Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

New proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

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

« Archives, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212

Visual Editor on Talk Pages

Enable the ability to use visual editor to used on articles talk pages.02:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Regice2020 (talk)

Your Thoughts

The VisualEditor is poorly suited for talk pages at the moment, since it was built with content pages in mind and lacks support for signatures, indentation etc. It also doesn't solve some of the usability issues like knowing where to reply. Following the extensive Talk pages consultation 2019 the current development focus is the Talk pages project which will involve improvements to the talk page experience based on the existing wikitext model. the wub "?!" 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

T235285, the current design ticket, is looking a lot like reply-link so far. Not sure what else it'll bring to the table. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I take that back, it looks much better, especially in terms of localization & parser robustness. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're interested in making it easier to use talk pages, please put the mw:Talk pages project on your watchlist. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It lacks support for ":" indentation but it can indent using bullet points and it can do signatures (using 4 tildes) - I know because I just did this edit using it (which you can confirm looking at the history.). Kerry (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

All you have to do is add "&veaction+edit" to the end of the URL and you can use the Visual Editor on most pages including Talk pages (and this page). The limitations are not technical but political. Kerry (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If you would like to make it easier to let VE users to write on your User Talk page or a project Talk page or whatever, add the {{VEFriendly}} template at the top of the Talk page (see my User Talk page). As someone who does outreach and that is almost always with people using Visual Editor, I have to be able to have VE users to be able to talk to me. But it seems many people want to treat them like 2nd class contributors by denying them the right to cmmunicate with other contributors and to deny them the right participate in discussions like this by making it not possible for them to do it. Personally I use both editors, they have their strengths and weaknesses for different kinds of editing. Tables are a breeze in Visual Editor, for example. Unless there is a bug in the VE itself, VE users cannot normally break synax (noting that another proposal here is concerned with broken syntax). Having new users use VE by default would get rid of a lot of broken syntax. Kerry (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion criteria for lists of political endorsements

We have many stand-alone and embedded lists of political campaign endorsements (see for example, Category:2020 United States presidential election endorsements). The inclusion criteria of these lists are frequently debated, and the lists themselves subject to frequent additions based on unclear language published only on social media. This RfC attempts to create baseline inclusion criteria for such lists, which can be built upon as needed on article talk pages. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The scope of this RfC is on lists of endorsements of political campaigns, whether stand-alone or part of another article. It does not apply to endorsements discussed outside of lists.

There are three proposals for inclusion criteria, which should be evaluated separately (one does not depend on the others). (If you would like to add to this list, please start a separate thread rather than add to this one).

1. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people or organizations.

Note on #1: Whether or not it is necessary for the person to also have a Wikipedia article can be determined at the article level

2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.

Note on #2: This means endorsements should not be sourced solely to a Tweet or Instagram post, for example.

3. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which are specifically articulated as "endorsements".

Note on #3: Expressions of support, use of particular hashtags, comments about donating to a campaign, and other forms of praise of a candidate is often included as an "endorsement". Support of this criterion would require the endorsement be explicit. In most cases, this would require use of the word "endorsement" by the person endorsing or by media coverage thereof. Other language which can be understood as unequivocal endorsement can be discussed on a case-by-case basis (for example, "I am campaigning for Candidate X" or "I am backing Candidate X").

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Criterion 1: Endorsements should be by notable people or organizations

