the time. Making such a request adds very little burden compared to the monumental task of writing an FAC in the first place. The point is just to further improve quality of articles where possible by soliciting expert attention at a time when it's already prepared for review. As for checking if they made the request, you could ask them to cc one of the reviewers, or you could just trust them. The experts would not be editing, so any feedback they express would naturally be taken with a grain of salt and some amount of bias is expected. If biased feedback were prohibited, all reviewers would be in trouble. If the limited number of available scholars feel overburdened by requests, they can of course decline and the article is still eligible. Dcoetzee 21:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Who bears the contact burden? Could we work out any deals with some museums or universities where they actively scan our FAC's? Ryan Vesey 21:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've clarified who would bear the contact burden (nominators). Dcoetzee 21:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rschen. Who determines who is and is not an expert? For legal articles, does that mean anyone with a JD is an expert? Or an MD for medical articles? What about those in limited fields? Who determines whether a waiver is granted or denied? To get to featured article, there have to be citations from reliable sources - but in contentious areas, such as Israel/Palestine, pro-life/choice, various conspiracy theories, religions, etc., there have been major fights over who can and who cannot be considered reliable. The current system works fine. GregJackP Boomer! 22:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, how do we know if an expert is expert enough on a specific topic? Is being a scholar in that general field enough? If I am nominating an article on something like a town in Oklahoma, even if I get an expert on Oklahoma history, it is likely they may not be familiar with the history of the particular town I'm nominating. So they'd have to look at the cited sources themselves, anyway, so they'd really be not much better off than a reviewer like you or I. How would we settle arguments about whether someone qualifies as an expert? Do we go on their credentials? Is there any way to verify those? (Essjay, anyone?) These are just the practical considerations—I'm sure someone below will articulate why this proposal runs counter to prevailing Wikipedia culture and making the compulsory Nupedia/Citizendium comparisons and such. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think for really specialised topics that's certainly a reasonable concern, but I'd also argue that experts have a grounding in the field that lets them identify and interpret relevant resources in a way not everyone else can. For example, they may recognise a certain idiom in a primary or contemporary secondary source that was used in other historical Oklahoma documents which a laymen might not understand. Whether an expert could be found who'd be willing to put in that much effort is another question, but the article would still be eligible regardless. As for determining who qualifies as an expert, well, there's no reason multiple people couldn't be contacted if there's disagreement about who is best to ask. Dcoetzee 21:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Essjay controversy, plain and simple. Imzadi 1979 → 21:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This is solely an advisory role - the expert would not be making edits, only pointing out reliable sources that may have been overlooked or misinterpreted for the consideration of editors. I think that distinguishes it strongly from the Essjay controversy. Dcoetzee 21:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not appropriate to put all the burden on FAC reviewers and nominators to make a new process work that would represent a significant shift in community attitudes. I also don't think it's ever appropriate to volunteer someone else's time on Wikipedia. Having said that, I've generally been supportive of efforts to get feedback from professionals and academia. - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no need for this extra layer of red tape. If an article is worthy of FAC then the !voters will decide that regardless of who has or who hasn't editied the article. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • To clarify: the proposal is for nominators to request a review by an expert by e-mail, not for the expert to edit the article. The qualifications of the editors of the article are, as always, entirely irrelevant. Dcoetzee 21:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, but why should this be required? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Making the request is the only requirement, and if they don't get a response it doesn't hurt its eligibility. The purpose is to solicit additional feedback. It's a very low bar. Dcoetzee 22:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have attempted to contact experts various times and very rarely get a reply - I recently did get very helpful feedback from two experts on an article but this is the exception, not the rule. How on earth can you prove that you've made the attempt? I could send an email to a non-existant address, get a bounceback and say I attempted to contact an expert. I could even forward a copy of my sent email to a FAC delegate as "proof" that I'd made the attempt. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Nominators would be trusted to make the request. If they don't, or the expert can't review, they just get less feedback on their work. Even if they only get feedback 10% or 5% of the time, it'd still provide an impetus to seek it at a critical juncture. Dcoetzee 22:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would be an excellent way to choke the number of FACs to as close to zero as would make no difference. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The expertise of an expert in a specific field is very different from what is required to write an unbiased, neutral and well-referenced Wikipedia article. Only because someone is an expert doesn't mean he or she is necessarily a good Wikipedia editor. I see no ground for the assumption that a subject expert is necessarily able to contribute what is required for an article to comply with WP:WIAFA. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As noted, the expert review (when available) would complement traditional review by Wikipedians. Experts are familiar with the topic area and can identify things like critical omissions, but are unfamiliar with policy. Dcoetzee 22:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • All editors should have the same right to review something. Any attempt to introduce a class system of Experts and non-Experts is harmful for the project, because it can be too easily abused. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • The point is not to classify editors as experts or non-experts, but to request feedback from experts who are not editors. Dcoetzee 22:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I oppose this idea. Experts should be encouraged to become regular contributors by making Wikipedia a more welcoming environment for them as regular editors. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't disagree with this as a general idea, but even a welcoming Wikipedia is a pretty daunting site to use. (I run courses on using Wikipedia for just these sorts of content experts...) As well as this, most people active in the community don't even notice FACs unless they have a page watchlisted! (and not always even then...). I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of trying to lower barriers to entry for specific types of contributions, and trying to actively seek out and invite those contributions when appropriate. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
          • There are many experts who are too busy to become regular editors and contribute content, but are not too busy to review a few articles. Being an effective editor requires time and learning about many policies and technical tools. It's not for everyone. Dcoetzee 23:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
            • "I run courses on using Wikipedia for just these sorts of content experts..."
            • What is your experience with that, where do the main problems lie? I (and perhaps Foundation staff) would be interested to know what the main issues are. My personal belief is that Wikipedia is just like many things in life: it takes some time to get used to it and understand the basics, but once that's the case I think it runs quite smoothly.
            • "There are many experts who are too busy to become regular editors and contribute content, but are not too busy to review a few articles."
            • Becoming regular editors doesn't necessarily mean they have to contribute content. We have many regular editors who just do copyedits or other maintenance work. Any editor can do whatever he/she wants to. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- there are far too many FAs which are laughably inadequate and shouldn't be held up as the best WP can do. On the other hand there are lots of smaller articles that this community wouldn't consider FAs but which an expert reviewer could immediately note was top notch. I think that this review should have the highest weight on FA. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This will lock in systemic bias (as many editors won't be able to find or contact experts), and will mean inconsistent assessment depending on whether an expert can be found. It will introduce collosal delays - if the expert has to work for a living you could wait months for a response even when they are willing and able to help. And who is to determine who is an expert? What happens if an expert trys to push his or her own pet theory or books? Nigel Ish (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I hadn't considered the issue of delays. You're quite right that the expert's delay might not fit into the timeframe of the FA review. I could simply say that it's okay if the expert review arrives after the FA review is over (better late than never), but it does limit the usefulness somewhat. I think inconsistent assessment is actually okay (review should meet a minimum bar but it's okay to exceed it), and I think expert bias is something our culture is very familiar with and would not be unduly influenced by (i.e. they would just ignore that part of the review). Dcoetzee 22:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment This was discussed quite extensively on WT:FAC back in about May, and the general consensus (IIRC) was that if any nominator wanted to get hold of an expert review that was a good thing to have, but that there was a strong objection to making it required and some significant concerns with the way those reviews should be handled; several people felt it might be best either before or after FA. I doubt you'll get much support for making it mandatory or making it a fixed part of the process. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of that discussion. I think you're right that making it a voluntary recommendation (whether done by the nominators or other interested parties) is probably the the way to go. Dcoetzee 22:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    Recommendations aren't "voluntary", they're simply recommendations. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    • A good way to handle this, I think, is to treat external review as an additional "bonus" line of review. Essentially, think of it as like our "peer review" system - it can happen at any time in the life of the article, it has direct benefits on the text, but it's not a rating and it's not a level to work to or to pass through. It happens, we incorporate (or reject) the comments, it is noted on talk and may be invoked in a GAN or FAC or the like, but it's not automatically linked to those processes. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I think that's a great suggestion, especially in light of the uncertain delays associated with an expert review (as noted by Nigel Ish). Reviewing earlier in an article's life, or more than one in its life, could also be beneficial. I guess the question is what kind of support should/could be provided - should people "just do it" or should there be a project page that provides advice, or a recommended process with templates, or template e-mails, etc.? Dcoetzee 23:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I put a couple of proposed mechanisms in the old discussion, IIRC; I'll have a look over them later this weekend (it's late now). I'm certainly willing to help do some of the legwork to arrange something like this if there's a desire to push ahead with it. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Even if a recommendation is stated to be "voluntary", human nautre means that editors (especially new editors) will be held to it. This risks re-inforcing the perception of FAC (and possibly GA) being a closed shop. (Newbies attempting to put articles forwards will be more likely to be forced to have an expert review done, and will be less able to negotiate the extra hassle involved.)Nigel Ish (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting idea, but it would be extremely impractical, especially because of the difficulty of finding experts for every subject who have so much free time they can review Wikipedia articles. Even in cases where an expert is available and willing to help in this way, there's a high potential for disagreements and gaming on who constitutes an "expert", whether they're enough of an expert, whether the topic of the article is within their expertise, etc. And finally, keeping in mind that I'm not a wiki "purist", this proposal goes far outside the use of the wiki process for content development, a Foundation issue. Is the wiki process not good enough for featured content? szyslak (t) 23:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - A question is also who could count as an expert in some rather obscure fields. Who could be contacted for Ruma Maida, for example? Or, one which I may bring to FAC within a year, a series of pictures of an intersex person? If you're writing about the Constitution of the United States, sure it's feasible (not necessarily practical), but Pareh? Heck, some of our FAs are the most complete English-language reference points for their subject (such as Chrisye); getting "experts" whose opinions can be quoted on that would be difficult — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There's a larger, semi-radical-change idea I'm working on, but related to this, would instead it make sense to get at least one signoff on the quality of an article from the standpoint of each Wikiproject that the article is involved in? This doesn't get the "expert" concept but it does provide input from someone that knows what articles of that type should contain, what sourcing they should use, and other gotchas that may be unique to that Project compared to WP-wide standards, and just maybe may be able to tell or sniff out possible mistaken use of sources. If an article has multiple projects, there should be a nod from each of those involved. Basically, this would be like assuring an article has reached a project A-class requirements before signing it off as an FA. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Who is to say that WP-wide standards coincide with the WikiProject's standards? There are some radical WikiProjects out there. --Rschen7754 23:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • A WikiProject's standards should augment - not replace or supersede - Wikipedia-wide standards. If the project's standards do replace or supersede the global standards, that's a problem that needs to be addressed. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this works in principal (while WPs have occasionally idiosyncratic standards, it's unlikely any have requirements which directly conflict with FAC, or if so that they keep them for long!), but in practice this would only work for a handful of fairly active projects and would stall on many of the less active or indeed moribund ones. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • If we approach it with the same idea given above, that if an expert can't be found in reasonable time, then the FAC moves on without that feedback. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There is a clear rejection to this proposal, but there is a way to fix it: reformulate it as a proposal unrelated to FAC, at least for the moment, and just about Peer Review. We may organize a section similar to Wikipedia:Peer Review, which is about actual peer review (review by experts; the current page is merely review by fellow wikipedians). We may invite experts to register as experts for that section, detailing their specific areas of expertise, and prove by OTRS their qualifications (such as their degrees). Then, if there is an expert about a given topic, users may post their request, and the expert may point what is right or wrong about the article. The process may not be limited to FACs, but also to other topics that need it, such as FARs or articles under dispute. Let's reuse the George Washington example: an expert on George Washington (or on the history of the United States, or the American Revolution period, or similar) registers as an expert on that page. Then he discloses by OTRS his real name and the degrees that make him an expert, and he is listed when confirmed as such. A user interested in confirming the accuracy of the article post a request, and the expert replies; if there is no such expert yet, we deal with it as we do it nowadays. Cambalachero (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • To be fair, editors reviewing the work of other editors is the very essence of peer review. ;-)

More seriously, I think an on-wiki process of accrediting "expert" contributors is not the way to go - we're pretty good at determining who is and isn't an expert when they contribute to an FAC or the like already, based on their comments, and so do we really need such a system?

The key to making any process like this scale up is going to be finding a way to make it easy for new experts to give reviews etc without making the system too cumbersome for us (by making it a requirement, or having an onerous process involved), or making it too cumbersome for them (by, eg, requiring active community participation). Andrew Gray (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not the same to have read some history books about George Washington or the American Revolution, and to actually have a degree in history or be an acredited historian. Regardless of how good and well-informed a mere reader may be, the opinions of an acredited expert have much more weigth. Of course that the system may never be able to have experts for all possible topics, but a system like this may enhance the credibility of wikipedia and improve the vital articles. The way to keep the Pandora's box closed is to keep this as an optional feature, not mandatory for any of the project processes. Cambalachero (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I think something separate could be useful, but rather than seeking to validate accreditation, which is a lot of work and counter to our culture, I think a more promising route is just to encourage editors to engage more often with outside experts to request reviews or input on discussions, by providing guidance on how and when to do so. One way to do this might be to create a list of "Wikipedia-friendly" scholars along with contact info who are more likely to respond to Wikipedia-related requests. You can't make a forum for experts and just expect them to show up and volunteer - many of them don't even know how to edit a page, and many don't have time, but nevertheless will respond to a specific request for assistance. I do value transparency, but for those not familiar with our technology I think republishing e-mail comments (with an appropriate license release) is more feasible. Dcoetzee 03:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Well intentioned, but completely unfeasible for several of the reasons presented above. The most likely outcome of such a policy is to choke FAC to death. Resolute 01:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. anonymous editing precludes this being feasible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • To clarify: the proposal does not suggest validating the qualifications of editors, nor do I think that would be a good idea. It suggests requesting outside experts to review article content and re-posting their feedback. The information would still be judged by editors on its own merits; the point of soliciting experts is that they may be able to provide useful feedback others can't. Dcoetzee 03:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as written because of the logistical difficulties it would impose. But I would be okay with requiring a notification be posted to at least one appropriate WikiProject; many of those count SMEs among their members. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as well-intentioned but entirely impractical. Apart from the slow-down that something like this would cause, verification issues involved are basically insurmountable. How are you going to prove, without compromising your identity, that a particular external expert has been contacted and has responded in a particular way? For "internal" Wikipedia experts verification of credentials is also basically impossible, and simply relying on self-identification of a particular user as a subject matter expert is not acceptable either, as Essjay controversy demonstrated. However, the proposal does raise some valid and traditionally ignored concerns regarding all of the existing Wikipedia mechanisms for content review (FA, GA, etc). The issue that is generally swept under the rug is that for many topics relying on WP:V is insufficient and that actual subject matter expertise and competency are required. General knowledge topics are reasonably well-suited for the existing WP content review procedures, but the more technical and specialized topics are not. For such topics there are often (maybe even typically) there are not enough active WP users with relevant subject matter expertise who can properly evaluate the articles on these topics. The users who actually are actively involved in the WP content review process simply lack the requisite knowledge to understand the meaning of many statements made in articles on these topics and thus are unable to verify them even when appropriate sources are cited; and they are even less able to judge if the treatment of a particular subject is complete and well balanced. The most that one can expect from a content review in such a situation is general critique on the style of the presentation and organization of the article. Such critique is useful, but insufficient, and it is all too easy to sneak through, say, the GA process, an article that is reasonably well written but has major omissions in the way a particular topic is treated. For example, in my own subject, math, there are loads of articles on highly notable topics that should simply never be brought for GA or FA review, for the above reasons. Good examples of this are articles like Fundamental lemma (Langlands program), Kodaira embedding theorem and Hyperbolic Dehn surgery. All three deal with very important results, but, particularly for the first one, even having a PhD in Math is typically insufficient for providing a competent review of such an article. The existing content review process operate under the assumption - a false one, in my opinion - that every WP article on a notable can, and preferably should, be brought to a GA or an FA status. But that is simply not the case. Articles on technical topics requiring considerable subject matter expertise and competence for reviewing them should simply not be nominated for GA and FA. Nsk92 (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Experts are not always neutral but may want to promote their own theories. And if we contact multiple experts we may get multiple opposing opinions and the occasional proxy war. Experts can also be hired to back up POV editing. And I am convinced that there is no need for external experts to find missing sources or to have a sort of external peer-review. The existing tools are already sufficient. De728631 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although I can see that you have good intentions with this, I think it would bring in more problems than it would solve. For one, we are doing just fine as it is, so it's not really needed. Secondly, who defines an expert? This could start arguments over who is a better expert than others, and then you'll bring up meatpuppeting and possibly other trickery. If someone is a good enough editor to bring an article up to FAC, they've read extensively about the subject anyway. If they want expert opinions in the relevant field, they can make the personal decision to do so, just as one would do in normal research. With WikiProjects, RFCs, and teams of active editors there's enough input from Wikipedians to make a solid article. • Jesse V.^(talk) 04:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It's difficult enough already at FAC, we certainly don't need this flawed idea Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have seen in reviews of reference works that, in some cases, the authors of individual articles have at times used that article to, basically, promote their own beliefs, some of which are not in accord with existing consensus in the field, although that is not always easy to determine immediately. So, for instance, someone who just found the new equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls could reasonably think that they are about Jesus initially, only to be overturned less than a year later. This happens in published reference works - I have no reason to think that it would not also happen here if we instituted something similar. Having said that, I do like the idea of a rather formal peer review. I have only done a few, but recently I have myself reviewed a few articles against the articles in published encyclopedia, to see if they are comparable. That won't work for Lady Gaga or similar topics which have maybe not yet been published in reference works, but it would work for a lot of articles on older topics. I wouldn't myself mind seeing a part of peer review actively indicating a step of peer review is to compare our articles against high quality recent published reference sources, but that is a rather different idea than that being proposed here. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not for any of the reasons given above, nor for any consideration of the FAC process, but because our outreach to academics, curators and other experts needs to be less about validation of a small subset of our articles, and more about wider collaboration with the Wikimedia movement. There are better and more important things they can do for us. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if we are going to try and outreach to external experts, we should be aiming more at the Wikipedia:Vital articles area?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - For several reasons: (1) not practical due to shortage of experts; (2) experts are often biased and may force their bias into the article; (3) experts are often unfamiliar with WP polices (e.g. UNDUE or POV) and may require changes that are contrary to policy. From an editor with four FA articles .... --Noleander (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly per Noleander, though I should note: good luck getting someone knowledgeable enough, and with the time to do it. For free. Frankly, I've found that most academics have some hobby horse in their field of study that they ride incessantly. If the article doesn't match that, expect trouble. It is a fine idea in theory, but I think the practice would cause real problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: this isn't really suitable for every topic. Some topics would invite the bias of the expert. Some topics really don't have an expert (I'm thinking of a lot of articles about fictional topics). I'm all for getting more experts involved, but it should be on a broader basis, and case by case instead of an overall policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Company Page Proposal (it's for a good cause)

Hello,

I have a 50% share in a legitimately run, Ministry of Justice registered claims management company which I took on for the purpose of opening a charity trust fund with much of the profits. Our website is http://www.my-compensation.co.uk - The money in this trust fund will be used for investments in order to grow it and, when it's large enough to make a difference, the funds will be donated to various charitable causes. I only own 50% of the business and so cannot state what will be done with the other half of the profits, but my half will be used mostly for charitable purposes.