• Support as per WP:LISTPEOPLE, et al. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support, ditto. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support: this prevents laundry lists of non-notable people. I think whether or not this exempts certain people without their own articles, such as state-level legislators (currently the case on this article), should be determined on a per-article basis. Bobbychan193 (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Helps prevent trivia lists and reduces potential BLP problems from ambiguous listings. Potential to override on a case-by-case basis if coverage under criterion #2 below is very strong, such as might occur with an unusual endorsement (cross-party, for example). --RL0919 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per common sense: there should be no policy in which I can tweet out an endorsement of Vermin Supreme and be added to a list of endorsements. Both because who cares and for the respect of privacy of non-notable individuals. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, I have to disagree with this, though I support the sentiment. Vermin may be satirical, but so was George Carlin. Your background is as irrelevant as your given sex, taken without context. Intellectual communities, when not subject to obvious detailed public scrutiny, such as Wikipedia, often thrive on humour. Have you not allowed The Cabal to affect you here on Wikipedia? It's really down to notability and verifability. Vermin himself may or not be notable enough for this sort of thing, but when a personality like this is notable, they must be respected, or bias is institutionalised. A little bit of this, a little bit of that, dash of RFC, a sprinkling of neutrality, there. ~ R.T.G 21:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• @RTG: I'll have you know that I don't even know what a mop is and can only make messes. But to my point, perhaps you misunderstand? Vermin Supreme is undeniably notable, however I am definitely not. If Vermin Supreme tweeted out an endorsement of me, that could be included in my list of endorsements because he is notable. If I tweet out an endorsement of Vermin Supreme, that should not be added to his list of endorsements. Essentially, while there is some wiggle room over whether twitter is a reliable source, that an endorsement is sourced is not sufficient for the endorsement to be included. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• I thought you must be somehow trying to reject Supremes authority... Well I would point that point out if it is brought up. ~ R.T.G 12:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support ~ R.T.G 18:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - a la LISTN, but I'm happy for additions from those without articles (most likely state/province level politician endorsements) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This aligns well with existing policy, and the type of information that an encyclopedia should include (WP:NOTEVERYTHING).- MrX 🖋 12:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - as above. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support but the usual wording for lists of people, is "have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one", and remember that every member of a state or national legislature is presumed to be entitled to a Wikipedia article, whether or not it has been written ,and this is among the strongest of our presumed notabilities--Icannot recall a single exception in the last 10 years. ; this also applies generally to mayors of cites with population > 100,000 or perhaps > 5000 ) , and members of city councils of the largest cities. This will include a very large proportion of the people who tend to be listed DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support under WP:CSC (first criterion, "Every entry meets the notability criteria") combined with the generally accepted rule of thumb that notability is not inherited. There are simply too many endorsements otherwise. — Newslinger talk 00:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per our various criteria for lists. If our contributors weren't so lazy, they'd develop prose within paragraphs. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - As stayed by others above, this fits with multiple existing policies and guidelines Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Criterion 2: Endorsements should be covered by independent reliable sources