I'm writing this today to request that I am allowed to post up a Wikipedia page for my business. I understand that companies are not usually allowed Wikipedia pages but I was hoping that an allowance might be made given the nature of what I will be doing with the funds.

They will go to good causes in the long-run and Wikipedia will be one of the benefactors. I'm not saying this as a bribe, it will be whether I'm allowed the page or not. I'm a donator and always will be.

Please help me in my SEO efforts with this company and allow me to have a Wikipedia page with a backlink to our site. I'll write it to the highest possible standards.

Feel free to call me on the company line if any questions.

Thank you,

Jim

Actually, lots of companies are allowed Wikipedia pages. They just have to have been properly covered by appropriate real-world sources first; see WP:CORP. I must urge you in the strongest possible way not to write an article on your own business; see WP:COI. If the necessary coverage of your company already exists, you can just let the Wikipedia community know about it. You might try adding it to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies, but again, only if the sources exist. Another word of advice: the expression "Please help me in my SEO efforts" is not a good one. In a lot of peoples' minds it's right up there with "please help me sell heroin to seven-year-olds." Ntsimp (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have a 50% share in a legitimately run company that sells heroin to seven-year-olds and I'd like help with my SEO efforts... You had to see that one coming a mile away. 64.40.54.181 (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You probably don't want this. I was just reading http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/should-small-business-have-wikipedia-article/2311/ earlier on this subject. Wikipedia doesn't help SEO efforts because of the nofollow attribute on the links. What it does is lower the value of pages that you actually control, in favor of a page that anyone can fill with complaints whenever they want. You should only pursue a Wikipedia page if you want to make sure that the first thing anyone reads about you is something that dissatisfied customers can change at any time of the day or night. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See all of the above. Wikipedia will probably not help your attempts to improve your company's SEO, and if this is your primary purpose for wanting an article, its probably against our policies anyway. I'd encourage you to read our frequently asked questions for organizations. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Simplified move proposal process

"Actually, maybe there should be a button, that when you click 'Move', that it says 'Hey, do you think this might be controversial?' 'Yes' 'Thank you, we've made the request for you and everything's done.'"

— Jimmy Wales, Closing speech, Wikimania 2011

The current process for proposing page moves is for the proposer to subst the Requested move template onto the article's talk page. A bot then adds the request to the list at WP:Requested moves. Unfortunately, instructions on how to request a move are hard to find, and many users, even experienced users, might have difficulty placing a move request because of this. I've put together a script at User:Yair rand/ControversialMoves.js which adds a checkbox to the "Move" page, with the text "Do you think this move might be controversial?" next to it. Once checked, the "Move page" button changes to a "Propose moving the page" button, and when submitted, it substs the proper template onto the talk page, adds the text entered into the "Reason" box below it, and adds a signature onto the end. The script itself (as well as maybe the details of implementation) probably need some work, but what do people think of the general idea? I think that we really should be cracking down on unnecessary complexities in getting things done on Wikipedia, and the page move proposing process seems to me like a classic example of an area where things are too complicated, without reason for them to be. --Yair rand (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Things are oftentimes way too complicated on Wikipedia. Since we have less editors and more articles we need to be more efficient. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There is a move tool already on Commons that actually takes care of all steps, even for anonymous users. I'd support a default gadget like that in a heartbeat. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  Huh, I didn't know about that gadget. It's very well done. However, the situation is rather different here on Wikipedia. On Commons, requesting a move is about getting a file mover or admin to perform the action, with one of seven simple reasons given, as opposed to on Wikipedia, where making a request is about inviting discussion on a potentially controversial issue (otherwise it would either be just moved or sent to WP:RM/TR), so I'm not sure how much could be borrowed from the Commons gadget. --Yair rand (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This is moving in the right direction. Something that has a similar functionality for merge and copy would also be great. Every time I have to look up the procedures and relearn the whole process, and I am never sure I am getting it right. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I hate having to look up the instructions for an RM every time I want to do one. Another good idea from you, Yair rand! David1217 ^{What I've done} 15:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Any steps in this direction are great. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support The RM process is very confusing as is, especially with the auto-listing feature currently being broken. A simple solution like this would make everyone's life a whole lot easier. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. On the evidence, the backlog at RM is a pretty clear indication that the current system needs all the improvements to efficiency that we can give it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Jojalozzo 21:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support And now can someone fix the bots that do the listings.... Neotarf (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Snow support Why would anyone not want this? →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 02:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Good idea, however, before we do it, consider that if it works, we're likely to get a deluge of flaky RMs, because lots more people will not be dissuaded. So maybe we can take the opportunity to add some coaching, with links to WP:AT and WP:MOS and suggest that people look at relevant sections before proposing a move. Maybe have a list of reasons for moves, with more specific links on each? Like change capitalization, change punctuation (hyphen, dash, apostrophe), add parenthetical, remove parenthetical, add diacriticals, remove diacriticals, make primarytopic claim, make more precise, make more concise, make more recognizable, etc. Or we could make the script smart enough to compare the titles, suggest what the reason must be, and link to the explanation about it, and suggest a look. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support – not sure how this would relate to WP:RM#When not to use this page and in particular WP:RM/TR, but presumably that technical moves issue would only come into play if the button was left unchecked. . dave souza, talk 08:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support One of the best proposals I have seen. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Font (rain on my parade)

Not trying to start a riot here or anything, but something that's been playing on my mind recently: What do we think about he Wikipedia font used in articles? I'm assuming it been the same for ages, and I get the feeling that technology has moved on in many respects while Wikipedia has stayed stagnant. I know that's got a lot to do with Wikipedia's charm and everything (as any redesign proposal page will tell you), but I can't help feeling that this should be discussed. What does the Wikipedia community feel towards the font used in Wikipedia articles? What's good/bad about it? Is it outdated? What fonts could be better?--Coin945 (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to rain on your parade, but as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia doesn't make any font settings at all, does it? It just relies on the browser's (sans-serif) standard font. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

... oh.. really??? hmmm... are you sure? I thought every website had their own personal design - like Facebook wall posts have a certain stylised font. Is Wikipedia unique in that respect or do lots of websites appear in the default font?--Coin945 (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are lots of design decisions that go into the design of a website. In Wikipedia's "skins", it's a matter of colors, font sizes, margins, borders, backgrounds and all sorts of other things, but the only font specification it seems to be using (in the "Vector" skin) is the generic "sans-serif". Which is probably a good choice, because it leaves it to the reader to specify what font they find most readable on their system. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe we do specify the font used when editing text, but you can change that to the generic sans-serif font in your gadgets. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you really like a font, I'm sure you can put it in place by editing your Special:MyPage/common.css or Special:MyPage/vector.css page, though I'm not sure what code you'd have to use for that. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have my browser set up to use the fonts I prefer, and it tends to really bug me when a website thinks it's important enough to mess with that. Ntsimp (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Huhhh.... well I for one didn't know that at all.--Coin945 (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I did a Google search on [HTML fonts], and the top two pages led me to the following:

• Sample text.<font face="helvetica, georgia, courier, arial"> Sample text.

• Sample text.<font face="arial"> Sample text.
• Sample text.<font face="arial black"> Sample text.
• Sample text.<font face="comic sans ms"> Sample text.
• Sample text.<font face="courier"> Sample text.
• Sample text.<font face="courier new"> Sample text.
• Sample text.<font face="georgia"> Sample text.
• Sample text.<font face="helvetica"> Sample text.
• Sample text.<font face="impact"> Sample text.
• Sample text.<font face="palatino"> Sample text.
• Sample text.<font face="times new roman"> Sample text.
• Sample text.<font face="trebuchet ms"> Sample text.
• Sample text.<font face="verdana"> Sample text.

• Sample text.<b>Sample text.
• Sample text.<big>Sample text.
• Sample text.<i>Sample text.
• Sample text.<small>Sample text.
• Sample text.<sub>_{Sample text.}
• Sample text.<sup>^{Sample text.}
• Sample text.<del>Sample text.
• Sample text.<ins>Sample text.
• Sample text.<code>Sample text.
• Sample text.<kbd>Sample text.
• Sample text.<samp>Sample text.
• Sample text.<tt>Sample text.
• Sample text.<var>Sample text.
• Sample text.<pre>

  Sample text.

• Sample text.<abbr>Sample text.
• Sample text.<blockquote>

  Sample text.

• Also, starting a sentence with a space produces this:

Sample text.

Unscintillating (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability noticeboard

We should create a notability noticeboard for discussing the notability of a topic before creating an article. I'm thinking someone could start a section with the subject as the section header, then give reasons why they feel it might be notable and discuss it. This could be useful for topics that barely meet WP:GNG or that might be a WP:BLP1E. If the topic is not notable, it saves the editor from the work creating the article. Ryan Vesey 00:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect such a noticeboard would just create extra bureaucracy and would likely degenerate into a preemptive WP:AfD and/or generate more heat than light. If someone isn't sure if an article is notable, they can always just find an editor and ask for their opinion. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't find it to be bureaucratic. It wouldn't be a requirement at all, it would be the same as Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions. In addition, it allows you to get more than one opinion on a matter and saves you from needing to pester another editor with notability questions. Ryan Vesey 00:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Who would be the ideal users of this? Established editors? Theopolisme :) 21:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I would think so, but new editors could use it as well. I came up with this idea because I was trying to decide whether to write an article on someone (who I won't bring up here so I don't derail the topic, you can talk to me on my talk page though) and I was only half sure he was notable. Nothing in the noticeboard would be meant to be binding either, if everyone said it wasn't notable and someone created the article anyways, it would still go through AfD and could possibly survive. Ryan Vesey 21:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean that we should have something like WP:Notability/Noticeboard, which was created in 2009 and linked to on several hundred pages, including {{Noticeboard links}}? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I could've sworn I looked for one. Well that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking of. Ryan Vesey 22:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? I'd forgotten about that one too. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Since we're talking about new articles only, isn't this the function of WP:AfC? SteveBaker (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really, because that requires someone to collect the references and write everything. AfC might save an article from AfD by not getting it published, but there can still be a lot of work that goes into it. Ryan Vesey 14:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:DRAW is intended to help with this and other issues, but it doesn't have huge participation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be watching that one as well. Ryan Vesey 19:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we can file the invisibility of this noticeboard under "This place is way too complicated". I probably wouldn't have known about it except that I happened to be hanging around the WP:N talk page at the time that it was created. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Notability is determined by a process that has been in place for some time. It is by consensus not by a few people who THINK they know what is and what is not Notable. Mugginsx (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Article improvement contest and user drive

I think we should have a large and very public improvement drive, and we should award prizes. It would be advertised on the main page, and it will be a contest to make Wikipedia the most comprehensive encyclopaedia in history.

The contest will have several different categories, inspired by the many different cleanup categories. Examples would be things like copy editing, stub improvement, article creation, image improvement, citation improvement, article rewrite ect. Awards would be given out the largest quantity of articles improved, as well as for the best improved articles.

Editors participating in the contest will keep a running track of their article list, and at the end of the contest the community determines the who have been the most accomplished. Editors in each category will be discussed in an AfD type structure, with administrators closing the contest and awarding the editors. I imagine there not being a first, second, third type structure, but awarded like levels of participation (basic, moderate, good, excellent) with a short-list of outstanding accomplishments highlighting specific editors.

I think this would be a great way for our community to get together and share what we are doing, as well as publicly recognising our personal accomplishments. Because let's face it, editing can often be a solo endeavour, it's nice when people notice the things you've done. Most editors see improving the wiki as a reward in itself, but in order to attract that next round of editors, I think we need a bit more than just that. I think this would not only engage and recognise our most talented editors, but also entice new editors to come aboard. The future of Wikipedia depends on it's community, because without the people it's nothing. A contest like this would turn the wiki from being a collection of articles to a community of editors. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiCup? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest is running right now. 64.40.54.3 (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia is already (by far) the most "comprehensive" encyclopedia the world has ever seen. But inviting people to win by the sheer number of edits sounds really dangerous. People might attempt to win by changing one word here and there in a gazillion articles - not improving them, but making them worse - or arguably, making no measurable improvement. Admittedly you say that the winners would be judged by some sort of admin oversight - but who would want to trawl through a hundred entries - each containing several thousand one-word changes, deciding which was the most worthy? I don't know what it takes to get a rapid influx of new editors - but I really don't think this is it. Something more prominent like a "HELP FIX ERRORS IN THIS ARTICLE!" button maybe? SteveBaker (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, yeah. Years later and I'm still cleaning up the OR from the mass of edits that a now-banned editor left behind. We need to focus on quality rather than quantity. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed this at least ten times. A Core Contest and Article of the Month Contest every month with Amazon voucher prizes. As for "Wikipedia is already (by far) the most "comprehensive" encyclopedia the world has ever seen" , true but in comparison to potential it is still a miniscule manuscript in the British Library and still very early days. Most articles I start turn up masses of red links.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that monthly contests would be best, it would keep competition fierce and editors engaged. As for existing contests, why are they virtually unheard of? Why aren't these advertised loudly on the main page, or even better, in the main stream media where it can reach a wide audience of new editors? What are the prizes for the WikiCup? How can we promote this to new users?

Maybe my specific concept of how the contest would run is not ideal. Quality is the goal, but there are some clean-up tasks that require quantity as well, and a scoring metric could be adapted to those kinds of tasks. I contend that the 'fakers' in a contest like this would be quickly spotted by the community; the people watchlisting the article will call them out on it, and they will be disqualified. I also think contestants would be easily graded, with a combination of the honour system and intuition.

I have heard that the rate of new editors joining is lower than the rate of old editors leaving. If this is the case, something has to be done to increase the amount of quality edits that show up, and real world prizes are a strong motivator. Ultimately I think the positive results from a highly publicised contest would be undeniable. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we need some exclusive barnstar T-shirts for the contest winners? That would make winning the contest at least interesting. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Concurring Essays and Dissenting Essays

This idea has been in my head for years, but I never got around to putting it forward. It was inspired by several essays which disagree (such as WP:INSPECTOR and WP:BUILDER). Sometimes we agree with an essay, but for different reasons, or disagree with essays. I believe it would be nice for authors to be able to easily mark which essays they are agreeing or disagreeing with. For this I suggest concurring and dissenting essay templates which, like concurring opinions and dissenting opinions, show support or dissent for various reasons. A mockup of the template for concurring essays can be found here though I am not sure if I put it together correctly. One such essay I recently put together can be found here. I would greatly appreciate feedback on this subject. ~ PonyToast...§ 19:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As an addendum, i realize that many essays already do this via cross-links. This would just offer a template specifically for this purpose, for those people who (like me) sometimes spend an afternoon reading Wikipedia essays. ~ PonyToast...§ 19:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays, and particularly the /Templates subpage. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Pierre de Coubertin

The paragraph entitled Criticism and its Controverses equivalent in the French article show significant disparities. The former addresses the scholarly misunderstanding of the ancient Games by Coubertin, while the later explores his unsavory political positions, notably his admiration for Hitler and ensuing glorification of the Nazi regime. I believe a translation of that paragraph would be a worthy addition to his English biography. Thank you. Président (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue for discussion on the article's talk page at talk:Pierre de Coubertin. Please start a discussion there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ask for an edit summary when rollback in used from watchlist

I've noticed a big difference in the way rollback acts between your watchlist and when viewing a diff. In the latter case, it asks for an edit summary and there is an 'ok' and 'cancel' button, effectively given you an opportunity to stop the rollback. The former does not provide this prompt - it just goes. Often this can lead to frustration, accusations, and general bad faith assumptions.

I don't figure this needs support of the community, but I figured its best to have this formal discussion just for future referencing.

I'd like to propose that:

• A) The watchlist rollback be adjusted to act like the diff rollback
• B) That both highlight 'cancel' by default in the prompt, providing another level of protection from misclicks or misenters.

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I just get "Rollback successful" either way - and that's the way I want it, if I'm using rollback I want to spend as little energy as possible reverting vandalism. Maybe you have a custom gadget or script running? Franamax (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You sure it's not undo that's giving you the change to 'stop' and add a summery? The whole point of rollback is that it's a one step action. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't noticed that. Are you confusing server rollback with Twinkle rollback? Let me run a quick test. Can someone make any old edit in my sandbox so I can revert it? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(Thanks, Franamax, for any old edit.) I'm not noticing a difference on server rollback. Twinkle rollback, however, presents an edit summary box when you click that one. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know about anyone else, but I've never intentionally used the rollback link from my watchlist. The times I've wanted raw rollback have all been from user contribution pages, for the vast majority of vandalism reversion I prefer at least a generic vandalism removal summary. That said, if someone is clicking on a an raw rollback link for some reason, it should respond the same everywhere, which by default is to roll back without further inquiry. What may be a good idea would be to educate editors about the .css code to remove rollback links from their watch lists, and maybe adding it to a preferences menu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monty845 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 19 August 2012‎

OpposeVandalism is pretty obvious. Can't imagine an edit summary needed for the stuff that I have rollbacked. I am very conservative about it but curses and filthy language do not need an explanation. Vandalism seems to explain it well enough. Actually it is self-explanatory.Mugginsx (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• You've sidestepped the issue being raised here. It's not about needing an edit summary to explain the rollback; it's about adding a prompt so that when you accidentally click rollback, you aren't rushing to revert yourself before getting mugged by the community.

• Oppose - I know LTA when I see it, even when just seeing it on my watchlist. Whenever an edit summary is needed, Rollback is not used, plain and simple.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  You've completely sidestepped the point here and likely voted based on the header of this section. In either case it needs to be removed from the watchlist. No rollback should be performed without checking an edit anyways, and all too often it bounces around as your watchlist loads and gets clicked on, instantly rolling back without any check. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but I also have to oppose that. I don't need annoying prompts wasting my time especially when I have LTA. If this becomes a feature it must allow an opt-out for me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rollback is designed as a tool for cleaning up clear and/or large-quantity abuse or vandalism. Adding the option for an edit summary changes the tool. If I need an edit summary, I just use the undo button if it's one edit to revert or the edit button from a comparative view to revert several edits at once, like I did here. —C.Fred (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  And if you don't notice that you accidentally clicked it, you're chastised. I know it is designed for vandalism, but its placement at the end of an entry in the watchlist makes it very susceptible to moving around as the page loads. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Decided to voice a formal oppose. Server rollback is designed to be a quck, one-step action. That's why it's only supposed to be used in certain ways, and is only given to trustworthy editors who ask for it. If you would like the option of adding an edit summary, use Twinkle instead, which can perform more or less the same way (albeit implemented slightly differently) or undoing the edit manually. In response to the watchlist concerns above, there do exist cases where rolling back directly from the watchlist is acceptable, such as obviously vandalistic edits like page blanking or repeated vandalistic edits from the same editor. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As I noted in my testing above, the rollback button in your watchlist functions identically to the rollback button in a diff, so I'm also not entirely sure what you're intending this proposal to address, either. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the Twinkle one is the one that does it properly. Again, if you aren't checking the edit, you shouldn't be rolling back - Why does it exist on the watchlist? The point, again, is not about wanting to add an edit summary, but to not have a series of edits performed without even a simple "You are about to rollback X edits. Continue?". Perhaps I'd like an opt-in to the link on the watchlist... - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You're kind of missing the whole point of rollback, though - it's designed to be used in situations where speed is more important than leaving an edit summary and explaining yourself. This has been well established by years of consensus to be an acceptable response to certain edits. By prompting the user to leave an edit summary, you essentially turn it into the undo button, which defeats the purpose of its existence. (Also, just a helpful reminder to you, you can hide the rollback button from appearing on your watchlist by adding .page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none;​} to your vector.css page.) elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of "Featured" to differentiate icon with quality-level

Okay, now before the vultures start attacking, here's my reasoning:

Sorry.... in retrospect that was rather a strong opening, and I am sorry if anyone took offense to it. This proposal was not created to rustle anyone's feathers, and I hope is not seen as some random outsider trying to come in from nowhere and try to dictate how the Featured projects should be run. My aim was to bring up a healthy discussion on a topic that I don't think has ever been brought up before. Something that I have personally found to be a major pet peeve and wanted to gauge the public opinion surrounding this issue to, indeed, work out of it is an issue at all. My reasoning is below.

• "Featured" implies that the article has achieved this status by being prominently place somewhere (in Wikipedia's case, on the main page).
• There may be some vague link between exceptional article quality and an article being featured on the main page, but without anything like "our best work" above the FA text on the main page, we cannot assume our readers will pick up on this. They may very well assume it to be 'another' DYK that just got picked out from the bunch.
• It certainly was a huge shock to me when I found out that you could have articles at 'featured article status' that had never been featured on the main page - because FA is actually a level of article quality, not a symbol of being featured on the main page
• [If I am wrong up to this point, please let me know. This is what I understand after some investigation into the matter]
• So, I suggest we rename the featured article status to, for example, "great article" or "excellent article", or "best article" or something like that to then make it obvious that we are talking about levels of quality here.
• Then when the star is added, it is simply a badge of honour to recognise that the article has also been featured on the main page at least once throughout its lifetime.
• One consequence of this decision would be that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates will be renamed to Wikipedia:________ article candidates. Perhaps a new forum, specifically designed for setting up a calender for FAs of the day can be set up. Perhaps one is already set up that I don't know about) Then TFA can pretty much stay as is.

This is here to spark intelligent debate over this matter. Please do not shut it down with a policy shortcut, or with an attitude of "its too hard" or "its too complicated" etc. (without a proper argument to support your view)

I look forward to this discussion with you.--Coin945 (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Support (being my proposal and all.. :D)--Coin945 (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support You'd be surprised how many people think Today's Featured Article is selected by random; hence my labelling it "Best of Wikipedia" in my Main Page redesign. — Pretzels ^Hii! 06:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but only if a better name can be found. I agree that "Featured" is not optimal, but so far have not seen a better alternative suggested. Oppose objections based on traditional usage, there is enough inertia on Wikipedia without institutionalising it. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do any of the suggestions before tickle your fancy?--Coin945 (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Exemplary is the best so far, as suggesting that the article is a good example to be followed, but I am not convinced that it is much better than Featured. Most of the others are over the top. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support at least discussing the idea, and my suggestion would be something like exceptional, as that meaning accurately describes such articles as both "rare" and "superior". —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly support Renaming - I'd be fine with "Article of quality" or "Quality article", based directly from the term already used by assessment. I'd also be fine with "exceptional" or even "noteworthy" as well. I strongly oppose words like "good/better/best/great/excellent/top/awesome/supreme/perfect/etc." as too subjective, and giving too much the impression of finality or being completed/"done". - jc37 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please mind that the term Quality article is already used with a different meaning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I find the adjective featured to be a misnomer. The articles are not noted for their prominence, but rather their quality. I'd be in favor of a high quality/quality for FA/GA or calling these exemplary articles, which is what they truly are.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  Exemplary is a great word. I'd support that. - jc37 03:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  Theoretically, if we rename featured to exemplary, and then rename start to D level, then we can have the ABCDEFG - or Alphabet quality system (A, B, C, D, Exemplary, Featured, Good) - sounds rather catchy! :D--Coin945 (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Weakly support renaming to something along the lines of either "Valued" or "Quality" for GA, and "Prime" for FA. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 22:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support exceptional or anything else. I have been previously troubled by the word featured. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I like "Top article" "and "Premium article" best of all. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose – I'm just not seeing a problem with the use of the word 'Featured'. In part it's preferable for being a relative term, rather than an absolute like "Great" or "Excellent". For the latter form to be meaningful, you really need to hold a review by a body that is independent of Wikipedia. Sorry. RJH (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  Per the Wiktionary, the verb 'feature' means to "ascribe the greatest importance to something within a certain context". Kind of what we're doing. Front page appearance is an additional outcome that many editors seem to appreciate; not everybody does, however. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  I understand the prestige that comes with having your article on the main page. My point is that if nobody understands that your page has been chosen because of its exceptional quality, then it's a bit of a waste. I think this is a two-pronged attack. Rename FA to something else to differentiate being top-notch quality and being featured on the main page, and then make it clear that we only "feature" something on the main page if it is top-notch quality. The consequence of this is that we will also be able to feature good article (I rememeber reading a discussion about this somewhere - people wanting to allow Good Articles to be featured on the main page).--Coin945 (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Featured articles have always (or basically always) been around here. I mean, the whole process (criteria, FAC, FAR, etc), not the articles themselves. A change like this would break a very long standing tradition, and would force to rename or modify hundreds of pages, along with interwikis, and to fix several templates to keep it all working... and for which gain? If a change gives more problems than solutions, or give big problems while not solving anyone (we may like it, or not, or just take it as it is, but there's not really a "problem" with the current name), then it's better to be conservative. There's no need to change for the mere sake of changing. Cambalachero (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Agree with the concerns by Cambalachero, a change would break a long standing tradition and could force the rename or modify several pages and fix several templates. As such, there's no need to change it just for the sake of changing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - a traditional name - fitting or not - is THE NAME. Perhaps explain what it means more often, - I remember that it came up when I was welcomed to Wikipedia and I had NO IDEA what that meant, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  I disagree... I don't like the idea of sticking with a bad idea just because of traditional reasons. It's a very outdated idea. I thought that in the 21st century, we'd decided that if we hind a better solution to a problem, the only logical choice would be to switch. Isn't that what evolution is? Resistance to change due to tradition is a very silly idea imo. --Coin945 (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  "Very silly idea", a featured phrase! You got me wrong: I am not against changing structures and procedures, rather the opposite ;) But why change a name? Would you change yours to Bill because Coin might seem too small? Of the suggestions below, I don't prefer any to what we have. "Great article" would share GA with Good article, not a great idea. - Did you ask the people who run FA and TFA what they think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  The main point of the proposal was to gauge the public opinion, before we went ahead with something bigger. However, you are right. It probably is time to link the FA and TFA pages here since there seems to be some momentum.--Coin945 (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ps: "featured" is more neutral than the alternative suggestions, FAs are of different quality, some 6-year-old ones would not meet today's high standards --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  Just on that last point, how would it be any different to the rest of the naming system? Good article - what does that even mean...? If we were trying to creating a new type of article called good article here in 2012, the entire discussion would be filled up with arguments of "how do you define good" etc. Featured may be a more neutral word, but it is completely misleading and frankly, very confusing. And the last part of your sentence proves my point exactly. Yes, articles that have been featured on the main page, both past and rpesent, are of very different qualities. This way having a featured article star does not insinuate any sort of quality, but instead merely points out that the article has been featured on the main page.--Coin945 (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (unless I see a really good alternative). Not something I'd thought was a problem. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do any of the suggestions before tickle your fancy?--Coin945 (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not so far "quality" is a bit general, "exemplary" somewhat esoteric....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. All the supporting arguments so far would apply equally to renaming the Olympic medals. There's nothing actually "golden" about a 1st place finish. Renaming the Olympic medals would be a bad idea, for the obvious reasons, and those reasons apply equally to the idea of renaming any Featured content. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose this is pain for no gain. Per RJH (above), the word "featured" is perfectly cromulant here. An article is "featured" on the Wikipedia:Featured articles page. A subset of FA's become TFA's (Today's Featured Article) which are on the front page - and that process often involves what amounts to another review stage (over and above WP:FA) at WP:TFAR. I agree that it used to be that every FA wound up being TFA - but since the rate of FA creation is now slightly more than one per day - that's no longer possible. But the articles are all featured somewhere - so the name is still applicable. Going through and renaming every occurrence of "FA" to whatever this proposal would require is an arduous and unnecessary task. There are better things for busy people to be doing than this. SteveBaker (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Our Featured Articles are now well established and have a strong tradition. Graham Colm (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term "Featured Article" is ingrained within the Wikipedia community. It should not be renamed unless there is a very good reason to change it. I'll admit, it's a little vague, but changing it now could confuse new users even more. I may change my mind if someone suggests an exceptionally brilliant replacement.--SGCM (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose—FAs are featured on Wikipedia:Featured articles, which is prominently linked from the bottom of the TFA space on the Main Page. Any renaming of FAs would also have to include the Featured Lists, Featured Topics, Featured Pictures, Featured Sounds and Featured Portals, all of which are featured in their own places of honor, and only some of which are included on the Main Page. You can't discuss renaming one of the six types of Featured Content without equally discussing them all. Imzadi 1979 → 22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  Why don't we feature them all on the main page though?--Coin945 (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  There was consensus to add Featured Sounds to the Main Page when Features Lists were added. However, the FS process has shut down. There has never been a proposal that's gained consensus to add the Featured Topics or Featured Portals to the Main Page.

  Then, perhaps that is where we should be heading as well. Especially considering that newbies (sorry, I extrapolate from my own personal experiences), have no idea what either are, and will feature much "featured" content that never gets the recognition is deserves.... e.g. what are featured topic creators aimng for? Self-satisfation? Working to complete a Wikiproject task force? NO reward at the end of all their hard work? Why not a main page spot?!! :D--Coin945 (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  Again though, "Featured" in this context doesn't mean "Featured on the Main Page"; all of the types of Featured Content are listed on their corresponding lists, featuring them there instead. Imzadi 1979 → 06:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why, please?--Coin945 (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it is an established name with recognition and a long history, used across 6 projects (Featured pics, etc). Because it would be a ton of work, and for what? Because you don't care for the name. I'm not seeing the point, frankly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• oppose renaming established name works fine and I see no need to make a change as per KillerChihuahua. Dlohcierekim 04:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal is far from convincing.Hillabear10 (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no name that would accurately convey exactly what an FA is, and there is no reason to change from a word that a lot of people understand. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless someone comes up with a really good alternative. The OP and the people supporting this don't seem to understand what Featured Articles actually are. FAs aren't of "exceptional article quality"; aren't "the best of Wikipedia"; aren't "exemplary"; aren't "noteworthy"; aren't "prime". The FA process measures only whether an article complies with Wikipedia's arbitrary set of style guidelines, provides a reasonably comprehensive view of the topic, and is fully and accurately cited. There are some articles which undoubtedly meet the FA criteria but couldn't possibly be described as "Wikipedia's best work" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5); there are a lot more articles which are of superb quality but will never meet the FA criteria. (FA criterion 1c—"a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"—excludes a large number of topics from making it to FA, just because they've been the topic of so much coverage it's impossible to thoroughly cover it; see Nature, James I of Scotland and Roman Republic as just a few of hundreds of examples.) – iridescent 12:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though you said "FAs ... aren't 'the best of Wikipedia'", you linked to WP:WIAFA, which states quite clearly, "A featured article exemplifies our very best work". You are either discussing policies that are foreign to you or ... something else. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The current name has served us fine for years and doesn't seem to confuse most readers or editors. To me it also sounds more refined than the proposed alternatives. Furthermore, the FAs are chosen to be singled out (for excellence) by a process--in that sense featuring or featured are not misnomers at all. wctaiwan (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment. Going through the edit history of Wikipedia:Featured article, it seems that featured articles were previously called "Brilliant Prose Articles", and were renamed Featured Articles in 2004. The more you know!--SGCM (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you know why they were renamed featured article in the first place?--Coin945 (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, it was due to the plan of featuring them on the main page, combined with the sense that "Brilliant prose" sounded a bit self-complimentary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, the criteria were expanded to focus on more than just prose quality. Now FAs are checked for compliance with the MOS, image use policy, sourcing, quality of sources, comprehensiveness of content, and other items, not just the quality of the writing. Imzadi 1979 → 22:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh that makes sense. Yes, that does sound rather self-complimentary. I understand why the old name was change, and even to some degree why it was changed to that specifically (there was a plan to feature wiki's best work on the main page, ergo featured ~ best). I am still convinced that this has been a pet peeve for many editors for ages, and it should be rectified.--Coin945 (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The actual renaming

Possible replacement names for featured article (please place your own suggestions here too):

1. Exemplary article
2. Great article - (logical progression after "good")
3. Excellent article - (logical progression after "good")
4. Exceptional article - (describes articles as both "rare" and "superior" - as Torchiest said :D)
5. Best article - (identifying these article as the best that Wikipedia has to offer)
6. Quality article - (these articles are of an exceptionally high quality)
7. Perfect article - (fits all the criteria that a "perfect" Wikipedia article should have)
8. Top article - (at the very top of the quality table)
9. Fine article
10. First-class article
11. Prime article
12. Premium article
13. Supreme article
14. Super article

• Taking the proposition further, for a replacement name I would probably go for Best article, as the page on Featured article criteria says: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing". In Pretzel's main page redesign, he renamed "Featured Article" to "Best of Wikipedia". It states what these articles are clearly and concisely. I think this would be a good way to go.--Coin945 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Exemplary/Exceptional sound like the favourite choices in the discussion above.--Coin945 (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

They are no examples, they should not be exceptions, - keep it simple, keep "featured" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See my comment above. You don't seem to understand what a Featured Article actually is. The process does not measure "excellence", let alone declare articles to be "exceptional"; it measures only whether an article fully complies with Wikipedia's style and sourcing standards, and thus (hopefully) won't embarrass Wikipedia if it's featured (hence the name) on the main page. – iridescent 13:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any replacement for the current name. Leave it as it is. Imzadi 1979 → 06:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – Assigning a superlative like Supreme article or even Exceptional article to a page is a sure-fire way for Wikipedia to lose credibility. It darn well better have won a Pulitzer prize first. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Some historical context

Just to give us some idea of the history of the article-quality titles, so we get a better understanding of what we're dealing with here, can someone explain how we ended up with a quality-control system that consists of both letters (in a school-grade system) like A, B and C & then also words like start, stub, good, and featured? It seems like a really confused system. Also, on a side note, I don't understand the purpose of A (at least anymore). The logical progression always seems to go stub --> start --> c --> b --> good --> featured. I just saw an article that was both at A level and a Good article, and that got be wondering: what does good article even mean....? --Coin945 (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The standard explanation, in brief: A, B, C (and start) are project-based ratings, FA and GA are community-based ratings. One project may rate a article B-class for decent coverage of content related to the project topic, while another project may consider it C or start for minimal coverage of its project topic (not all projects use C ratings, which were a later addition). It's not uncommon for one aspect of a topic to be better covered than other aspects, leading to different project ratings. FA and GA are not reviews within a topic area, so reflect somewhat broader reviews of overall content, writing, image use, and so on. If an article has been approved by a project's A-class review and also the community GA review, both will appear on the talk page. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Most wikiprojects do not actually use the A rating, preferring to count anything below good status as B. (C was actually introduced only comparatively recently, as something between B class and Start class.) One good example of a project which does still use the A class is the military history project, who place A class as somewhere between GA and FA, requiring an FA-style assessment. As another historical note, in case no one else has mentioned it, you may be interested to know that the "featured articles" project was preceded by a system called "brilliant prose". This is back in Wikipedia's earliest days. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Highways Project has its own A-Class Review (used primarily by the U.S. Roads and Canada Roads projects) that also operates as FAC-light to assess articles as above GA and below or ready to be nominated for FA. Our ACR requires that an article be a GA before review as well, so M-553 (Michigan highway) is both a Good Article (it's listed on WP:GA), and an A-Class article (it was reviewed at WP:HWY/ACR). That just means it's a Good Article that is no longer at GA-Class, again that's possible because GA status and GA-Class are technically distinct. (see below).

The Stub-Class is an analog to the stub-sorting project, and typically it's reserved for short or unorganized articles. Start-Class is the next level up in terms of content and organization; I liken it to being the start of a decent article. That's followed by C, B, GA-Class (technically distinct from GA), A-Class and FA-Class (also technically distinct from FA). A project doesn't have to award GA-Class to an article listed as a GA; in fact USRD has had a few examples where a GA failed to meet the project's B-Class criteria, even though it was awarded GA status, so the article would have been both a C-Class and a GA before they were improved. Imzadi 1979 → 22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Huhhhhh..... wow... I finally get it now.. :D Thankyou for all your wonderful insight. Your insights into the article quality system on wikipedia have enlightened me, and I'm sure many others as well. (BTW, why aren't there Wiki page on the history of different aspects of Wikipedia, such as this, or AFD, or talk pages etc... now, THAT, i would love to read). :D I think the question that must be asked next (considering that the main argument is: "is all that hard work worth a name", I want to explore how confusing that one name is to people. It may seem trivial, but it's those trivial things that annoy/confuse/agitate people a bit, each time they come into contact with them, but they come into contact with them constantly! (like a fly buzzing passed your face that you have to swat away --> little effort + frequent = very annoying). If the title can be changed once, it surely can be changed again. I want to know why the title got changed from "brilliant prose" to "featured article" int he first place. Perhaps the knowledge behind this change this will either strengthen my argument, or alternatively put another nail in the coffin. Do any of you know the answer to this?--Coin945 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Plus, Imzadi1979 if what you say is true, and that GA-Class is technically distinct from GA, and FA-Class is technically distinct from FA, don't you find this very confusing? In an age (at least this is how I understand it) where we are trying to reposition Wikipedia as being a brand open and accepting of newbies/the non-editor to reel them in (new main page, WYSIWYG editing etc., should we try to make things as easy as possible for them?--Coin945 (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

On what you were saying about "Liken[ing start-class] to being the start of a decent article", I think in 2012 this is wrong in regards to Wikipedia articles. Perhaps in the past one sentence articles would suffice as stubs, but nowadays they get deleted within an instant (I disagree with this sentiment, but, wadaya gonna do..). Nowadays, what you describe as a start article, I would liken much more to a stub article - the only way a stub article can survive Special:Newpages is for it to be what would've passed for a start-class article 6 years ago. Perhaps start-class is obsolete. Perhaps it is misnamed. We need to realise that these traditions have stayed here for so long while time has moved on. Technology has moved on. And most importantly, WE have moved on. We need to change the structure of our site to keep up with the way Wikipedia works in 2012.--Coin945 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it confusing that GA status and GA-Class assessment are separate. One is a status awarded by a community-based review process, and the other is a WikiProject-level assessment. Take, for example, a hypothetical article on a highway in Wisconsin. It's tagged by the USRD project and the Wisconsin project. Let's assume that someone took it to GAN, and it passed. Now it's a Good Article and it's been reassessed as GA-Class because both projects make that status equivalent to that assessment. OK, now the article is reviewed at ACR for USRD and promoted. Because the Wisconsin project wouldn't necessarily have to honor our ACR, the article would be A-Class for USRD and GA-Class for WI, but it's still listed on WP:GA because it's still a Good Article. A-Class doesn't change the little green icon on the article, nor does it remove the article from the WP:GA list.