• Support - For reasons of WP:WEIGHT as well as RS. Self-published sources can be reliable for someone's own opinion, but the ephemeral sentiments expressed in a Tweet are far from a formal endorsement in most cases. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• (Weak-ish) support I don't think Wikipedia should be engaging in the WP:OR-like behaviour of trawling social media sites to compile lists of people who have tweeted in favour of a candidate. If an endorsement is notable as an endorsement, then it will receive decent secondary source coverage. I say "weak-ish" because I fear this will be difficult to police. Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the general rule. This is what we want for most content anyway, and we should not be in business of interpreting statements drawn from original research. If #1 and #3 are both clearly satisfied, then maybe an exception could be made, but those cases will typically draw third-party coverage anyway. --RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Let me preface this by saying that of course having a reliable source for every endorsement would be ideal. However, there are many individuals who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, but are often not notable enough to have their tweets and political sentiments covered by the media. This is especially true for non-politicians, such as many of the individuals who have endorsed Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, and others via tweets and social media. It is also worth noting that many of these independent sources are actually based on tweets themselves. Elon Musk is a prime example; he made a three-word tweet, and it was instantly picked up by myriad media sources. Also, per WP:TWITTER: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field ... This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook. As for the five criteria listed, as far as I'm concerned, none of them are violated by citing tweets that are published by the individuals themselves when they are explicitly endorsements. I agree that sometimes, tweets that are not explicit expressions of support slip in, but these non-endorsements can easily be removed by any editor. I myself have done this extensively on this article for the past few months. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• The idea that there are many individuals who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, but are often not notable enough to have their tweets and political sentiments covered by the media strikes me as a highly problematic reason to include something. Inclusion of, well, anything on Wikipedia should be because it's important enough for independent sources to cover it. It's not the case that once a person becomes notable, whatever they say is worth including in the encyclopedia. (For context, a difference of opinion between Bobbychan193 and me on this point at endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries‎‎ is what led me down a path searching for past discussions, to try to find precedent for a clear inclusion criteria). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• The whole point of endorsement lists is to list out endorsements. What makes one endorsement more important than another? Only if the media reports it? I disagree with this sentiment. It's not the case that once a person becomes notable, whatever they say is worth including in the encyclopedia. This is not what I am saying. Again, the whole point of endorsement lists is to list out endorsements, and I don't see why we can't do that if an individual tweets out an endorsement. (Other users have mentioned other reasons on that talk page. Some examples: Given the sheer volume of potential endorsements, not every single expression of support is going to be reported on, so it's inevitable that tweets will sometimes be the only place they will be mentioned and a celebrity's personal account tweeting in support has been used frequently as a source for endorsement and it is often without another citation. When they specifically say they support the candidate, it's an endorsement. If not, then remove most of Bernie Sanders' endorsements. The criteria in 2016 was explicit support and/or the campaign hashtag. Just pointing out arguments that other editors have laid out.) Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"What makes one endorsement more important than another? Only if the media reports it?" Yes. That's how Wikipedia works. We report what reliable sources say. What makes any event more important than another? Because a reliable source talks about it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Those were rhetorical questions. My point was that all endorsements are categorically equal. An endorsement isn't "less of an endorsement" just because the media doesn't pick up on it. Think about it, if person A and person B both endorse candidate C, but the media only reports endorsement A, endorsement B is still categorically an endorsement. Sure, some people, like Elon Musk, might be more "important" than others, and that's part of why there are media sources reporting on these endorsements (other reasons: money/clickbait, bandwagon reporting, etc.). But other endorsements wouldn't be considered "lesser" endorsements just because the media doesn't report them. Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, all endorsements are not categorically equal, just as all information is not categorically of equal value on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate container of all facts. We are selective. We are an encyclopaedia. We decide what information merits inclusion with reference to reliable, secondary sources. If you went to an AfD and said an article should be included without secondary source reporting, no-one would listen to you. If some political scandal could only be sourced to some private tweets and wasn't covered by secondary source reporting, we wouldn't add it to an election article. Why should endorsements be treated differently from other facts on Wikipedia? Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:BLP as potentially controversial information about a living person. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral/Oppose, per Criterion 1, it should be clear this refers to standalone information, and not information itself. ~ R.T.G 18:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• this refers to standalone information, and not information itself - Hmm. I don't intend to respond to all the opposers here, but I can't make heads or tails of that this means. Would you mind rewording? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• We have many stand-alone and embedded lists of political campaign endorsements, This RfC attempts to create baseline inclusion criteria for such lists. As to my words, the key is it should be clear this refers to standalone, as even short lists within independent articles, I imagine, will be regularly challenged by invoking this guideline. Maybe I should have said Conditional and demanded that "standalone" be made clear. Or maybe it should pass and wait and see if further clarification is required to avoid creep. I'll keep my eye on it, but I'm flying by this instant, thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 19:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying. I did intend this to apply to lists of endorsements in both stand-alone and embedded lists, but not article prose. If people would support for one but not the other, that seems like a reasonable distinction to make, which could be factored in at closing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• You're right, my comment didn't make sense. You did say "embedded". I'm just going to strike from any input here for the moment. Sorry about that. Thanks for pointing out the error. ~ R.T.G 00:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for organizations specifically for media outlets. I'm unsure whether this is the case in the United States, but in the UK and Australia at least it is routine for newspapers to officially endorse a party in elections via an editorial (see here for examples). These are going to be more significant than any endorsement by an individual, but they're rarely going to be covered in an independent RS. Partly because they all come out at the end of the campaign, partly because no one likes writing about the competition unless they've done something embarrassing. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I have seen independent reporting of newspaper endorsements. That said, you raise an interesting point. I was presuming that, say, The Times saying who it supported in an editorial would count under this rule. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad this was raised, but I don't think it's as much of an issue as you'd think. Just looking at the most recent UK general election, it's easy to find coverage of the other papers' endorsements in the Press Gazette, the i and the Guardian. I'm not sure the benefits of such an exception would outweigh the risks of permitting indiscriminate listings of newspapers and blogs. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support as a sensible limit to avoid sprawling lists of unimportant endorsements. For example, a minor comedian tweeting that he likes Tulsi, should not make the list unless an reliable independent publication takes notice. I also endorse RaiderAspect's exception for media outlets, provided that they are notable media outlets.- MrX 🖋 13:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support for individuals and organizations, but not on media outlets - If no RS reports on the endorsement, I think it's unlikely it will be very noteworthy. With the ample coverage of modern campaigns, it seems quite likely that nearly all endorsements of any significance at all will have some coverage in RS. For media outlets (i.e., editorials), I view the editorial itself as the RS for its own opinion. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Go back to basics. The notability criteria apply to the content of the endorsement; it needs to be covered by reliable, independent third parties. Notable people say all kinds of things, but we don't add it to an article unless it is reported in a reliable, independent source. The notability and reliable sourcing criteria don't change just because someone endorses a politician. If they posted on their personal website that they encouraged people to check out the Chicken Kiev at Notable Restaurant, we wouldn't be putting that in the article about the restaurant. Risker (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. If significant, non-independent sources such as op-eds and media outlet endorsements will definitely be mentioned by other independent reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 00:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Since many social media users can delete or hide prior posts, we ought not even consider that as a potential source on themselves. Published records are in the hands of consumers (like libraries). Chris Troutman (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - If no reliable sources think an endorsement is worth mentioning, why should Wikipedia? Doing so gives the endorsement (and perhaps the endorsee) UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of criterion 2