For another example, Prairie Avenue would have once been tagged for USRD before the US Streets project was formed. (USRD deals with state highways, not city streets). It's a FA, but if it were still tagged for USRD, it would fall as a Start-Class article on our assessment scheme. (It's missing a junction list, which USRD requires in addition to a route description and a history section for C- or B-Class assessments.) The assessment classes are distinct from any status awarded through the community review processes. Imzadi 1979 → 22:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what you have just described is actually very confusing and counter-intuitive to me. I understand the argument that articles can be part of different wikiprojects, which all have different criteria for different quality-levels but:

• I thought over time the separate ways of analysing article quality (in different wikprojects etc.) had all been merged into one - thereby standardising how article quality is seen throughout Wikipedia

• I think an article is only as good as its lowest quality-level. If you have a featured article that is stil considered a start-class article in the USRD rating system, what that says to me is that the article doesn't have all it's supposed to have after all, and that the article should lose its FA status. An FA article should have addressed all the FA criteria for the various Wikiprojects that make it up. Therefore it just doesn't make sense to me that you can have an FA article while the Wikiprojects rate it as something less.... *confused face*.--Coin945 (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Think of it this way. A Good Article usually means GA-Class, and a Featured Article usually means FA-Class but there will be exceptions. WP:MILHIST once assessed its Featured Lists as FA-Class because the project didn't use FL-Class. Yes, the classes usually line up with the community ratings from GA/FA/FL, but there is no requirement that they do so. Some projects use non-standard classes, there is a B+ rating in use by some projects that's above B-Class, and MILHIST has CL-, BL- and AL-Class for lists. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment.) Featured Pictures and Featured Sounds can be assessed as FM-Class (Featured Media) instead of just File-Class for projects that care to make the distinction, but some projects don't assess files at all. So no, there hasn't been full standardization, and they're probably won't be for quite a while, if ever. Imzadi 1979 → 10:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... then perhaps standardisation is where we should be heading instead on this rename. I've always thought it weird that we have all this quality levels for articles but only 2 for lists. Why don't we follow WP:MILHIST's lead and get these to be the norm?--Coin945 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal - consider review of all A-class for merger into GA or FA (pending GAN or FAC)

• Actually, I would support a reorganization of GA, A-class ranking and FA-class - as above - we review all A-class articles and maybe rename 'GA' to 'A' - or just leave A out all together...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The community at large cannot enforce this upon WikiProjects that choose to conduct their own A-class reviews. A proposal like this must be made at those projects, individually. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A-Class, IMHO, is a step between GA and FA, a chance to get extra reviewer input to say it's better than "Good" even if it's not "Featured" level yet. Since there isn't a community-based process, and only WikiProject-level processes, I don't think a discussion here could tell a WikiProject it has to stop using A-Class. Also, there is a fair gulf between the requirements of the GA and FA criteria, and A-Class recognizes that an article fits in between those two levels. Imzadi 1979 → 23:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm.. i dunno. Getting rid of GA would be a good idea. If we're arguing about how valid article quality terms are, "good" is about as vague as you can get. It is a real bitch that we'd have to get every. single. wikiproject to take up the new system... I wonder if theres a way to standardise the way article quality is done around here... It's been 10 years, and I think we've moved past the 'lets just plow right ahead with our own approaches, and tackle those bridges when we come to them' stage. Btw, as I said above, I've always thoguht it weird that we only have 2 quality levels for lists. Why havent we changed that al;ready. All we have to do is have a list level to match every article level. They wont have the same criteria, of course, but it seems like a pretty jolly idea, doesn't it? :D--Coin945 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

I think we should close Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance.

Wikiquette alerts is a noticeboard made to resolve problems about civility and Wikiquette. Right now, it's a noticeboard to vent at each other and the problem is not resolved (yes, in some cases it works but in the grand majority...). A lot of the disputes get referred to other noticeboards (which is not good), and the newcomers always receive a boomerang effect and leave unhappy. I've used WQA before, and that did not work well, with the other party leaving Wikipedia.

The hiarchy is currently "Talk page -> WQA -> AN/I -> RfC/U -> ArbCom. If a dispute is not resolved through the talk page, it does not have much chance at WQA, and AN/I should be able to handle civility complaints (and it already does). In brief, WQA is failing and is just a place to vent and kill each-other. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: WQA will not be automatically redirected to ANI. Please see this comment and the below discussions, along with the survey and statistical analysis which were reasons for this proposal, before commenting, and an alternate proposal currently being developed to take over some of the functions of WQA (WP:Sanity checks). Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, there is no actual bar on redirecting WQA to ANI, is there? Formerip (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, but it'd make more sense to mark it historical and do a short write-up of alternatives, in my opinion. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep-Improve I have found it useful for starting a case against a couple of obnoxious sock puppets (possibly the same one, now that I think of it). I have found twice that hostile admins fare better there than mere hoi poli editors who lose patience with them. (It's also fun to be taken there and prove that the person who brought you is really the hostile one :-) Nevertheless, I do think it's good to have a place to go to deal with constant, insidious low level sexist/racist/homophobic/ethnicphobic/etc. comments that don't quite make it to WP:Ani level. Something hostile editors have to think about and some may even learn from. Maybe Dispute Resolution Wikiproject should take firmer control of it to improve it, assuming it's not in charge already. Does it need more structured formatting for initial complaints, etc. CarolMooreDC 13:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on original proposal

I would support a close of WQA, and I think there's clear data that shows the need. In my work as a fellow, WQA was one forum that I did research on, and the results were quite poor. In the survey I ran, only 8% of participants felt that WQA was an effective process for resolving disputes, and this was reflected in my analysis of disputes for the month of May - 21.4% of disputes were resolved as a result of WQA - a majority of the other disputes went unresolved because the participants continued to bicker at WQA. Closing WQA is not a new idea - it has been proposed for deletion three times, and discussed elsewhere numerous times. Those that favour keeping WQA open state that it serves a useful function - conduct disputes that do not require admin intervention can be addressed there. That may be the case, but a majority of the time the discussion will end up with parties at each others throats. This doesn't do much to resolve a dispute - and I think we can do without it. I don't think there's a real need to replace WQA with anything - this month WQA saw 14 disputes, and in May only 17. Some may say that this amount of threads creates little impact and therefore makes it harmless - I disagree, as does the numbers. I therefore think we should mark WQA historical, and encourage hashing out issues on a user talk page - if this is ineffective at resolving the issue it can either be dealt with at ANI, or at a user conduct RFC. Once this change is made, it's up to us to encourage social change - close frivolous threads. But this is needed. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also support the closure of WQA. I have never been involved in WQA, but I found the discussions there quite poor. I also agree with the concerns posted by Stephen Zhang: we should make this historical and encourage hashing out issues at user talk pages. However, if this proves to be ineffective at resolving the issue, it can be dealt with at ANI or at a user conduct RFC. In any case, this closing is needed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I though I made it clear in the "hiarchy" "Talk page -> WQA -> AN/I -> RfC/U -> ArbCom", so without WQA, it would go to the next. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We need to keep things flexible. It's very clear in my mind that WQA should be closed - how we deal with issues that are sent to WQA is another matter that we need to discuss. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support closing WQA as well. It's a step in the dispute resolution chain that seldom produces meaningful results. If there are a few cases where WQA is actually effective, I think we can incorporate that into a new process, or maybe even an existing one. If people are nervous about closing it down, I'd be okay with making it a "conditional close", pending some other decision about where to re-route the current WQA complaints. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support: the underlying idea of WQA is flawed — conduct disputes are dealt more efficiently with hammer in hand, so that consequences are more evident. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the hierarchy: I would propose to simply cut it to "Talk page -> AN/I -> ArbCom", concentrating the WQA and RFC/U functionality at AN/I. The influx of "freed" Wikipedians would help to make the AN/I a solid first instance, capable of cutting off the traffic to ArbCom in most cases. Though indeed it is a separate discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Having just become aware of this board as a result of being one of the infamous threesome at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#An_Uncivil_Threesome, I cannot for the life of me see what useful function WQA is performing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• The idea is to try to resolve problems without admin intervention. Does it work? Usually not, but sometimes it does. Deleting this page won't change the total wikidrama at all, just move it, most likely to ANI. Better a newbie wander into WQA with Editor X deleted my post off their talk page then post that to the shark tank ANI. Consider this example where a thread was [12] closed with that rude "shut up" tag -- does that stop anything? Nope, problem just goes to ANI. Less disruptive to let users talk it out on a lower traffic board. On an environment that (allegedly) prides itself on not bureaucracy there really ought to be a mostly free form, non bureaucratic place for users to vent and feel supported. We're kind of a screwy place and it's easy for new editors to end up feeling miffed, and WQA provides a place for them to go. The usual sequence is not WQA->ANI etc. It's WQA-> (users eventually figure out they're not going to get the other guy "punished" and the need to figure out how to get along.) Nobody Ent 01:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, well, that does sound like a useful function. I don't intend to cast a !vote one way or another, but I suppose if enough editors see it the way you do, and are willing to devote time to such an activity, no harm done. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• If we only closed WQA and did nothing, I'd completely agree with you - the disputes would simply roll over to ANI and nothing would be achieved. But we need to encourage social change - I don't disagree that it will be hard to achieve, but we need to work together on it. Closing WQA is a first step - we then need to rewrite WP:DR to include more self-help info - encourage hashing out disputes on a talk page. If that's unsuccessful, then AN can assist. I acknowledge the work done by those at WQA, but I think we need to rethink how things are done, and closing WQA in my mind is a step in the right direction. Let's close it for a month and see how things go. If things get out of control we can always reassess the situation. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: funny I favor a keeping a board that I frequently ridicule. But believe it or not I have been in disputes where the threat of dragging someone to WQA resolved the situtation. IMO all WQA needs is for volunteers to issue stern warnings, and inform violators that continued misbehavior will result in a perp walk to ANI.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 02:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Would discussing the issue on a user talk page not work the same way, with the knowledge that it could be taken to AN or ANI if necessary function just as well? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Seems like the threat of escalation is still there - it's just AN/I or an RfC rather than a WQA. I agree that WQA might hypothetically work if plenty of active volunteers patrolled it and made a point of intervening in every discussion - but that doesn't happen much in practice - so it's really an empty threat: "If you can't agree in our discussion here on the talk page, I'll take it to WQA and we'll talk about it there instead."...Meh. SteveBaker (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support I have always been a proponent of shutting down WQA --Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support closing Only on Wikipedia would we have thought it a good idea to have a bureaucracy/public embarrassment forum for bad etiquette. Gigs (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's obviously not working - and it is quite possibly fanning the flames in some disputes. RfC seems to be a more effective mechanism. SteveBaker (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nobody Ent has pointed out the way that WQA has been helpful in its way. I think it's a matter of not having overly high expectations. If you don't find it productive (and once you become an experienced editor you probably won't find it productive), then no one forces you to go to it to initiate anything. And I think it's telling that the opening proposal actually uses an outdated name for the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Fixed: [13]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As far as I can tell, WQA almost never works. I wish we could come up with a lightweight process devoted to handling interpersonal disputes that actually worked, but with herding cats as hard as it is, I'm not sure what such a process would look like. I suspect it would have to be supplied with sharp teeth to be useful in actually resolving things, and, well, if we're going to send people to a board with teeth, we might as well just direct them to ANI and see how that works out. I would very much be open to a proposal for a new, toothful interpersonal-dispute process if it turns out after the close of WQA that these sorts of disputes aren't handled well by the rest of the DR chain (talk, RfC/U, ANI...). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The community tried sending the issue of Civility Enforcement to The Council Of The Biggest Teeth. When we got was:

Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

You can't actually enforce civility because everyone agrees that we should be civil, but no one agrees what that means. Nobody Ent 19:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. too retrospective and blaming, needs to be more about finding solutions not highlighting problems. The number of dispute resolution places needs to be streamlined. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support closure. Take for instance the current revision: none of the six threads has improved matters, and one or two seem to have actually increased the drama. Looking through the archives this state of affairs doesn't seem to be at all uncommon. Nobody Ent raises some valid points about occasions on which the board does fulfil a useful role, but the balance of evidence suggests that Casliber's "too retrospective and blaming" is an accurate assessment. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support The cost/benefit ratio seems to be unfavorable. I suspect that the rare instances in which a good outcome results would have had a good outcome anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - sigh, unfortunate. I agree that IRL having a mediated place for individuals to "get it out", and to try to helpfully nudge editors who may be in contention towards collegiate wikiquette seems like a good thing. However, I'm not sure of its direct effectiveness in a typewritten environment that isn't in "real time". Seems like this has mostly devolved into each person taking their time to figure out how to better "get" the "other guy", and push their "side". So all this seems to be doing is moving a discussion thread, than actually doing any more resolving than can be done on any talk page. All that said, I think it would be great if editors who are regular helpers there, would write up a helpful guidance page based upon what they have currently learned while helping there, so to help others in future such situations. - jc37 18:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong strong oppose - AN/I is for administrative actions that need to be used (blocking, etc.) If someone crosses etiquette, that is by no means a reason to require admin action. If you have a dispute with a user, WQA needs to be the first place to go, and failing that, RFC/U, and failing that, Arbcom. Admin action is only needed if the person is or remains disruptive. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • WQA is not the only way to stop such issues going to ANI. There's no point keeping it just because we can't be bothered to try alternatives. Rd232 ^talk 19:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Inasmuch as "wikiquette" refers to being civil to one another - and that seems to be the crux of most issues WQA handles - it is an administrative matter if it's intractable. WP:CIV is a policy and a pillar, and editors who habitually break policies and pillars are quite likely to find themselves on the losing end of a block, topic-ban, or other administrator(s)-imposed sanction. If your point is that going to ANI for a first instance of incivility is overkill, I'll agree, but I disagree with the general notion that ANI can't handle civility concerns. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I disagree on both points. We do not want people running to ANI because for playground-type annoyances. It already gets bogged down in petty events already and definitely should not be encouraged as the first point of dispute resolution after trying a talk page approach. But more importantly, ANI is specifically needed when admin tools are required. Most situations that go to WQA do not require admin but simply words of caution. If ANI starts taking up too much of these, I can pretty much assure that there will be enough spite by admins having to take up this task that all parties involved in disputes may simply find themselves blocked if the issue is petty enough. There's a reason why we have ArbCom at the top of this chain, they're people that the community believe can best help resolve behavioral problems, not admins. WQA, even if the arguments turn sour, works as a page to expose more editors to such issues and seek some type of resolve and if that or the non-binding RFC/U fails, then maybe admins should be in play. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • "[A]ll parties involved in disputes may simply find themselves blocked if the issue is petty enough" sounds more like a solution then like a problem to me. I believe Wikipedia should become more generous on short-term blocks in case of conduct policies' violations. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • ...up until you find yourself blocked along with an IP because the IP didn't like you took off the fact that "Justin Beiber is the best ever!" off an article about Abraham Lincoln and told you out on ANI. Yes, I would really really really really hope admins don't jump on a situation in that manner, but if ANI becomes overloaded with petty cases, the admins will become jaded and intolerable of any minor struggle. Certainly experienced editors will become upset at enforcement like this, and I can only imagine what newer editors would think The rigors of WQA act as a buffering point to prevent ANI from dealing with petty arguments that have no place on ANI. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
          • FWIW, WQA won't redirect to ANI...other measures are being put into place (maybe some form of conduct third opinion, see WP:SANITY), but redirecting to ANI - not happening. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 15:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
          • On Fluffernutter's first point, it disturbs me that you, Masem, think admins should not block editors for recalcitrant invivility, and that only ArbCom should police that pillar. ArbCom, in Nobody Ent's quote above, seems to be complaining that the admin corps isn't doing it or doing it well. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I don't think it can be reformed, and the only way to do any better is to get rid of it. I would strongly suggest not sending people to ANI instead though - taking people away from there was one of the few virtues it had. Wikipedia:Third opinion or similar might be a better alternative - a lot of the problem with WQA was mixing up civility issues with content disputes, and 3O allows volunteers more flexibility to provide input on both, whilst focussing on the core of the dispute and not trying to litigate blame unnecessarily. A bit of "that wasn't nice/helpful, but let's move on and focus on the core of the dispute, which seems to be..." is often what's needed, when it isn't simply some clarification about policy etc. Rd232 ^talk 19:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, it is about time. Experience shows that essentially nothing ever gets resolved at WQA anyway and I don't see evidence that WQA discussions actually reduce drama and incivility. Nsk92 (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support yes please, burn it with fire, plow and sow its fields with salt. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Tentative support I have never seen it achieve anything. It was a brave and well-intentioned initiative, but I think it has irredeemably failed. --John (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Tentative support It seems like many people tend to skip it anyway, and head straight to ANI with civility issues. I will note that incivility is sadly still a significant problem, and as such I'm worried that this may result in a flood of minor disputes being left unresolved and simmering, or heading to ANI while too small for action. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Currently WQA serves to delay cases being heard at ANI or Arbcom but doesn't actually seem to accomplish much per se. I find this extra step needlessly bureaucratic when ANI/AN are capable of handling civility disputes, at least to a larger extent than WQA. Sædon^talk 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Re-using part of my entry into WQA's 2011 deletion discussion WQA is like AN/I's redheaded stepchild, the petty things people don't want to deal with just get shunted out of sight out of mind. What it is is a tattletale board, an "editor X was mean to me! BAWWWWWWWWWW!" outlet to drag someone to do when an editorial dispute isn't going your way...or it is going your way, and you want to keep your foot on your wiki-opponent's neck. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support WQA is beyond useless. It is a stupendously ineffectual mud pit in which ideologues, edit warriors, prissy civility nannies, and the mock-offended wrestle and spout sanctimonious rhetoric at each other. It can't even hand out a good trouting. Nuke it from orbit. Skinwalker (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I will say that, having been at WQA here and there, the one thing I like about it is being able to talk about civility concerns in an open forum where outside input can be provided without feeling like you are trying to get somebody punished. The problem is that outside input is rarely offered. Usually you just have involved parties bickering, with some complaining about possible sanctions when the purpose is actually to avoid sanctions. Taking anything to ANI is horrific and RfC/Us are not for minor spats. Unfortunately, civility will always be a problem so nothing will solve that, but we still need a noticeboard for these sorts of minor civility issues that is not as confrontational as ANI.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I've never seen WQA work, at least not the threads I followed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per 'doesn't do what it says on the tin' (unless it's purpose is to assist in seeing that Wikiquette is breached more often). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support or give it teeth. Don't get me wrong, it is very important to enforce our civility policy. But I oftentimes feel alone in this opinion. Every time I tried to actually accomplish something at WQA I was laughed away, because the board has no binding power and the policy it seeks to police is without consensus. With a strong userbase opposing civility blocks in all but the most egregious cases, disagreements brought to WQA only linger and fester. Until we as a community take civility seriously, WQA would remain a place where conflicts are heated up, not cooled down. ThemFromSpace 21:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, or move to WP:Airing of Grievances. It's symbol shall be an aluminum pole. --Xavexgoem (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC) I actually kind of like that idea...
• Support not sure if my vote actually matters here since the consensus to burn this baby down is pretty clear so yes, today WQA, tomorrow all the other useless dramaboards.VolunteerMarek 22:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The process very rarely accomplishes anything. The dismal success rate is telling.--SGCM (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose For a variety of reasons:

• It's not WQA that needs teeth, the civility policy itself handicaps any enforcement of civility by making it very difficult to block for it: Wikipedia:CIVIL#Blocking_for_incivility. With current policy you can get away with large amounts of incivility. This is particularly the case if you are otherwise productive (except for driving away other editors that is) or are an established editor.
• At times editors do modify their behaviour, even if grudgingly.
• The survey demographics did not question inexperienced editors and focussed on experienced editors. High profile disputes with experienced editors are usually caused by long term issues and are also outside the remit of WQA; expecting a discussion which typically goes stale after 3 days to resolve that sort of issue is asking too much.
• WQA can provide support or validation for editors who are subject to incivility, even if the incivility can't be dealt with; most of the threads at WQA would be promptly closed at ANI as they do not require administrator action; so the question then should be: does WQA do a better job than the individual editors re-discussing things on the talk page? I would say yes.
• Sometimes people forget that WQA doesn't incorporate all user conduct. Issues primarly around WP:NPA, WP:EW and WP:OWN issues are outside of it's remit. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So, without a better alternatives, it should be kept because otherwise there is no outlet for people who are facing incivility. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• RE: The survey - the criteria for selection was 10+ edits in total to dispute resolution forums over a 24 month period. Remember: perception is important. 39% (92 respondents) had requested assistance and 25% (60 respondents) had volunteered at WQA, but 73% (174 respondents) had an opinion on WQA - showing that some had an opinion of WQA but hadn't used it before. I've made further comment below, but I think that we need to focus on social change - encourage hashing it out on a user talk page and provide self help tools so things like WQA isn't needed. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support The majority of the activity I've seen at WQA is best described as "bullying". All the other resolution processes work much better. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. Per Masem (opposing) who makes some important observations: strictly on the understanding that AN/I does not take up the role and become a redirect target. There are already far too many help, advice, and other drama boards and many users, including experienced ones, can't see the wood for the trees. Many of the problems on the drama boards themselves are that they are staffed very often by inexperienced users who lack the necessary negotiating skills. This is a golden opportunity to start slimming down but the role of AN/I needs to be made more clear. Admin noticeboards are already swamped by people who can't/won't read the instructions, and new users who want to test their 'moderating' by unnecessarily 'clerking' at AN/I and other admin territory; all it does is prolong the agony. If the proposal to disband WQA reaches consensus, while relevant non-admin comments are welcome, there should first be an indication that AN/I was never intended to be a kangaroo court and that comments should be restricted to admins and involved parties. Maybe then we'll get more admins interested in keeping AN/I on their watchlists. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia needs more streamlined dispute resolution with more eyeballs. WQA achieves neither. aprock (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Somehow Wikiquette assistance became a sort of cruel parody. It's the only place on Wikipedia where you're guaranteed to be made fun of (or worse) if you present a complaint. Kaldari (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not a great fan of WQA, but it does serve a purpose, in that it deals with entry-level and one-off complaints; extended or egregious behvioral problems can then go to AN/I. My fear is that if WQA is closed, AN/I (which already has many threads that could have been dealt with elsewhere) will be inundated with complaints of the level of "He was mean to me." There needs to be a gatekeeper noticeboard for civility and low-level behvaioral complaints -- if WQA needs to be restructured, or given more teeth, or renamed or whatever doesn't really matter, as long as there is some first place for users to go to before things escalate to AN/I levels. AN/I cannot be that first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• The first place should be a user talk page - if that's unsuccessful then outside input should be requested - I think something like the {{helpme}} template or a modified 3O would work. We should emphasise the importance of hashing things out at a talk page and decrease the reliance on boards like WQA or ANI. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, of course, talk page discussion should always be the first recourse, but I was talking about the "port of entry" for when talk page discussion does not settle the issue. Right now, that's WQA. If WQA is done away with, those disputes are going to have to go somewhere, and I don't believe that AN/I is the best place for them, there has to be somewhere to deal with post-talk page dispute before they reach the AN/I level. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) I had a think about this and chatted with a few people - one problem with WQA is that the filer has the upper hand - "X user DID THIS!" - it immediately puts the respondent on the defensive and they can attack the other user in retalliation. Thinking about what works well at the moment, I thought of the {{helpme}} template - a user pops it on their talk page and gets assistance from someone. Something similar may work to supplant WQA - I'm working on Wikipedia:Sanity checks - the purpose of which would be that a user can see a situation and ask for someone to take a look at it - no pointing fingers. The details need to be hashed out but I think it'd work well - we need to give new ideas a go at least. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We never had one before Mar 2005. You're right that the page was created because people were tired of complaints on ANI, but guess what? They didn't really decrease much. And WQA is not helping, in fact the opposite. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not, of course, done any kind of historical survey, but my impression is otherwise, that a lot of stuff still gets settled at WQA and never makes it to AN/I. Since these are, by their very nature, fairly run-of-the-mill incidents, they may not make much of an impression on people examining the two boards, and the more serious issues (that get noticed) do indeed tend to move on to AN/I. My feeling is that if WQA were more forcefully promulgated as the place to go post-talk page (by, for instance, referring routine matters there from AN/I more often) it would be a better filter. At the moment, I'm afraid that the claim that AN/I won't be adversely affected by closing down WQA sounds a bit like the politician telling his constituents that the new traffic pattern won't result in more traffic on their street. Unfortunately, the traffic has got to go somewhere, and if there's no WQA (or a replacement for it), it's going to end up at AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I pointed to the survey that I did, as well as the activity stats above - in short - 8% thought WQA was effective, in May 21.4% of disputes were resolved, and a dispute was filed once every 2 days. I'm working on something similar to third opinion that will shift threads from "USER X DID THIS!!!" to "I think there may be an issue at X location, can someone take a look" - using something like the {{helpme}} template. The details will be hashed out over the coming few days - but it's all about encouraging hashing out disputes on a talk page - remember third opinion was the most successful forum in May, so it may work. But WQA isn't working. We need to rethink how things are done - if there was an influx of threads I'd agree with you somewhat, but due to the small amount of threads filed I think closing WQA and setting up other measures (self-help through a rewritten WP:DR page) will work. ANI gets many disputes a day - an extra one or two that slips through won't overflow it. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - WQA was a well-intentioned "sounds good on paper" idea that, per nom. & others in support of closure, hasn't worked in practice (generally speaking) and if anything has proven counterproductive.-JayJasper (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Nobody Ent has this right. WQA is really only effective for low-level incivility between editors who don't know any better: it is hopeless for actual civility enforcement. However, given that, it actually works well enough for what it is and closing it would simply increase the workload of the general admin corps. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I am convinced by User:Beyond My Ken. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - ANI should not be treated as the first port of call for resolving disputes that cannot be solved on the relevant talk page. --W. D. Graham 12:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• ^{(edit conflict)}To be fair, that's only one proposal for what to do after eliminating WQA, should we decide to do so. I agree with you 100% in that every minor dispute should not be brought to ANI; that would clog the system and leave many minor disputes unresolved, left to simmer until they actually do require admin attention. Instead, I think we should create an alternative to WQA, such as a 3O-esque template, to serve as a "first line of defense" in resolving civility disputes. The difference is, these discussions would still take place on the relevant talk page. Anyway, that's just one idea for how to replace WQA; other editors have proposed other options, and I'm sure people have suggestions they haven't made yet that would work equally as well, if not better. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support and agree with Steven Zhang; We need to close WP:WQA and rewrite WP:DR to give users more help and encouragement to try to settle disputes that are currently brought up on WQA on the article or user talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I've read all the opposing arguments, and I'm not convinced. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Conditionally opposed; support if condition satisfied: A process prior to ANI and RFC/U is needed, but the way WQA works, which allows it to allow conduct disputes to escalate by providing a forum for the disputants to not only fight with one another but also fight with any neutral editors who choose to weigh in and who are drawn into the fight, is counterproductive. Still, it's better than nothing and I'm opposed to its closing unless a substitute process, such as the "3O for conduct matters" proposed below is adopted. If that or some other substitute process is created (and WQA is such a failure, I don't much care what it is, so long as it is different than WQA), then WQA should be shuttered. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose There are a number of circumstances in which ANI is less than optimal, and simple incivility is a perfect example. Often, what is needed is the slower and thoughtful approach at WQA. ANI is for "incidents", and incivility is usually a pattern, so it is completely against the entire concept of what ANI is designed for. We put out fires at ANI, we don't coax two people to communicate more amicably. ANI is way too drama filled (and lord knows, many of us are trying to ramp the drama down) and it is the LAST place you want to send a simple incivility issue to. Don't make me chain myself to the doors here to keep it open, because there is no way I could be more strongly against this. It is simply not fair to the editors here to do this. If we need to change WQA, that is fine, lets tweak it. In my opinion, to completely throw out this extra step and rely on ANI to pick up the slack is foolish and will result in simple cases being barged into by the drama crowd, and end up costing us editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, did you see where I mentioned that WQA won't redirect to ANI? I added it recently - you may have missed it. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to be so emphatic about not sending people to ANI; most people wanting to close WQA agree an alternative mechanism is needed so those cases don't end up at ANI. Rd232 ^talk 14:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - but from some comments it seems that there's a perception that WQA will redirect to ANI or there will be nothing except ANI to use - just trying to show that ain't the case :-) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

my remark was actually directed at Dennis Brown... never mind. Rd232 ^talk 19:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Steven: I think you've misperceived my stance. I am (of course) opposed to redirecting WQA to AN/I, but my point is something different: if there is not a place for low-level incivility incidents to go to (either WQA or a replacement), then -- like the cars that have been diverted by the new traffic pattern -- those incidents will naturally gravitate to AN/I, with or without a redirect. As I said to begin with, I've never been a big fan of WQA, but if people want to close it down they need to have an alternative in place first, or else (pace your surveys) AN/I will be negatively affected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support with equally strong encouragement to find some alternative means such as one of those suggested by Steven Zhang to handle civility matters shy of ANI. As a personal anecdote, the one time I attempted to utilize WQA I was attacked by the neutral editor for something entirely unrelated to civility and then accused of retaliating when I happened to tag one of their images for copyright problems a few days latter. There was no attempt to actually investigate let alone address the issue of civility on either side of the dispute. Perhaps this was only a case of the particular volunteer attempting to man the desk at the time I was there and would be equally prevalent in whatever replacement is found, but the whole situation left me more upset than before I sought outside resolution which is decidedly not the desired outcome of WQA. As Beyond My Ken notes, ANI should not be the first step for escalating civility disputes, but the current process is beyond broken--it allows and often encourages situations to actively worsen. Even if ANI is an interim solution, there would at least be multiple eyes to keep an eye on problems including admins to shut things down if they did get out of hand. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Oppose. That's going to surprise a number of people, but it's my opinion. Quite simply, yes, AN/I could do everything that WQA is doing, and possibly better. But WQA makes it so that the 10% of cases that just need to be vented about and the other 10% of cases that can actually be resolved there don't clutter up AN/I. It's a sinkhole for the more frivolous and/or easy-to-handle cases. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Close and mark historical. If it needs to be redirected to something, redirect it to WP:PAIN, which was basically the same thing (except with teeth) and was also closed and marked historical. - Balph Eubank ✉ 17:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. WQA is completely useless. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support — Wikipedia volunteers are not civility nannies. If someone is being rude to the point of it being a disruptive influence, then they can be blocked for it (notice that "gross incivility" is the second point listed under the subsection I linked to). There's no reason whatsoever that such instances can't be brought to ANI; if administrative action is deemed unwarranted, then the people participating there will say so, and the matter will be closed. WQA is needless bureaucracy, and the very notion of there being a separate noticeboard specializing in handling cases of rudeness is actually quite silly. To reiterate — if it's a problem, they can be blocked. If not, then just move on. Speaking from personal experience, you shouldn't let people like that get to you; be the better person. Kurtis (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • @Kurtis: Wikipedia volunteers are not civility nannies. And why not? Civility is, after all, the fourth pillar. Are you advocating discarding it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No, absolutely not. Note also my second sentence: "If someone is being rude to the point of it being a disruptive influence, then they can be blocked for it..." You won't find very many people who are stronger advocates of the notion that WP:CIVIL should have more teeth. At a bare minimum, we really should expect people to be nice. I think I probably should have phrased my first sentence better, on reflection. Kurtis (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree with you that civility enforcement should be stronger, but because definitions and standards of civility are (obviously) quite different from place to place, there needs to be a fourm where conflicts between those standards can be discussed, and not just be settled in the mind of a single admin, whose standard may be different from either of the disputants, or even from the community's as a whole (if there is such a thing). Without that forum, civility enforcement becomes simply a random collection of one-off admin actions, which is more likely to lead to discontentment, since the disputants can see that a different admin in a similar case applied a different standard. And, yes, we do have that now as well, but I believe it will get much worse if there is a not an entry-level forum to deal with civility cases in which a de facto standard -- or at least a small range of standards -- can be arrived at through community discussion. As I've said, I have no objection to restructuring WQA, or giving it more teeth, or replacing it with something else, but just shutting the doors seems to me to be a bad idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I've been away, so let me know if I'm being stupid. It seems to me there are plenty of other ways of resolving disputes. This proposal probably won't cause an undo burden to fall on WP:an/i. It seems the process has broken down for a lack of disinterested 3rd parties to keep track of the board. Perhaps it would be better if these problems were resolved via user talk and failing that mediation. @kurtis-- I thought WQA was needless bureaucracy when it was first incepted. It was a product of the times and should be best celebrated by marking as historical and moving on. Dlohcierekim 04:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Good intentions, but bad in practice. • Jesse V.^(talk) 05:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Provisional support. If WQA is demonstrably ineffective most of the time, plans should be made to replace it with something more effective. Once a replacement is up and running, WQA should be shut down, but not before. I do not think that ANI can be that replacement. Rivertorch (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment seems to me that WQA is a place to continue a dispute in an unresricted fashion so that it can move to another venue. It needs an influx of volunteers if it is to work properly. 64.40.54.147 (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, though I imagine that many/most WQA issues are not suitable for ANI. WQA is largely ineffective, though this is symptomatic of a broader lack of enforcement of civility, and we have too many venues for dispute resolution. Hut 8.5 15:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Close it. Its been pretty much pointless for a long time as are several of the other noticeboards. Much better reasons are given by users above but the bottomline is its ineffective, undermanned and at this point pretty much a waste of time. Kumioko (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Per S. Zhang. Close WQA, and enhance 3O to take on behavior issues. --Noleander (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support If WQA can't be fixed (OK, make that "won't be fixed"), then close it. My observation is that WQA is a waste of everybody's time. I don't think it matters why people think that - they do, and that's all that matters. Belchfire-TALK 08:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support Per my fellow DRN volunteers, Steven Zhang and Ebe123. Electric Catfish 20:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Twice I went to WQA after remarks on article talk and user talk. One case resulted in a stuck, and the reported user got blocked much later for sockpuppeting. The other "case" did not result at all, as no comment —let alone assistance— was given by anyone. On a third severe civility issue, when tempted to go to WQA (again, after many remarks on article talk and user talk), I decided to go to ANI directly. A few admin remarks solved the issue for a while. A revisit to ANI a bit later for the same issue resulted in a block of the reported user. It looks like experienced incivil editors are not impressed by the workings of WQA, unless of course a comment is made by someone holding a hammer. Therefore ANI is the place to go. I dont think that the proposed Sanity Check or the existing 3O in article talk space is a good alternative for WQA, as wikiquette matters are inherently off-topic in article talk space. - DVdm (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support removal OR moving to make explicitly voluntary, probably in userspace - Extra bureaucracy is a bad thing. This appears to acheive nothing, and wastes the time of many. On the other hand, I don't want to dictate to wikipedians what processes theny can use so if everyone agrees this could be helpful why delete it? I would say that in this case the movement of it to someone's userspace and it being made totally clear that it's a voluntary thing for everyone involved could potentially work. We need a volunteer for that though. Egg Centric 23:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the time being; if and when something else is instituted to buffer ANI and WQA becomes little used, it can be removed. Buy the tractor and have it delivered before shooting the horse. Dragging the horse away by hand ... you don't want to do that. htom (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose until some sort of alternative (e.g. WP:Sanity checks proposed above) is brought in and found to work better than the current system. Maybe this doesn't work all the time, but isn't it better to have something that works at least part of the time than to have nothing at all? Closing WQA without something to fill its place leaves a gap in the WP:DR process which it is intended to fill, regardless of how well it does so. If WQA were actually doing some sort of harm, then closing it without a replacement could be justifiable, but I don't actually see anything negative coming out of it.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 02:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose/Conditional - WQA may not have the tools it needs to address the situations in a proper fashion, therefore I would suggest having a test of any proposal prior to WQA shuting down so there is no void and a transition process can be tested. Though WQA works if the editors both want to resolve the problem, if either party doesn't have much faith in WQA, than it will not work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The WP:3O process already exists and supports behavior-related disputes. In the past, 3O has primarily been used for content disputes, not behavior, perhaps because WQA and ANI were more widely publicized for behavior issues. 3O is a mature and tested process. So, in that sense, the test you are suggesting has been underway for a couple of years. --Noleander (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have always been of the belief that WQA is far more informal and the board has this tagline, "For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as administrator incident noticeboard or request for comment on user." I figured that via the chain, WQA would be the first step and if it was a conduct matter (solely WQA's function) that it would jump to RFC:U or AN/I depending on severity and immediacy felt by the filer. The current issues at WQA are largely conduct and they seem to be going well despite this proposal to shut it down. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. A step before ANI might be helpful, but WQA doesn't seem to be doing the job effectively from what I've seen, and I don't think it's used that much either. I'd be in favour of closing it and trying something else. OohBunnies! (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support close - This is like the United Nations of Wikipedia. It's basically a toothless talking shop that resolves nothing and is often use as a wikilawyering tool to deflect from content disputes. Stick a fork in it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second Scjessey above - close Mugginsx (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Followed a couple threads there lately, and there appears to be a mob mentality to the page. ANI might have the same problem, but at least stuff gets done there. Hot Stop 14:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. WQA's function could be filled by RFC, which would prevent ANI from being swamped with minor disagreements. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I've been asked to comment two or three times at WQA, and find it a toothless vacuum, just ready to be filled with a continuation of any dispute bought there. It provides "yet another" forum for ill-mannered and bullying editors to promote themselves. It doesn't add any value to Wikipedia. Ideologically it's lovely, but in practice it fails, in an epic way. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Once it once without any resolution. "No binding decisions" does not work. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support It isn't effective, and seems more often than not to end up continuing the discussions that led to it, without any real resolution. Cloudbound (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now; echoing htom up thread a bit. I would prefer being drawn and quartered to being "invited" to WQA but I am skeptical that this step of closure would be a cure to the trauma / drama I'm reading there. If this is step one, the abuse certainly excalates upline, so we definately need a testable proven buffer before editors and conflicts are thrown into ANI. Fylbecatulous talk 13:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support WQA seems to be more of a gladitorial stadium than a place for dispute resolution. Dispute resolution needs teeth, and teeth are inherent in ANI and not in many other places. Also, ANI should be able to close down dispute resolutions that are brough here too quickly, such as with a "Work it out on the talk pages, and come back in three days if it is still a problem type solution.

Tazerdadog (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Side discussion: replace/redirect WQA to what?

It looks like there are a few token objections to closing WQA. Assuming that the consensus *is* to close WQA, we should still take into account those token objections to make sure DR works optimally. The (limited) value of WQA has been described as:

• Reducing the overload of low-grade civility complaints at AN/I or RFC.
• A deterrent on low-grade incivility, to prevent things from escalating to a full-fledged AN/I or RFC.
• A less bureaucratic mechanism for minor incivility that doesn't require an administrative action.
• A less WP:BITEy way of helping new editors understand our civility policy, without too much page traffic.

Not saying that these are reasons to keep WQA around. But if the decision is to close WQA, we ought to decide whether to have another "line of defense" before we send these things to AN/I or RFC. If yes, we need to decide what that process should be. If not, we need to decide how to improve how RFCs and AN/Is deal with low grade incivility and newer editors who might only need a stern warning. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a template of some sort, in the same vein as Third opinion? (How's that project fairing, by the way?) Users could tag a discussion they feel is becoming uncivil, and a neutral party could drop by to observe the situation and give a few friendly reminders to the involved parties. It would certainly be a less bureaucratic, bite-y way of handling minor disputes. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Often all that is needed is to get more eyes on a situation, and this would facilitate that. Rivertorch (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that DR/N could be the first line of defense, in-so-far as to establish whether the dispute is primarily content-related or behavior-related. As it already deals with content, and to the extent of identifying behavioral issues, this wouldn't be a change. From there, for behavioral problems (for that is what concerns us here) it could continue to "direct" users to the appropriate solution board, usually the user talk page to start, or another appropriate sub/pre-ANI noticeboard. If it's identified that the scope of the problem is larger than the scope of another noticeboard or user talk pages, then I doubt it's too small for ANI to handle.

This seems to me to get a bonus out of this direction, which is structuring the dispute to some extent, something I know is something WQA has an issue with.

Alternatively, we could set up a DR/BN (DR/Behavioral noticeboard), with the same restrictions on the participants as at DRN (word count, etc.). This also has the benefit of structure. --Izno (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion is a process that works, but minor content disputes are much easier to resolve than behavioural ones. When two editors start going at each other's throats, it's difficult to stop the dispute from escalating. Small behavioural disputes have a tendency to snowball into larger ones.

Instead of creating a separate template or noticeboard and risking forum creep, one option which has been mentioned is to expand the scope of current content dispute resolution venues (3O and DRN) to include small behavioural disputes (that don't qualify for RFC or AN/I) alongside content disputes. Behavioural disputes are often intertwined with content disputes. This proposal may work, but it does have some major problems. It would drastically increase the workload of the process, and introduce the mess of personal drama into the process that volunteers might be uncomfortable with handling.--SGCM (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to /dev/null. Skinwalker (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion is a process that works, but content disputes are much easier to resolve than behavioural ones. - Neither of these claims is true except for some pretty weird definitions of "works" and "resolve".VolunteerMarek 22:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I meant relative to WQA. In the activity analysis, 3O had a success rate of 52% compared to WQA's 21.4%. A 52% percent success rate is nothing to brag about, and 3O certainly needs to be improved. I actually agree with you that the large content disputes (Arab-Israeli, Northern Ireland, Scientology, etc) are every bit as problematic as the dramafests that flare up on Wikipedia. But those disputes often fall outside the purview of 3O.--SGCM (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

WQA fails in its inability to enforce decisions. To date the only instrument that can be used to enforce anything conduct-related is ban, so any new conduct dispute resolution process that doesn't not offer "ban" outcome is doomed. On the other hand, we already have a place where this outcome is available — AN/I, so why reinvent the wheel? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Because not every WQA case needs admin action. If it doesn't need admin action or it's not apparent that it does because of no smoking gun; the section will be closed quickly at ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So probably ANI should be fixed? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I do think we need a clear alternative to direct people to if WQA goes (an alternative which is not ANI!). My suggestion is WP:3O, via a help page about civility issues that tries to give advice about situations which WQA frequently encountered, including on when to escalate to RFC/U or ANI or Arbcom instead of using 3O. If this doesn't work for some reason, alternatives can then be considered. Rd232 ^talk 21:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If we are to redirect to 3O, the latter is going to need to be reworked to an extent; specifically, to allow for situations in which more than two editors are involved in a civility dispute. Perhaps we could create a template such as the one I mentioned above, but fold it into the 3O project (perhaps as a civility subpage) to avoid some of the creep. That would allow for a more nuanced approach, I think, and would avoid overburdening the content dispute aspect of 3O with behavioral disputes. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think 3O should be the primary destination that WQA gets routed to, but 3O is effective and I would be happy for it to take some of the caseload. If that means tweaking 3O's criteria, so be it. Our primary goal should be resolving disputes, rather than process pedantry. bobrayner (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

3O is for content disputes not for commenting about incivility. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion about process change; it's possible to change processes (although it's rarely easy around here). If there's another task which 3O would be better at dealing with, I'm happy for 3O to take that on too, rather than saying that 3O may only do what it currently does. bobrayner (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the reason WQA does not work is that incivility is not a disease, it is only a symptom. Simply mark WQA as historical and focus on the root causes. If the incivility is tagging along with a content dispute, 3O is an option because resolving the content dispute should resolve the civility issue. If it does not, ANI becomes relevant. BLPN, COIN, etc. could also come into play depending on who is causing the concerns, and why. Resolute 00:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing. Tag historical and move on. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Something to consider here - in May, WQA saw a total of 17 disputes, a little over 1 every 2 days. If this trend were to continue, I don't think ANI would be flooded. Directing people from the closed WQA to a set of instructions on how to handle their own issues (read: self-help) should be encouraged in the first instance, something like Wikipedia:Sanity checks (hybrid of WP:GMN and {{helpme}} - currently being worked on) may catch any loose threads. But I don't think the concern of closing WQA causing an overflowing of petty disputes at ANI holds much water, simply because ANI isn't used a great deal. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• As one of the most frequent contributors at 3O I am opposed to opening 3O to conduct disputes however I think that a separate "3O for conduct disputes" is a brilliant idea and could easily replace WQA. Mixing conduct disputes and content disputes in the same process weakens the ability of the intervening editor to deal with the conduct dispute by drawing the resentment of one or both of the warring parties, but a separate process that works like 3O would cure quite a few of the ills which WQA suffers. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • A separate 3O process for conduct disputes is a bad idea (since apparently we're enthusiastically bolding now) because it requires a dispute to be defined as being about conduct. Conduct issues are rarely resolvable satisfactorily by talking alone, and usually mixed up with content issues, which more often can be resolved by talking. Leaving it open whether a dispute is 10% conduct and 90% content or vice versa allows much more flexibility for respondents to decide how to proceed. Quite often "focus on content, not the contributor, now let's see about this content issue" gets things moving a bit. And working together to get somewhere with a content issue often helps with conduct issues, because conduct issues often arise at least in part from a breakdown in AGF, and cooperation on content with a bit of assistance can help rebuild it. Rd232 ^talk 14:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree entirely that curing content issues generally cures the conduct issues, but inviting them to be discussed in the same process is a recipe for disaster. I have certainly given 3O's in which I gave a conduct opinion and also included a strong admonishment about conduct and have seen those be successful, but I generally limited them to situations in which the conduct problems were mutual and did not pick out one or the other of the editors to individually admonish. Doing so would simply weaken the conduct part of the 3O for the very same reason that conduct issues generally weaken discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree totally. In first instance, this discussion seems a bit confused. If WQA is not useful (I have no opinion) get rid of it. If it useful, keep it. If it's useful but not working well, reform it. But this feels like a discussion that has reached two contradictory conclusions and wants to act on both of them.

Merging WQA with 3O would reduce 3O's clarity of purpose. Users (and, quite possibly, responders) would be less sure about what is does and doesn't do. Plus, I see there's a discussion consequent to this on the 3O talkpage about changing 3O to accept disputes involving more than two editors. That's something that should be discussed on its own merits, not because a failure of decision-making elsewhere necessitates it. And, it would basically make 3O an a cappella version of DRN, so we would presumably then end up discussing how to keep those two processes distinct. Before you know, the whole of WP's DR mechanisms will have been upended.

Seriously, this discussion needs to keep its focus changing one thing at a time, in sequence. Formerip (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me there's two ways to look at closing WQA, and what to do afterwards.

• One way to look at it is that we're closing WQA mainly because it's ineffective. In which case, it makes sense to create a 3O process for civility (a sort of "mediation lite"). Even though it would cover the same ground as WQA, hopefully it would have a greater likelihood of achieving some kind of result.
• The other way to look at it is that we're closing WQA because we generally have too many DR processes. In which case, replacing it with another process is kind of self-defeating.

Steven Zhang noted that there were less than 20 WQA incidents in the last month. Couldn't we have 3O take on some of the content related stuff, have the DR noticeboard take on some of the behavioral stuff, and leave the truly angry stuff for AN/I? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd encourage everyone to take a look at WP:SANITY; that proposal's coming along nicely so far, and I think it might make a good "replacement" of WQA as a sort of 3O for conduct. I think it would go a long way towards encouraging civility as well, by providing a neutral voice whose aim is to calm things down. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Correction: 3O already allows conduct disputes by community consensus. I totally forgot that there has already been a community discussion at 3O, about two years ago, when I tried to restore a content-only restriction which had once been there and had subsequently been removed. The discussion and consensus decision is here: Wikipedia_talk:Third opinion/Archive 5#Alleged restrictions on disputes. I apologize to the community for my bad memory. Abashedly, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• 3O - Agree with those above that suggest 3O as a replacement for WQA (either as separate 3O-conduct & 3O-content; or as a single consolidated process). For a couple of reasons: (1) 3O is already in existence and functioning smoothly; (2) we need to streamline and consolidate DR processes, so 3O is a much better alternative than creating a new process. It may be that expanding 3O to handle WQA-type jobs will require some minor tweaks to 3O, but that is no problem. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• My reasoning for closing was mainly as it is redundant and we have too many locations. Make a big redirect to 3O and AN/I and folks keen to help out can watchlist those places. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

WQA Failure and Success

It would be interesting to know how many editors who have stated "WQA doesn't work" feel that way because a.) they dislike being reported there when they push the envelope, as opposed b.) they editor they reported didn't get slammed.

WQA is not ANI or ArbCom. WQA rarely has winners and losers. WQA is the anti-Thunderdome: "two editors enter, two editors leave." Boring. No stocks or public hangings. WQA is either about editors being told yea, that editor was kinda of a jerk, but that's how it is around here, or you're being kind of a jerk and it would be good if you tone it down -- sometimes concurrently. What folks don't seem to get is just because someone doesn't get the block hammer, and confess Perry Mason style -- OMG, I'm sooo sorry I was rude, I'll never, ever do it again -- doesn't mean it has no effect. A newbie finding out that someone cares, a little, if ineffectually, matters. A veteran editor who tones it down about to avoid the annoyance of yet another WQA notification, matters.

Given the lack of consensus about civility -- what it is, how to enforce it, "WQA" is going to exist somewhere. When all is said and done with the "to what" section above, it's just gonna be WQA with a different name and watchlist.

As far as the "let's shut it down for a month and see what bad things happen" ... the argument is its own rebuttal.Nobody Ent 02:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• See my comments at Conditional Support above. One of the problems is that where people with a grievance arrive at the wrong forum, instead of being redirected to a more appropriate venue, many editors attempt in good faith to resolve the problem there and then. More effort should be made to send users to the right places. Most of the incivility issues probably stem initially from content disputes, and WP:DRN is possibly the best venue to attempt to resolve them. Only, and strictly only, should complaints be taken to AN/I when admin action is clearly required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• My thoughts here: I think we don't necessarialy need to redirect WQA to somewhere - I think in the first instance, we need to encourage social change (I'm starting to sound like a broken record here). On WP:MEDCAB (now closed) we detailed ways that editors can get dispute resolution - offering DRN for small disputes and MedCom for larger ones. With WQA, we can do a short writeup on why WQA was closed, what steps they can use to address the issue and maybe a link to a modified 3O if that's unsuccessful. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Tag historical, add a brief summary, and add the {{Dispute-resolution}} so editors can find where they need to go. This avoids the "what if we send them to the wrong page?" issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Exactly. It's an education tool rather than an enforcement tool. When you look at it like that it actually works quite well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• An education tool that rarely works. We're thinking about things the wrong way with WQA - something else can serve the same function but not create the chaos that WQA does. I'm working on something new at WP:Sanity checks. In a nutshell - hybrid of third opinion and the {{helpme}} template - lighthearted way to say "Hey, I think we may be a bit of an issue here, can someone come along and assess it" as opposed to "USER X DID THIS AND I DONT LIKE IT" which is common on WQA. Social change is key. We made changes to DRN for August - status templates and structure. It's resulted in disputes being resolved four times faster than compared to the unchanged DRN in May, and thread size has decreased by just over 40%. Change is good. Let's work together and come up with something better. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think WP:Sanity checks sounds like a great idea, I think that's exactly the sort of thing that I had in mind. I'd be willing to help develop any new policy we put forward to replace WQA, should we decide to do so (and it's increasingly looking like that is in fact the case.) That being said, any "replacement" we develop or designate for WQA should keep in mind it's "educational value", i.e. teaching editors to resolve disputes and remain civil. I think friendly reminders by an outside, neutral third party would be a good way to solve a lot of problems, and, should the dispute eventually escalate to another forum, it would provide a neutral witness to shed more light on the situation as it unfolded. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose the new sanity check idea. 3O can and does handle simple cases that may tangentially involve a third (or more) editor. We had a discussion about that at 3O talk a few months ago, and the general consensus was that we should not turn down a 3O on "technicalities", if we think that a 3O can be valuable to the situation at hand. There was a little dissent from one editor, but the pretty strong consensus was that 3O could indeed handle many cases that fell outside of its explicit remit.
• The subset of cases where a "sanity check" could address the matter, and a 3O could not, is non-existent. A large clusterfuck of multiple editors arguing for weeks is not going to be any more receptive to a "sanity check" than it would be to a 3O. I would say the main "action item" would be to send more people to 3O and to advertise it better. And if this sanity check idea sounds good to you, come help out by giving 3Os if you don't already. Gigs (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• So expand the scope of 3O to address what a sanity check would? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• For convenience's sake, we could always fold Sanity Check into the 3O project, but as a subpage, or link to it from the 3O page. My primary concern is ensuring that content disputes and civility disputes don't overlap; while the two are often linked, my idea for Sanity check is to bring a cool head into the conversation to calm everyone down and get things back on track, not necessarily to solve content disputes. We really ought to discuss if we want to handle both content and behavioral disputes at 3O, and/or if we want a way of distinguishing between the two. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Third opinion never did have the artificial distinction between behavior and content disputes that most other dispute resolution processes had. And I do think the distinction is artificial, since legitimate disputes almost always involve both. If it's a purely behavioral issue not associated with any content (like personal harassment), that's the sort of thing ANI is better at anyway. Since 3O already handled all kinds of disputes, I don't think it's necessary to split them now. Gigs (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But there's a difference between quietly handling conduct issues (or better, curing the conduct issues so the conduct issues do not have a foundation) and inviting them in. Giving an opinion about conduct, especially if it favors one side or the other, just makes it look like the opinion-giver is taking sides and weakens anything they might have to say about the content issue. That's the reason a separate 3O process for conduct is a good idea. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Question What's the difference between WQA and DR/N? ... There's SO many drama boards, it's hard to keep it all straight. — Ched :  ?  14:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• WQA deals with conduct, DRN deals with content :-) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 15:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So maybe merge a bunch of stuff into 3 boards: "Content issues - DRN", "Behavior issues - BRN", and "Admin issues - ARN"? — Ched :  ?  17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:"It would be interesting to know how many editors who have stated "WQA doesn't work" feel that way because a.) they dislike being reported there when they push the envelope, as opposed b.) they editor they reported didn't get slammed.", we have an article on that: False dilemma. "...a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option." --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The impact of socio-geo-politics on articles

Something that interests me greatly is the notion of how the same concept/period in history/person etc is spoken about in different langauge articles in Wikipedia. Through my Making Meanings course at uni, I now understand how subjective language is, and how it has culture boundaries - affecting the way we see the reality around us.

This led me to the idea, which I'm sure has been brought up many-a-time, of analysing the way different langauges speak about the same topic, identifying biases, or just simply what the different Wikipedias choose to put focus on. I think some sort of investigation/research into this would be both really informative, not to mention really useful (in discovering how the socio-geo-political conditions have affected the way different culture respond to the same event).

As an example, if we had article on both UK Enlgish and US English, perhaps we would find the US article has written about America's War of Independence as a noble quest for freedom and rights, and of George Washington as a naitonal hero, and perhaps the UK article would have written the article from the perspective that the War was more of a rebellion that needed to be crushed, with George Washington being a traitor. <-- value-laden language probably has a big part in this.

So my question is: is is possible for us to get some sort of research going? I'd say we go for very cross-culturally contentious issues and examine the Wikipedias relating to the ocuntries involved.--Coin945 (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You probably want to go over to WP:CSB, which is a wikiproject dedicated exactly to this sort of thing. Unfortunately, I don't think it's very active, but it's worth a shot for starters. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Try out http://www.manypedia.com Fences&Windows 02:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have tried out that site. Very interesting.. but I don't really get what it's doing.--Coin945 (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It puts two WP articles on the same topic from different languages next to each other, auto-translating the non-English one. The result is about as enlightening as you would expect... Rd232 ^talk 14:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

mmm.. that's what I thought...--Coin945 (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is quite some Wikipedia research, for instance:

• G. Apic, M.J. Betts & R.B. Russell (2011): Content disputes in Wikipedia reflect geopolitical instability
• ConflictHistory: Interactive Map Of World Conflicts ConflictHistory is an interesting mashup that combines a timeline of world wars with their geographical location and presents this data on Google Maps.
• Neil Benn, Simon Buckingham Shum, John Domingue, Clara Mancini (2008) Ontological foundations for scholarly debate mapping technology. Computational Models of Argument
• N. Hara, P. Shachaf, K. F. Hew (2010-06-28) Cross-cultural analysis of the Wikipedia community. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
• Yasseri T, Sumi R, Rung A, Kornai A, Kertész J (2012) Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia.
• A paper titled “Cultural Configuration of Wikipedia: Measuring Autoreferentiality in Different Languages”[2 by two researchers from the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, published in the proceedings of the “Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing” conference 2011]
• A paper from Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2012) entitled “Omnipedia: Bridging the Wikipedia Language Gap” presents the features of Omnipedia, a system that enables readers to analyse up to 25 language editions of Wikipedia simultaneously.
• Who represents the Arab world online? Mapping and measuring local knowledge production and representation in the Middle East and North Africa. April 2011 - Mark Graham Using Wikipedia to explore the participation gap between those who have their say, and those whose voices are pushed to the side, in representations of the Arab world online.