• I guess to clarify my stance, my main issue with this is that we shouldn't exclude an endorsement just because a media source didn't report it. Like, if a notable individual has clearly endorsed a candidate (based on our criteria #3) and the media didn't report it, it's still an endorsement. It just doesn't make sense to me to exclude such endorsements. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  The endorsement is only notable if it is covered by reliable, independent sources. Notability applies to the content of the edit, not the person who said whatever was said. Risker (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Would some of the proponents of this be willing to sandbox versions of the articles in Category:2016 United States presidential election endorsements so we can see just what effect this might have? I worry that the US media's tendency to ignore third-party candidates might result in unbalanced articles, where Democratic and Republican candidates have many more "minor" endorsements listed. Anomie⚔ 13:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If you look at the history of Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries you can see where I removed everything that was sourced only to social media. Another run-through would be required to remove those just sourced to the candidate/campaign's website, but it's an approximation. I tend to wince a little when I read "balance" in this sort of context, though. Isn't a balance achieved by throwing out the extent to which subjects receive secondary source coverage a definition of false balance? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I'm particularly interested in a comparison of the resulting states of different parties' articles than in one major party's. Anomie⚔ 12:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Criterion 3: Endorsements should be unequivocal and explicit

• Support - I was surprised to see how many "endorsements" we include are actually just people using a particular hashtag, expressing positive feelings about a candidate, saying they've donated, talking about going to a fundraiser, etc. This also gets at the problem of using only social media as sources. Something published in a reliable independent source would be less likely to pick something like that up and call it an endorsement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe As per basic principles, if we're claiming X backs Y, we need a source showing that X backs Y and merely expressing positive feelings or attending an event shouldn't cut it. That said, I am wary about requiring specific language, like expecting the word "endorsement". Different countries, even those notionally speaking the same language, use different words and phrases. There is a particular culture of endorsement in the US and we shouldn't be applying how endorsements are done in the US and the language used around them to other countries. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Preferably, but this is the weakest of the three suggested criteria. If there is a consensus of independent reliable sources under criterion #2 above that X has made an endorsement, then we should follow their lead rather than trying to interpret primary-source material. --RL0919 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Donating to a campaign, using particular hashtags, and/or attending any candidate event are not enough to be considered endorsements in isolation. This is because 1. Any individual can donate to multiple candidates or attend the events of multiple candidates (Example: Jack Dorsey donated to both Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard) 2. Hashtags, such as #YangGang, could be interpreted as a way to boost the visibility of a tweet, or attract attention from people who search said hashtag. I think that minor variations of "I endorse xyz", such as "I support xyz", "I am campaigning for xyz", or "I am voting for xyz", are explicit enough to be considered support. (Example: again, Elon Musk's tweet. If myriad independent sources consider this an endorsement, then I don't see any reason we as editors can't similarly interpret other tweets. Why should we wait for a media source to essentially do the same thing?) I agree that this should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, especially for tweets that may be slightly more ambiguous than your standard "I support xyz". Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Prefer 2. If a reliable independent source calls it an endorsement, we should list it as an endorsement regardless of whether an editor thinks it's equivocal. Obviously we should prefer unequivocal and explicit endorsements, but I'd prefer following RSs over our own judgment on what that constitutes. In the absence of 2, I'd support this, but am otherwise neutral on it. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Wugapodes and RL0919: I agree with both of you. I added this as separate from #2 for two reasons. First, in case #2 doesn't pass. Second, because there's still the question of interpreting the language of reliable sources. If a reliable source says that someone attended a fundraiser, tweeted in support of, used a particular hashtag, praised, etc., do we interpret that as an endorsement, or does the RS need to call it an endorsement? There are some other terms which, to me, are quite close in meaning or allow easy inference like "backed," "declared full support for," "campaigned for," etc. but there, too, I think it's tricky. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Somewhat support - most of the examples should be gone, but I don't think it needs to be as ironclad as "I endorse X for president" etc. On a distinct tack, if a RS says it's an endorsement and it isn't blatantly vague, then that should also suffice. However some filtering is clearly needed - a positive statement doth not an endorsement make Nosebagbear (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - It's unfortunate that this has to be documented, but it's surprising what some editors consider endorsements. An endorsement should include the word endorse, or a synonym like support, recommend, back, approve, etc. If a reasonable person questions whether something is an endorsement, then it should not be considered such. Vague comments, shout outs, donations, attending events, and the like should not be interpreted as endorsements. WP:V is the underlying policy. - MrX 🖋 13:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Agree wholly with MrX. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Given the nuances of the English language, there are many things that sound supportive that aren't endorsements. Let us stick to the explicit and if necessary go behind the RS (who have their own agendas) to look at the statement and see if it really is an endorsement. I agree with Ched that we should not have such lists of endorsements, but am also dubious that they could be stamped out if we wanted to.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support under WP:V. I agree with MrX here: we cannot extrapolate a claim that is stronger than what is presented in the underlying source. — Newslinger talk 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOR. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Turning a “statement of support” into a full blown “endorsement” would violate WP:NOR. So requiring that the endorsement be explicit makes sense. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. "Endorsement" is loaded language if it were used to describe mere passing statements of support. feminist (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of criterion 3