Now, you would be a hero if you read these, write summaries and contribute those to wikipapers or acawiki. They are collecting research on Wikipedia. See also the Wikimedia Research Newsletter. Fantastic stuff! --Atlasowa (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

VG/GL RfC

There is a thread proposing whether we should use Top X lists to determine notability for a video game character if it has significant coverage from a reliable source at WT:VG/GL. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocking IP vandals capability for non-admins

I don't know if this idea was discussed in the past (I did not see it among the perennial proposals), so I'd like to float it here to see what others think. Assuming it is technically feasible, I think it would not be a bad idea to create a user permissions feature (similar to rollbackers and reviewers) which would enable users in that group to block IP vandals without actually having admin status. In my observations, blocking IP vandals is a fairly straightforward activity which does not require the kind of advanced policy knowledge that many other admin tasks do (such as deletion, for example). Yet in terms of project maintenance tasks, blocking IP vandals is probably the one that needs to be performed most frequently. Giving a limited right to block IP vandals (say for no more than 12 hours) to non-admin trusted users would alleviate persistent backlog at AIV, allow admins to concentrate on more advanced tasks and give users who later want to run for RfA some hands-on admin-related experience. I think this feature could function in a similar way to rollback rights - easily granted (by any admin) and easily taken away in case of a problem. Nsk92 (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Hierarchical_structures ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, but I am talking about something much more limited than a "partial admin" status. Nsk92 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with giving someone an incomplete set of admin powers is that they would then be tempted to use the specific power they have when a situation calls for the use of a different power. For example, instead of blocking certain IP users, maybe a better approach would have been to protect the article. Maybe both IP and signed-in users are causing problems but only the IP users get blocked. Maybe an indefinite block is warranted, and the problem resumes after 12 hours. Also, this proposal would increase the power imbalance between IP and signed-in users, increasing the extend to which IP users are regarded as bad by default. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"I think the biggest problem with giving someone an incomplete set of admin powers is that they would then be tempted to use the specific power they have when a situation calls for the use of a different power."

What exactly prevents this kind of abuse by admins currently? Also, only because someone is not an admin doesn't mean they cannot act responsibly. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that sentence would have been clearer if I had used the word "tool" instead of the word "power". No-one is perfect and I'm sure admins do sometimes apply the wrong tool to a situation, but less so, I think, than if the right tool were unavailable. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Bov1b has it right - basically, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And blocking of IPs is already overdone by some admins, who have access to all the tools, so how much worse for users who have only that tool... Rd232 ^talk 14:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hook up with the editfilter/XlinkBot guys. It's not quite automated blocking, but they are the ones handling the majority of IP abuse, and there are some pretty powerful tools they use to facilitate it. In clear cases, I can tell you that expedient methods are already used. Gigs (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd support this because I think the block is always the "urgent" step needed in many vandalism situations - deletions and protection can generally wait. Alas, few seem to share my view.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

NO one reason why vandels exist is because they have been treated poorly by admins. After being blocked simply because they have edited under an ip, they take revenge on the project by wrecking havic. I strongly believe we need to re-examine when and who to block (ip's mostly), instead of giving out more authority to act reckless. Hillabear10 (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If our existing admins are bad when it comes to this, why do we trust them to do it?--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So prior vandalism which = a block by an admin leads to further vandalism? Shadowjams (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is sad, but in many cases yes.

99% of admins are good. It is one 1% that cause issues. Hillabear10 (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Question Isn't WP:AIV already meant to handle these types of issues? 64.40.54.147 (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • AIV often is too slow.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • While it might be nice to see something like this, this proposal is a non-starter simply because there are much broader issues here that we can't even agree on. Like, should admin rights be unbundled at all. And in the most recent proposal of that, this was specifically excluded. AIV works fairly well. The real elephant in the room is that RfA is hopelessly broken because there's no good recall process. That proposal seemed like it could elad to something but I fear it too has stalled. But fixing RfA is the real fix, bandaid approaches like this won't do anything. Shadowjams (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

      Well Said Shadowjams Hillabear10 (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

      That's about right. There's no will for unbundling, mistakenly in my view but that's the way it is, and RfA is trundling into chaos. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments - If AIV is often too slow, why not fix that, rather than create new problems? However, I'd want to see some strong evidence before accepting that most IP editors are editing in good faith. My milage definitely does vary. That doesn't mean presuming individual IPs aren't in GF, but it does mean limiting their scope for doing serial harm. A short IP block, even 15 minutes, should be enough to slow down vandalism from the kids in detention hall without being long enough to cause serious issues. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • AIV can't be made faster unless more admins monitor it so that we have snappy responses 24/7, which clearly is not very feasible unless we drastically increase our admin count by something like 1.5-fold.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The situation for blocks is as ill defined as what 'vandalism' means, the ability to block IPs is also one that can hurt many legitimate users such as institutions like colleges, universities or even sizable portions of a town. I don't have the data, but a majority of our IP editors are constructive rather than destructive and many of those 'vandalism' tags are either covered by good faith, or confusion on Wikipedia's policies. I'd really like some researchers or individuals aware of the consequences of such blocks to respond here. The matter is more complex than it is made out to be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The vast majority of experienced non-admin vandal fighters know when a block is needed and what kind. Although I agree that the vast majority of IP edits are constructive I have to point out that 80% of vandalism is from anonymous IPs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - IPs have a hard enough time as it is. Introducing a new class of users that haven't passed RFA that can block them because they didn't AGF or actually look at the edits isn't a good idea. IP vandals are just like regular vandals...and there are IPs with thousands of good edits compared to registered users with none. Why should the IP be more open for a block? --Onorem♠Dil 17:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Why? The suggestion that AIV is too slow is just incorrect, the proper vandals are blocked quickly and it's the ones that don't need blocking which remain untouched and give the appearance of a backlog, nor is the vandalism situation in general anywhere near severe enough to introduce an entire new level of vandal fighters (and another hat for people to try and collect). This proposal is a solution to a problem we simply don't have--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Onorem. LlamaDude78 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - yet another level of bureaucracy. Of course vandals are IPs (?) most IPs are NOT vandals. Mugginsx (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: You just have to look at your watchlist to realize that all or even most IP's are not vandals. I also agree that this would cause an imbalance of power. Some people just don't have the brains (with all due respect) to handle that kind of power. It would open up a whole 'nother can of worms, and frankly Wikipedia is complicated enough, as is. Lighthead...KILLS!! 03:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Although I support the concept of splitting out the functions of admins into Role based groups of functions, blocking and unblocking would still need to be granted on a fairly restrictive basis and only to those that have shown that they know vandal policy. I also agree that even among the admins that have the tools now many are prone to block first and ask questions later. Lets remember it can always be revoked if abused and much easier than revoking admin rights. This would help free the admins for other tasks. With that said it will never pass. Admins have a lot of power and they want to keep it. They aren't about to give up a toolset without a fight. They fought about Filemover and Rollbacker when they were created and many said that creating these would be doomsday. They weren't and neither would this. Kumioko (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, we're all a big ole bunch of power hungry dictators, desperately clinging onto our abilities to block a few anonymous strangers and delete a few page off a website. Grow up --Jac16888 ^Talk 10:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Closing irrelevant tangent"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Telling editors to grow up is probably not a very friendly way for admins to show to the rest of us how much more mature they are. The point is though, there are a lot of us that know what we are doing from an editing standpoint that don't desire to be, aren't trusted to be or don't have a need for, the full admin role. But making some of the admin roles more modular, easier to grant and easier to take away, without having to go through the RFA gauntlet, fixes a large amount of the problems that currently exists within the Admin/RFA culture except one. The feelings from many of the current admins (not all) to keep tight control on who has access to what, who can do what, and make sure they stay in control. As I stated above. During the discussions to Create filemover and rollbacker certain admins were ranting and raving about how creating these roles would bring about the end of the pedia. They didn't, all they did was give certain users who deal with that area the ability to do it themselves without coming to the admins on bend and knee, asking Sir may I have another. Fixing the RFA process has been tried and failed, decentralization of some of the admin functions is the way to go. Kumioko (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Certain admins ranting and raving? Prove it? And it was just admins who opposed those things vehemently? And it was all because of a desperate need to cling to this imagined power you believe we have? Perhaps you should stop seeing "admins" as one dictatorial entity, and instead as individuals editors with varying opinions and personalities--Jac16888 Talk 15:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC) If you want me to prove it just go look for the discussions about creating the Rollbacker and Filemover roles. Your right they do have very different opinions and personalities but they all represent what it is to be an admin. Some probably shouldn't be frankly but that's another matter. You are reading too negatively into what I am saying. All I am saying is that its in the long term best interest of the pedia to separate functions out and away from/in conjunction to the admin role of having everything. That's it. The RFA process is broken. Everyonen knows it. Its time to try something else. If you don't agree that's fine but please stop trolling this conversation into something its not. Kumioko (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I would argue that coming into this discussion and commenting "Admins have a lot of power and they want to keep it. They aren't about to give up a toolset without a fight. They fought about Filemover and Rollbacker when they were created and many said that creating these would be doomsday. They weren't and neither would this." is the real trolling comment, especially since you're apparently unable to provide any evidence to back this up--Jac16888 Talk 16:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC) How about this can you prove me wrong! I'm not the one being defensive I just don't want to go digging back through the archives. All you have to do though is pull up a discussion about filemover or rollbacker and the comments are there. They are there for all the other times other things have been brought up too by the way. This one, suggestions to let folks see deleted pages, to let folks do other things admins do, etc. Some discussions more than others but they are there. In almost every case, admins are there trying to justify why someone with 50, 000 edits and years on the pedia shouldn't be able to see a deleted edit, limited duration page protections, move a file, rollback an edit, block a vandal, etc. In all these scenarios and more the end result is the same, admins trying to convince the community that an experienced editor cannot be trusted with the ability to do things that have been deemed administrative, mostly without merit. Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Yeah, pretty sure it falls to you to provide evidence to support your claims, not me to prove you wrong, although I would say Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Poll does it pretty well. And I know that you will find no evidence whatsoever to prove that in every case of an attempt at splitting the tools, admins are opposing to protect their "power". Yes just like here there will be admins who oppose such things just as there are non-admins opposing, not because of some imagined meglomania, but because they believe it to be against the best interests of the wikipedia. --Jac16888 Talk 17:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Actually that supports my view as much or more than yours. There is no doubt that the measure passed since we now have that role but if you look down in the 140+ opposes you'll see a number of Admin arguments much to the effect that it would "Cause revert wars", "too much chance of abuse", "if they are trusted to use the tools then they should run for admin", etc. Now we have devolved into a tangent too far from the original post so I am going to cap this off. If you want to continue to discuss this then we should do so in a different forum. Kumioko (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Seems to me there are a lot more non-admins opposing there than admins, as well as many admins actively supporting by disecting the points of the opposers, and I don't see many making the arguments you claim, or see how those arguments are evidence that it's actually an oppose based on an attempt to keep "power" instead of a valid concern. Perhaps if you tried to make real arguments for why this proposal should pass, rather than "evil admins won't let it so there is no point" such proposals would stand a better chance --Jac16888 Talk 17:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Articles on the main page

Hallo all
yesterday an article which I proposed has been displayed on the main page (DYK section). During nighttime in Europe this article has been moved three times by two users. None of them was a vandal, but they repeatedly made mistakes, so that at the end the Article name was wrong. Yesterday morning (CET) I tried to fix the problem, but the right name was now a redirect, so that after my attempts for a couple of minutes the article link pointed to nirvana. Thanks to an helpful Admin finally the damage could be repaired. After this experience, I wonder if it would not be a good idea to block the possibility of moving Articles as long as they stay on the main page. The main reason behind it is that for a vandal would be quite easy to let the article link point to nowhere, just with a couple of moves. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support except where consensus indicates that a move is necessary. Not wanted, but necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support- It makes sense for there to be a general rule about not moving articles that are mentioned anywhere on the main page, however i think an exception would be needed for In the News stuff. The recent shooting at the batman screening in the USA is one example where a title was changed with clear consensus whilst it was on the page, as the original title was inaccurate. But with the exception of those recent/breaking news issues, a temporary block on page moves makes sense. Although even in the case of ITN items, full page move protection would still allow it to be fixed, whilst preventing potential edit warring/vandalism over the page title. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Even if the article is moved, the link on the main page will still lead to the correct article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not that the article disappears, is that Wikipedia and the browser tab will show the article under the new name: if I move an article to an obscenity, then the article will appear under the "Obscenity" name. That can appear as a normal vandalism but - unlike the vandalism IN the article - a normal user has no way to correct it, because the correct article name is now a redirect. A move requires the deletion of the redirect on the part of an Administrator, and this can last long (I experienced it yesterday). Alex2006 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism doesn't appear to be a current problem though. The mentioned case above is good faith mistakes. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment What about simply applying a greenlock to any article that appears on the main page? This could be made part of the respective process (WP:FAC, WP:DYK etc). Just an idea. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what we need, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support As I recall, one should check "what links here" before performing a move, so that simple step would avoid problems. However, people sometimes do silly things. The greenlock sounds like the way to go. As it would take an admin to fix, it is less trouble to prevent a move while on front page. Dlohcierekim 12:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Even if it's as simple as applying a greenlock to articles linked from the Main Page, articles listed there should especially not be moved except in case of consensus. Doesn't really make us look good if they are, and, as pointed out above, the potential for vandalism is worringly high. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• How, though? Just manually protect them from moves, or something fancier? That said, this doesn't seem like a bad idea; by rights the the things really oughtn't be moved without either very good reason or a general consensus that it's needed... or, well, both. But on the other hand, move vandalism is quite rare; wouldn't just a notice on them saying not to move them probably be enough to head people off in most cases? -— Isarra ༆ 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this would be unnecessarily restrictive (and a fair bit of extra work) unless move vandalism of articles on the main page becomes an actual problem. wctaiwan (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – This might be a bit much to implement for something that isn't really a problem. It could probably be automated, but I don't imagine it would get a high priority. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Because something happens rarely, is not a reason for a yet another new level of beauracy which will overburden whomever the group is that will have to deal with the requests for article moves. It is not practical. Mugginsx (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral but leaning toward an oppose. Sorry but I don't see a problem and a knee jerk reaction to one incident isn't the answer. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a burdensome solution to a largely nonexistent problem, and it actually would cause problems in situations in which moves are appropriate. —David Levy 14:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Scroll galery

Hello,

per {{Scroll gallery}}: "This template is currently not functioning, as the required JavaScript code to use it is not integrated into the English Wikipedia. " - please could you do it? It is a very useful template. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to post this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Best regards. 64.40.54.147 (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Just because other sites do something doesn't make it a good idea. Happy‑melon 19:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is useful for many people as most just don't want to see hundreds of pictures, but one picture at a time. Also, having a simple gallery is not really great for disabled people. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If people want to see this in action, go to de:Vorlage:Galerie#Siehe auch. Personally, I just don't see the point of this over a normal gallery or a link to an appropriate category. Anomie⚔ 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

? Read my comments perhaps. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I did read it. But I don't agree with your assertion that it's better. Anomie⚔ 22:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If the IE compatibility could be obtained, it would be a nice option to have. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Education Program extension RfC

I've just opened up a request for comment on whether to enable the Education Program extension for managing and monitoring Wikipedia educational assignments. If it does get enabled, there are related technical (user rights) and policy (who should be able to use it, and how will user rights be assigned?) issues that will need to be sorted out.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

United States Military Date Proposal

A discussion on the encyclopedic need for the use of military dates on United States military related articles is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal to strike out the requirement that American military articles use military dates. Please join in.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Images In The News

There's a discussion going on here on how to properly place images in the Main page In The News feature. Feel free to comment if you have an opinion. --Jayron32 17:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent Deaths on In The News

There's also a discussion going on here on whether to include a 1-2 line list of recent deaths in the "In The News" Main Page section. Please comment if you have an opinion. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Orange fixit box on mainpage

Hi all, I originally floated this idea at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_165#An_idea_for_converting_readers_to_editors....3F and gathered some positive feedback there but nothing eventuated, so I will structure it a bit better here. The idea is to try and engage more readers into writers (but try and do it a bit better than it was done many moons ago.

So we have a small pale orange box which lists maybe 2-5 articles identified as good, broad candidates for fixing - thus maybe articles such as pink, North Island or Screwdriver rather than, say, quantum theory or some esoteric maths/physics/ sociology etc. We select them on a page similar to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and load them up for 24 hours. The aim would be to see how many constructive edits we could get to articles.

Other question is, how would we fit it in...so folks can vote below....If cautious, we could run as a three month trial only, so if you oppose setting it in stone it'd be great to at least give it a time-limited trial.Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. I think this would be a good idea - we could do it as a banner ad - "Here's five articles that could use improvement - please join us and help us build this encyclopedia" or something. Maybe put a banner on the left side by the toolbox links that would only show to IP users. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
2. I think this is the best suggestion for converting readers into editors that I've heard for a long time. If we could organize a "coaching" team - of Wikipedians with a reputation for helping newbies and not biting them then we could shepherd them through the process. So instead of getting a wild collection of crappy edits that would have to be reverted, we could encourage people through the process. Adjusting the number of articles presented (and picking the kind that newbies do best at) would allow us to control the flood of edits to those small numbers of articles. We could even have the links go to "sandbox" versions of those articles, which the shepherding Wikipedians could "promote" to the live articles when they feel that a good point has been reached. That would imply less panicky reversions and allow more time for constructive advice. At any rate, I think it's well worth some serious discussion followed by a trial period. SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

   The above comes across as a radically different (and much better) proposal — one to develop a process in which newcomers are given advice and assistance instead of being sent to "shoddy" articles with the vague instruction to improve them. —David Levy 15:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

   I agree it has merit - does the Wikipedia:Teahouse have sufficient emphasis on article work? I have not looked at that aspect in detail.....I know it is a focussed place to help new editors and seems to be helping with retention rates, so building on this is a very good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We already encourage editing, less directly, by prominently referring to Wikipedia as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (linked to Wikipedia:Introduction) and linking to numerous editable articles.
   The concern, I take it, is that some potential editors are reluctant to dive in. But that isn't entirely bad, as this motivates them to familiarize themselves with our basic principles and practices beforehand.
   Sending newcomers directly to articles specifically for the purpose of editing them will generate primarily unhelpful (even if well-intentioned) results. And when we have to revert the good-faith (but inappropriate) changes, many of these users will become discouraged and never edit again. This already occurs to some extent (an unavoidable consequence of operating a wiki), and I see no reason to exacerbate the problem. —David Levy 02:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

   But what we're doing patently isn't working. We're losing editors at an unprecedented rate - while the encyclopedia continues to grow and need more maintainers. We do need a new approach of some kind. The "status quo" argument doesn't hold water. I have some ideas for improving this proposal that may get around some of your concerns...see my "Support" !vote above. SteveBaker (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

   But what we're doing patently isn't working. We're losing editors at an unprecedented rate - while the encyclopedia continues to grow and need more maintainers.
   Much of that decline is attributable to the fact that fewer and fewer topics (particularly those widely familiar to persons fluent in English — an unavoidable systemic bias) have yet to be covered. It's unfortunate that editors are departing, but it's fallacious to assume that we're failing them in some way. For better of worse, many people simply aren't interested in sticking around to maintain articles.
   We do need a new approach of some kind. The "status quo" argument doesn't hold water.
   It's an argument that I haven't made. I don't oppose the idea of expanding efforts to recruit new editors, including on the main page. I oppose this proposal to send unprepared newcomers directly to "shoddy" articles with the vague instruction to improve them.
   I have some ideas for improving this proposal that may get around some of your concerns...see my "Support" !vote above.
   I don't believe that your ideas belong under the "Support" heading, as they appear to constitute a radically different (and much better) proposal. —David Levy 15:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