• Please give an example of an equivocal or inexplicit endorsement, and why that disqualifies the notability assumed by Criterion 1. ~ R.T.G 18:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Examples

"Let's win the era! @PeteButtigieg has me excited about the next generation of American government" "I have listened with an open heart and an open mind and time after time, the individual who has continually impressed me with his consistent, thoughtful, and error-free presentation of our values and needs in this country is @PeteButtigieg. He has risen to the top" "Go #PETE !!⁦@PeteForUSA2020 @PeteButtigieg" "@PeteButtigieg i think you have a shot at uniting this country again. i am a big fan and am sending you all my support. if there is anything i can ever do for you pls let me know" "Same" (responding to the one above) "Buona settimana!!! HAVE A GREAT WEEK!!! Feliz semana! 👊🏻👊🏻👊🏻 @PeteButtigieg #mayorpete #petebuttigieg #accettomiracoli #aceptomilagros #buonacattivasorte #buenamalasuerte #tzn2020" "This guy is so smart and on point and he wore the 🇺🇸 uniform. Good luck @PeteButtigieg - you are what this country needs." "A candidate for #President that speaks, genuinely, of #unity, #prayer and #reflection. I'm all over that, thanks #PeteButtigieg #PeteForAmerica @PeteButtigieg" "Still believe Mayor Pete is our best candidate for the presidency. His unique combination of qualifications is unbeatable. All our candidates are talented and good, but Mayor Pete stands out. He will be a great president. And we desperately need greatness in the Oval Office" "Please RT. Only 174 $1 donations by midnight to reach goal for @TulsiGabbard !pic.twitter.com/KTOCZp0NNR" “Oh noooooo, @KamalaHarris guess what?! @TulsiGabbard has your number. She is by far the better candidate. Go Tulsi" "A Joe Biden/Kamela Harris ticket or a Kamala Harris/Joe Biden ticket would please me greatly!" "GHosts for @BetoORourke fundraiser tomorrow evening in NYC:" "Bernie @SenSanders or @elizabethforma (Elizabeth Warren) would be two people I would LOVE to see in the White House, as both of them would be capable and ready to fix the damage caused by the @GOP and the Trumpino crime family" "God I wish we weren't a sexist hellscape so she'd get the nomination" "Increasingly all-in for Elizabeth Warren, gotta say" "Here's one very good reason to be for Elizabeth Warren. Wall Street is terrified of her" "Greatest Of All Time! #GOAT twitter.com/ewarren/status/1179851099978846209 …" "Russell Brand will be joining me in Los Angeles on Sept. 15" "We need an uprising of consciousness #Marianne2020.com #JoinTheEvolution #WagePeace A #President who leads with #Love & #Intelligence ." "I was there at his launch party in SF!" "Andrew is actually the "not stuck in the past and open to new good ideas guy"" "read up on @AndrewYang. he's the only young candidate addressing issues that nobody else is. his politics are actually good (more than just giving every american $1,000/month), and he has a fun and transparent personality. I uhhhh, i think we ✈️ #YangGang 2020" "It takes an amazing amount of strength to be this vulnerable in public. This display of emotion makes me admire @AndrewYang even more..." "I've actually donated for the first time ever. New podcast with @AndrewYangVFA is up! Check it out on offthepillpodcast! #yanggang" "LFG!!!!! #YANGYANG" "Thanks man. Best of luck future Mr President!" "Yanggang"

• The above are all currently in the endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. I had removed them and they were restored. Ran out of steam at the end (there are a lot of refs, and I only searched for twitter). This omits the somewhat clearer but still uncertain "I would vote for this person", "I support this person", "I donated to this person", and so on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Full disclosure, I was the one who restored them. It was 50KB worth of removals and certainly a bold edit by size alone, so I reverted them (temporarily) based on WP:BRD. I view this RfC as the "Discuss" phase, and if there is strong community consensus to remove tweets as sources, then I do not oppose the re-removal of these entries. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• My first impression of this is that it lacks a third party reliable source stating that each detail is individually notable beyond the fact of endorsement.
• The endorsement is possibly notable, but saying yah boo fifty seven ways until Sunday about it is not notable at all. Oh how I love thee is notable, that they do. Oh let me count the ways is a bit wandering, unless you can establish the particular commenters way-counting as notable. ~ R.T.G 20:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