   Much of that decline is attributable to the fact that fewer and fewer topics (particularly those widely familiar to persons fluent in English — an unavoidable systemic bias) have yet to be covered.
   That has got be stopped being used as an argument across Wikipedia. It is simply not true. There are so many articles on "mainsteam" concepts that have very bad content, that nobody knows about or bothers to change. Habitat, Daughter, Son (actually, all the family articles are rubbish at the moment - things that you would've thought would be some of the first concepts to have articles created), human body, sadness (a lot of the emotion articles are rubbish too), analysis, letter (alphabet)... and the list goes on and on. The point is that these article were created once upon a time probably like 6 years ago, and then fiddled with with minor edits up until now, with the quality basically unchanged. There are sooo many articles like this lying around that noone know/care about. I think in general people are scared of the more general topics so focus on the more obscure, specific stuff. You only know what to include in art until you've made articles on all the different types of art, right? But we can let that fear go away, by making this sort of thing the norm. I had a similar proposal about half a year ago and that got shut down. Don't let this one get shot down too. It will help immensely in the process of converting readers to editors (or, in my vocabulary, allow people to realise that there is no dichotomy, and that they are in fact edi-readers). Why not bring important topics to peoples attention and get them going? --Coin945 (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

   What needs to be stopped is denying the obvious on this issue. Here is the first example, Habitat, in 2006; of course it's harder to improve it in 2012. This is not a comment on the orange box. Art LaPella (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

   That has got be stopped being used as an argument across Wikipedia. It is simply not true.
   You dispute the assertion that fewer notable topics (particularly those of greatest interest to the site's editors) lack English Wikipedia articles than did before?
   There are so many articles on "mainsteam" concepts that have very bad content, that nobody knows about or bothers to change.
   I'm well aware that much of the encyclopedia is in a state of disrepair. As I noted, "many people simply aren't interested in sticking around to maintain articles".
   At some point, Wikipedia lacked the 697 articles currently tagged by WikiProject Buffyverse. Fans of the Buffyverse have striven to ensure that a Wikipedia article be written for every series, film, television episode, book, music album, video game, major character (and actor portraying him/her) and notable behind-the-scenes contributor.
   Are all of these articles in good shape? No, of course not. Here's one that I loaded at random. It's just sitting there, tagged for multiple issues (as is the Buffyverse article, I noticed). I'm sure that certain members of the aforementioned WikiProject are working on improving these articles. Other editors, conversely, set out to author unsourced plot summaries and never intended to contribute anything else. As far as they're concerned, now that the articles have been written, their work here is done. We did nothing to drive away these individuals.
   Why not bring important topics to peoples attention and get them going?
   We should, but not in the manner proposed above. —David Levy 21:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

2. Right now the main page gives Wikipedia a certain polished respectability. Adding a box implicating that we're broken and need fixing may discourage those who actually want to use it as an encyclopedia. In business we call it, "airing our dirty laundry"; it's generally not something you want to do. Beyond that, I'm in accord with David above. Sending new editors to the introduction page has the helpful benefit of exposing newcomers to the Wikipedia philosophy. On the other hand, adding a big Try it! button that spoon fed a candidate editor through the process of picking a few pages to edit would probably be good. I don't why we don't have a simple device like that already. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

   Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. It is not finished. Why are we presenting ourselves to the public as if we are? And when you start to bring the public into the picture, you get an even more important question: why are we excluding our readers (our potential editors) from the site? We set up this horrifically bureaucratic system, totally unwelcoming to newbies because we create this huge dichotomy of editors & readers (even thoguh in reality they're one in the same), and then moan and complain when everyone starts to leave. Hmmm... i wonder why. I say there's nothing wrong at all with showing off our "dirty laundry". We are not supposed to be perfect or complete. That is false advertising. If anyone wants my opinion, that's the sole reason why Wikipedia gets so many complaints about false/misleading information - we "claim" to be this brilliant complete source (through both what we do say... and what we choose not to), and then not deliver in many respects. There is something so intrinsically wrong with this sentiment, and noone has been able to change it. Actually i kid. Many have tried, but they are stopped by the worst philosophy of all in modern-day Wiki... which brings me back to the other point: why don't we (instead of chatting about all this theoretically, which is unfortunately what wiki has become: a place of all chat and no action), just charge head and see how it goes? It may fail miserably, yes indeed. But there's only 1 way to know for sure.--Coin945 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

   Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. It is not finished. Why are we presenting ourselves to the public as if we are?
   On several occasions, I've expressed the opinion that we should convey this more clearly on the main page. In particular, I've supported the idea of displaying the featured article and good article counts alongside the total article count (mock-up), thereby eliminating the implication that we care solely about quantity (as conveyed by the message's current text, in which featured articles, unsourced stubs and everything in between are lumped together as "6,870,063 articles in English").
   And when you start to bring the public into the picture, you get an even more important question: why are we excluding our readers (our potential editors) from the site?
   I agree that we should do more to recruit new editors. Sending newcomers, en masse, directly to "shoddy" articles, with the vague instruction to improve them (despite their unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's editorial standards, which obviously can't be extrapolated from the articles themselves) is not a viable means of accomplishing this. It strikes me as a surefire way to lose potential editors (for the reasons that I've cited).
   why don't we (instead of chatting about all this theoretically, which is unfortunately what wiki has become: a place of all chat and no action), just charge head and see how it goes?
   That might have made sense a decade ago, but a community of this size is unsustainable under such a system. If we were to simply implement every big idea (even on a trial basis), the site would collapse under their weight. I agree that we sometimes get hung up on bureaucracy, but some discussion/filtration is essential. —David Levy 21:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Discuss

• So David, you're opposed to even a trial of it? Even with some shoddy pages and a bunch of watchers just to see what happens? Actually we should get some figures on who goes from mainpage to introduction page and thence elsewhere.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I oppose a trial. I disagree that sending newcomers directly to "shoddy" articles (from which a basic understanding of Wikipedia's editorial expectations can't even be extrapolated) is desirable. They won't know what's expected of them, so most of their contributions will be reverted, tagged or removed.
  Additionally, they'll become confused/annoyed upon encountering endless edit conflicts. That's why it's unhelpful for a large number of people — irrespective of knowledge/experience — to edit a particular article or handful of articles simultaneously. This situation, which is incredibly frustrating (even to longtime editors) arises naturally in articles about current/recent events. I see no reason to deliberately manufacture such a scenario in arbitrary articles, let alone bad articles edited by users who don't even know what an "edit conflict" is. —David Levy 14:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  I think Caliber's choice of the word "shoddy" is a poor one. We would need to discuss what kinds of articles need this kind of support. Clearly we wouldn't want very obscure topics...and certainly not horribly controversial ones...but also not articles that are already very high quality. But there are plenty of articles out there that languish from lack of editors but aren't horrible.

  I propose that we have the corresponding Talk pages be pre-loaded with welcoming, experienced Wikipedians (I'm going to call them "Shepherds") - who (let us suppose) have been discussing the article there for a day or two before the article is promoted. That way, the newbies will arrive to a welcoming, non-controversial editing environment, with gentle expert editors to guide them rather than a shark-tank.

  The issue of having large numbers of people flood a single article can be controlled by removing each article from the front page once edits from...oh...20 new editors have been made? Cycling through a large number of articles in this way would help spread the load. We could also consider linking the "EDIT ME!" link on the front page to a sand-box - rather than to the actual, live article. The 'Shepherds' would be responsible for replacing the 'live' article with the sand-box changes whenever they feel it's better. So reversion won't have to be urgent and violent.

  Shepherds would be instructed to explain policy issues rather than using curt and cryptic "WP:RS" or "WP:NOR" links as a shorthand.

  I believe that a short trial would teach us a lot about how to make this work.

  SteveBaker (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  I don't oppose the idea of expanding efforts to recruit new editors, including on the main page. I oppose the idea of sending newcomers directly to articles with the vague instruction to improve them.

  A hypothetical orange box should instead lead to an area in which potential editors are guided step by step (beginning with a basic explanation of Wikipedia's practices, with which they should be familiar before they're tasked with editing the carefully selected articles). And instead of listing articles to be edited, the box could contain a list of articles recently improved via the process. (This would provide helpful examples of what we hope to achieve and a reward/incentive.) —David Levy 15:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Casliber et al, are you aware of Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement? (I noticed this advertised on a talk page.) It has a similar goal. Rambling from here out: (hopeful:) I'm all for trying something different. (skeptical:) Even though I agree with David Levy on the particular problems, (hopeful:) would an experiment be the end of the world? Past sub-pages that ask people to improve content have suffered from randomness and too many choices. (See the link to someone's redesign in the other discussion section: too many choices!) (skeptical:) The larger problem with any initiative of this type is that Wikipedia editing has frankly become a specialty. If you ask previously uninvolved visitors to improve screwdriver, they may offer many good-faith contributions, and they'll promptly be reverted by gatekeepers for being unreferenced, etc. I see a number of 'unproven' assumptions in this discussion, and one of my unproven assumptions is that the number of people who are willing and able to contribute substantively to Wikipedia in a way that follows all of its 2012 policies and norms is just vanishingly small. (On norms, compare the degree to which citation is "enforced" by the community now versus 2007, even though the policy still says "likely to be challenged".) (hopeful:) I'd still like to see something like this go up on the main page for a few days to prove that change control and the status quo on this project have not ground experimentation to an absolute halt. It has merits and demerits: try it. Clearly with a tight focus knowledgeable editors can be there to "steward" new editors. An edit notice could be placed on the chosen article outlining a few broad principles for editing in plain English, and explaining how the particular article could be improved in terms that non-insiders can relate to. I mean, I look at screwdriver and I wouldn't know where to start (except for the generic "improve references" trope, or the "copyediting and formatting" tropes, which are all things that insiders understand, but they're not teasers for new editors; "tell us what you know about" is the teaser, and yet (skeptical:) the norm in 2012 is "we could care less what you know!"). Riggr Mortis (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  @Riggr - wow, I hadn't seen that! I intend to take a closer look....@David, I do concede alot of what you're saying about the potential for blind reverts and edit conflicts. The optimist was hoping that maybe added scrutiny by some more constructive editors at the time the article was linked might mean a scramble to look for sources of material that people add rather than just reversion. This is why I was thinking of broad articles. Anyway, if other ideas which are radically different to my intiial proposal come out of this, I don't mind in the slightest. I don't own this idea and I am happy to try some alternatives. I'll take a look at the community portal revamp when I can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Right....we could also just run as a trial only, so clarify above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• I like the idea of providing more "Become an editor, here's how [easy it is]" links on the Main Page. But I think there may be better methods/designs to do so. Eg.
  1. See the "About Wikipedia" box at the bottom of WP:2012 main page redesign proposal/Pretzels for a particularly good idea, with 3 sections of helpful pointers (readers/new-editors/regular-editors) - [The links that are chosen would all need to be re-examined, as his draft was primarily focused on layout and overall-ideas; but the "3 sections" is a good direction to think in, that the Help Project is also considering using for redesigning the main Help:Contents page, in the near future). (also see WP:2012 main page redesign proposal for more design ideas, and much discussion on the talkpage).
  2. See User:Maryana (WMF)/opentask for a redesign that is (soon) to be placed in the top of the WP:Community portal, as part of the ongoing WP:Community portal/Redesign 2012. Using the Community Portal for specific article suggestions (as it has in the past) would be good, but getting new editors to glance at the WP:Introduction or WP:Cheatsheet (or similar) first is crucial. Less is more.

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Time to close? (LTA)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse#Time to close. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Differentiating reference syntax in the editing window.

I have spent some time responding to new user feedback, and I deal with a lot of confusion and complaints about how difficult it is to edit pages that contain a great deal of citations / footnotes mixed in with text. From the perspective of a new user, it can be incredibly frustrating and tedious to have to parse through, and sometimes results in mistakes like breaking citations. One user brought an idea across that it would be incredibly helpful to create a different font color in the text editor for references and regular text There are certain text editors, like Emacs and Vim that can parse through text and identify keywords that indicate an expression or a function, and color them appropriately to differentiate them from other kinds of syntax. I am unsure if this is possible to do with the current text editor we use. I am aware of the AutoWikiBrowser, but I do not know if it has this functionality that I described above. So, specifically, I am proposing a change to the text editor so that certain kinds of text (e.g. <ref> tags, table formatting, thumbnails, substitutions, templates) are given a different font color than text that is explicitly displayed on the page. If anyone can speak to the feasibility of this proposal, I also welcome your thoughts. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dont have an opinion on text coloring (although it can cause problems with those with colour blindness and other issues) perhaps we should encourage List-defined references which tidy up the code and make it more readable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the List-defined references idea. However, I don't understand how my proposal it would cause problems with people who are colorblind. As it is, all the text is the same color, so changing the colors would be at least marginally better, unless you have something close to monochromacy, which is rare. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!)

I agree that list directed references make it much easier to edit the body text, but not everyone has the skills and enthusiasm to make the change, and identifying citations and other non-body-text items will make life much easier when editing. A highlight colour would also work, even if it is light grey, and that should be no problem to colourblind editors. Even a different font could be used. I dont care which, myself, as long as it is something. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

See also User talk:Yair rand/ReferenceTooltips#Wish list. Edit link that takes one to reference wikitext. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Great idea. It wastes so much time to have to hunt through a lot of text to find one reference out of many. Especially when one reference is used multiple times. Anything that makes it easier should be done. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – Yes, color coding of the text would be particularly helpful, as it is in many IDEs. However, implementing this in a browser edit window would be a non-trivial task. Personally what I like to do is use WP:LDR, as mentioned above. This moves most of the reference clutter out of the way and allows contributors to focus more on the text. Not everybody agrees with that approach though. In the past I've tried using the informal convention of uncompressing the inline reference templates into an easier to read form using line breaks and spaces, but that just attracts the anal-retentive types who like to condense everything into an undecipherable ball. I just compromised and implemented WP:LDR with the citations rolled up. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm, the thought occurs to me that you take the split pane approach; use an upper pane to display a color-coded, dynamically-updated version of the currently selected paragraph, while editing normally in the lower pane. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: enable HotCat for all editors by default

I think that Wikipedia:HotCat is a very useful gadget. It makes adding categories much easier. It is enabled by default on pl wikipedia. Why not on en wikipedia? It is a pure UI improvement. A lot of new or first time editors I talk with complain they cannot "tag" Wikipedia articles, and when I shown them the HotCat they ask me why such a useful tool it hidden in the depths of the preferences. Let's make it available to all by default (most inexperienced editors don't bother with preferences). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish someone would fix HotCat to stop allowing people to place maintenance categories directly on articles. Anomie⚔ 18:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I use HotCat more and more on the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Convert Village Pump to Wikia Community Forum software

Note. Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). This is now a proposal. See proposal section farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I am an admin-bureaucrat on a Wikia wiki, and I currently have over 36,000 edits there. Wikia sucks in so many ways. One good thing though about Wikia is that central, community discussions between editors across the wikis are very useful and productive. There are many expert coders participating. They fix innumerable problems caused by the Wikia staff and its software experimentation. Wiki admins add the custom fixes across many wikis.

Those central, community forums at Wikia are much better organized than the Village Pumps here, and have much better software. That is the model that should have been used for LiquidThreads. See here:

• http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Index

For example; look at the multiple threads at this specific forum:

• http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Admin_Forum:Technical_Help

Each thread can be put on one's watchlist. The thread with the last post goes to the top. So it is easy to see current discussion. Old discussion naturally scrolls off the bottom of the screen. Everything can be searched. What's not to like? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, the advertising? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, duh. How about a substantive comment, instead of the usual Village Pump fanboy comment? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor. Although I do think that the DPLForum (which is the extension in question) approach is somewhat simplistic, as long as we don't have Flow, it might be good medium term solution. It needs to be reviewed first though. I have reopened the bug ticket on this issue. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That the threads are forever moving over the page is one of the most offputting aspects of this layout. If I'm watching something or indeed the whole page, it keeping some sort of rigid structure to it is an advantage, not a disadvantage. NtheP (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I have heard any complaints along those lines at the Wikia forums. People seem to really like the format. As I said you can put individual threads on your watchlist. There is a link at the bottom of them called "Follow" that puts a thread on one's watchlist. I also check off the box in My Preferences to email me when a page I'm following is changed on the community wiki where the central forums are located. Mainly just for those threads. On my main wiki I use the recent changes watchlist.

A new experimental Village Pump could be set up alongside the regular, old Village Pumps. People would soon see how much better it is to be able to watchlist individual threads.

This forum method might also be useful for putting central forums on a Wikimedia forum wiki. Forums that people might actually use. Versus the greatly disliked Liquid Threads. If it is just a forum wiki, then people would not fear checking off the box in My Preferences to get email when a watchlisted thread is edited. This would be better than continuing to try to get involvement on forums on Meta and Strategy wikis. People really dislike the scattered forums there, and Liquid Threads there. A wiki just for forums might be a solution for global discussions. Since it is just for forums, an integrated global watchlist would not be needed. That has not been created yet. Email notification of thread replies would be acceptable to people since they would only be getting email for replies to individual threads. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong VP for this discussion: It's policy, not technical. The feasability is a technical question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if we wanted to this isn't the correct VP to make the actual decision, feasability yes agreeing to the change no. Not sure i would be for it anyway but thats better left for the right board.Blethering Scot 17:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The technical issues are what concern me and others now. This thread is linked from Bugzilla and other places too. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• How would the new forum work with the templates/bots that operate to support policy discussions/RFCs? Monty₈₄₅ 17:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Each thread can be linked to. So, for example; links can be added to Template:Centralized discussion. I am not sure though what you are referring to. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• How do I quickly and easily search the whole page? Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

See the search box here:

http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Index

http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Forums_search_box --Timeshifter (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of. Search is definitely inferior with that system. I have to open each thread individually. No thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is actually much easier. The Wikia search results list only has those threads that contain your search terms. The Village Pump archive search results lists whole archives. Several, or many, of them. So you have to open up a whole archive of multiple topic threads in order to see just one thread in that archive. That can be slow for people using dialup internet access. And it is easy to lose one's place in an archive.

It is also easier when using your browser to search within a current topic thread. Because at the Village Pump you have to wade through all the other threads on the current Village Pump page while using your browser to search for terms on the topic thread of interest. It is easy to lose one's place among all the topic threads. Happens to me often. It is much easier to search within a single topic thread as at Wikia central forums. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for one Village Pump using DPLforum

This is now a proposal to start one new Village Pump. Call it Village Pump (general) or something similar. It will use Extension:DPLforum as at the Wikia central community forums. Once people use this forum for awhile I believe most users will much prefer it to the current Village Pump method. To see DPLforum in use go here:

• http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Admin_Forum:Technical_Help

The advantage of Extension:DPLforum is that it allows people to watchlist individual threads. It also automatically puts the thread with the latest post on top of the forum index. The forums are easily searchable, both within the archives, and within individual threads.

See:

• mw:Extension:DPLforum
• Bugzilla:14087 - DPLforum extension to create and watchlist individual threads on Wikimedia forums. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

---

• Support as trial, for say 90 days: being able to watch only threads you are interested in is a long-requested option. Please {{talkback}} me if answer to this comment, as I can't afford watchlisting a page with such amount of traffic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL on the {{talkback}} part. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)