OR is often bent to provide or enhance simple academic study. This seems to be a deep research of trivial twittes to highlight faces in a crowd who went woop at a certain time, and it may prove harmful to living persons. I mean, apply these precedents to the Trump endorsement page on Wikipedia and see what you get. Bending OR is for like, simple but important primary resources directly relevant to a subject. Endorsements should be directly relevant or presented as a number. People can be notable, but when you cross that notability over to something they aren't notable for, they can mislead you, and if we follow misleading resources, we mislead people, and we don't want to obstruct peoples right to disappear. None of these twittes are authorative. Collectively, they have an individual value, but if we record that value today with a fact checked number, there is no need to save the woops for playback tomorrow. Show me a Trump doing something cruel and unusual, and I'll show you a Democrat playing the other side to prove a bet that the people cannot be trusted. I mean, its my bet, and he's proved it so hard we might not recover... I've defended Trump loads of times for the purpose of revealing the other side, but I've never endorsed him. He's not my president. I'm not even American. ~ R.T.G 07:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarify that: OR is often bent to connect resources. To make lists, for instance. To provide "See also" sections. To clarify points. This above list however, is like listing woops, to an extent.. And it's not just the trivial nature of the individual items, it's the hotbed of emotion around ongoing events, ~ R.T.G 18:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oops didn't reply to the second part of your comment. Although I'm not sure what you mean by why that disqualifies the notability assumed by Criterion 1. It has nothing to do with the notability of the people speaking. It has to do with WP:OR, relying on Wikipedians to interpret someone's words to be an "endorsement". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Replied above upon the examples, thanks. ~ R.T.G 20:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

General discussion: inclusion criteria for political endorsement lists

• Personally I'm against ANY list of political support or endorsements in any way shape or form. It's one thing to say "Senator X supported Candidate Y in the past election" in a prose article. To my mind said "lists" or categories of "support political anything" goes against what our project is supposed to stand for and be. It's far too easy to put "list 1" which supports candidate A in a more front and center position than "list 2" which supports candidate B. IMO, there's far too much political POV pushing going on throughout wiki as it is - these "lists" simply add to that, and I can NOT support such things. — Ched (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, this RfC isn't about the validity of the lists. Whether we should have them at all may be worth discussing, but at the moment we have oodles of such lists, so let's at least create some baseline rules. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• The sheer number of these lists suggests there's consensus for their existence. I agree with Ched that I'm not sure how useful they are, but I think getting consensus for their exclusion would be an uphill battle that would cause more problems than it's worth. Many of these are suitable as standalone lists per WP:LISTN (FiveThirtyEight for example keeps a running list and ranking of primary endorsements), so if we prohibit inclusion in articles they will and (and maybe should) be spun out. Those that can't will probably be included in the relevant article because the community doesn't agree, and we'll just wind up back where we started or worse: fighting edit wars over stupid stuff and blocking people who could otherwise be useful contributors to politics articles. For better or worse, I think it's best to let the lists be and figure out how to curate them to minimize the negative aspects of such lists. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• The US has a particular system of political parties and endorsements that doesn't always translate to other countries. I note that on UK endorsement lists for general elections, we don't cover members of a party endorsing that party, as that goes without saying in a UK context. (If a Conservative MP endorsed anyone other than Johnson in a general election, they'd be out of the party very quickly.) In comparison, intra-party endorsements dominate US endorsement lists. Likewise, when considering recent referendums, we didn't include every single SNP politician as endorsing Scottish independence: we just included the party as a whole doing so. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Just to note 2 things: 1. My comment above is in no way a reflection of or on Rhododendrites who I've seen around and I think they do excellent work. (I even appreciate this particular RfC/proposal) 2. I'm aware of the many lists out there - that doesn't mean I think they belong; hence my statement. I also fully aware that there's not going to be any removal of said lists. While I don't usually stick my nose into any of the political stuff - I am aware of it. I just don't care for how our project deals with it. — Ched (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• It will go against WP:BLPSPS to use those social media posts outside the article for the publisher of the media posts themselves. It will also go against articles 6 and 7 of WP:DIRECTORY. Hmm.. WP:NOTEVERYTHING? ~ R.T.G 17:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I also have misgivings about such lists for the reasons given above (they do belong in sections of the relevant election's article, but I believe that LISTN should apply for standalone lists). If we do decide to have them, I support all three criteria, with the assumption that criterion #3 will be played by ear as necessary. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Abdul Haq Vidyarthi

I propose to reverse this article because i have found a lot of reliable source of notablity on him on google books (see here and here) and I will add them on the article. Lazy-restless 23:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lazy-restless: This is the wrong place to comment. As an expired PROD from 2012, if you have sources (which I haven't checked), you might as well create the article. You might request WP:REFUND to see what was there before, but it's not essential. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Refbegin and refend templates

These templates shrink the size of the reference material (cites, references, bibliography, etc.) at the bottom of an article, mimicking the format used by many academic journal and books for this type of stuff. Not bound by the limitations of paper and the corresponding need to cut printing expenses, do these actually add any value to articles on Wiki? I would argue not and I believe that they actually impose a cost on visually impaired readers.

The guidelines in MOS:SMALLTEXT in the MOS:ACCESS page state: "Reduced or enlarged font sizes should be used sparingly", but I believe that using refbegin and refend should not be considered as falling within that category. Footnotes, etc., for most articles are generally fairly minimal, but I've seen Featured Articles with over 200 footnotes and dozens of books and journal articles cited so they can actually be pretty substantial in high-quality articles. Why are we making them harder to read? What value are we adding by doing this?

What would be the downside of eliminating refbegin and refend entirely? The only thing that I can see is that the formatting of some sections will revert back to the baseline format as the additional parameters controlled by those templates are column number and hanging indents. I feel sure that some enterprising programmer can figure out a way to control those parameters outside the reflist template for those editors enamored with those formats. There may well already be such things already being used, although I wouldn't know because I don't about either of those things. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• See {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} Wug·a·po·des​ 21:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• We could probably just change MediaWiki:common.css so that the font size is 100% rather than removing a widely transcluded template. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • True, but is that actually a good reason to keep it? Why have a template that's actually not doing anything? Seems rather inelegant and a waste of processor time (even as cheap as that is nowadays). While I don't think that it would take long to add a task to remove them to a bot, I'll concede it might take a while to remove them from all the pages that it's used on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It also adds columns and hanging indents if specified (see the documentation at {{refbegin}}). If the only thing objected to is the font size, we don't need to create busy work when our problem is resolved by changing 90% to 100% at MediaWiki:common.css. Consensus for that change can be built here, but deleting or merging a template should be done at WP:TFD as Pppery points out. However unless there's another better template that creates ref columns and hanging indents, it'll be hard to develop consensus to merge or delete (see WP:TFD#REASONS #2). Wug·a·po·des​ 04:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually, even better, it uses Template:Refbegin/styles.css for its css which any template editor can change. If there's consensus in a couple days place {{Edit template-protected}} on the template talk with a link to this discussion, or ping me and I can do it. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Oh wow even better, there's an undocumented parameter that lets the list be full size rather than 90%. We can just swap the default behavior and make small text opt-in. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I would support swapping the default behavior of the template. Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
        • While the purist in me objects to such a lack of elegance, the practical side says "whatever works easiest, baby".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • As a Wikipedian with ageing eyes I "20 mule team support" the move to a 100% font size :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• This should be at WP:TFD, not here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• We should probably have size reductions as a choice in preferences, eg some skin for those that have trouble reading small text, or a preference option, and another that behaves like the current allowing smaller text. Sure you could use a custom .css, but that is beyond most people's capability to write. Whenever I see an unbalanced <small> tag I remove it. It is quite often used in tables, or infoboxes to specify a date or some qualification. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Leave things be; they've been good enough since 2006 and shouldn't be a matter of individual caprice. Keith-264 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not an argument; that you've done something one way for a decade is not evidence that said thing is good (or bad); it is merely evidence that you've done the thing that way. I'll try asking here: what benefit does making text smaller provide to readers? Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Parsec: who made you the judge? I'll humour you by asking a simple question. "How many people have complained that they can't read bibliographical details under refbegin-refend?" Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyone with a fundamental understanding of logic can tell you the same. It would perhaps shatter your mind the number of times in an average work week where I'm confronted with the argument "but we've always done it this way" and have to repress the urge to respond "well that ain't the damn policy, is it?". And as for your ridiculous counter (as if you imagine there to be some complaint department that tracks such things), if you'd bothered to read this very discussion, you'd see that some here have complained. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Not much concerned about how it is done, but I see no benefit in small text. It is hard for some of us to read. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• The size change that refbegin makes is also made across the board for all references using <references/>. If all references have consensus, then so does refbegin. If we really want to have this discussion, I expect you should have a full-on RFC changing the default size for references. I anticipate no-consensus. (I question whether the style switch for size in refbegin is valid--we should limit style variation on this point.) --Izno (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You're probably right, but I'm trying to get a feel for the arguments against. Right now they seem to be mostly IDONTLIKEIT.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    • And nobody seems to be engaging the accessibility guidelines.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
      • 90% is the understood minimum size on Wikipedia and was arrived at some time ago by quite a bit of hub-bub precisely because it was deemed to be the best consensus between accessible and inaccessible but preferential/lots of references in limited space. --Izno (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Hi Izno, I was trying to find that discussion without luck. It would certainly have a huge bearing on this discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
          • @Cinderella157: This discussion has a decent summary of the early days for referencing specifically. Here's the 2010 discussion making <references/> size consistent with {{reflist}} (smaller), so it must have happened somewhen inbetween. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I never noticed that before. You can see an example at Andrei Tarkovsky. "Notes" uses <references /> but "Bibliography" uses the refbegin/end pair. The text size is the same between the two. I think I'd have to oppose changing this specific template without wider discussion on reference text size in general. I'm a little more optimistic about finding consensus; I think the accessibility point is an important one, and don't see a compelling reason to keep it small other than aesthetics. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    • But the default way to present references, in the various {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, etc. templates, does not reduce the size. In most articles, the size of the full references is 100%, so why are we going out of our way to reduce the size of some of them? Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Those do not decrease their font-size precisely because it is known they will predominantly appear inside reflist/refbegin/<references>; no, their use as in a bibliography or similar is not the predominant appearance. And, errors/maintenance messages that appear in these templates do decrease in size (95%). --Izno (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Do you have any evidence for that? For either, actually; the creation of the cite templates predate either of our editing here, and earlier versions (like {{book reference}}) are even older. In the early days, there were relatively few footnotes and most references were simply in bulleted lists (all that to say that neither of us were around for the discussions over these templates, and even if what you say about the predominance of one formatting style is correct, you ought not confuse how we do things now with why things were set up originally). As for error messages in the templates, I don't think you're right; see here for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

          {{book reference}}, now long, long deprecated, does not appear to have ever specified font-size. Beginning with this edit, the rendered citation was wrapped in a <cite style="font-style:normal;">...</cite> tag. The descendants of that template and all of the other cs1|2 templates do not modify font-size except for the rendered subscription- and registration-required annotation (now deprecated and will be removed) and the value assigned to |format=. For these parameters, font-size is set to 95% in Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css. All other font-size for these templates is inherited from the enclosing block. In this case, {{reflist}} font-size is specified in MediaWiki:Common.css and {{refbegin}} font-size is specified by Template:Refbegin/styles.css. cs1|2 error messages are wrapped in <span class="error">...</span> tags (not sure where that class is defined – here, I think). Because the error class makes , css in Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css resets the cs1|2 error message font-size to 100%, the same size as the text used in the rendered citation. Thereafter, cs1|2 font-size for the citation-proper and any error messages is controlled by enclosing markup.

          —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

          @Parsecboy: For illustrative purposes, the quantity of articles using a CS1/2 template is ~3.9m[1], which is an absolute majority of the current ~6m articles. The quantity of articles using a CS1 template and using reflist is in the realm of 3.6m[2]. It's another 0.2m[3] or so using <references/> and CS1. I daresay that's a convincing ratio of all articles that are using something with small text on it. As for not being here, you can see above where/why the text got small. As for "we've always had it small", you can also see above that is not the case in those discussions. (I did not make this argument, nor in fact did I argue for one side or the other.) As for CS1/2, no, I can basically guarantee that text was never changed because it would clearly have fallen afoul of WP:ACCESS, because a reflist or similar is where the majority of CS1/2 citations are. (I can get into position territory here but I'll decline in the interest of supplying information :).) --Izno (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

          • Aye, but those searches don't tell us what you think it does. On the first page of results, I see the Cruiser article, which formats its references the way I was talking about - short cites in the {{reflist}} section and full references at 100% size. Parsecboy (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Parsec, the question is "How many people have complained that they can't read bibliographical details under refbegin-refend?" do you have an answer? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Why would the number of people complaining be relevant? If the size of the text is a problem to some it is a problem worth looking into. The other side of it is what advantage does the smaller text provide? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Because Keith doesn't actually want a debate; he wants to stonewall and this nonsense is classic sealioning. Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Sturmvogel asserts "I would argue not and I believe that they actually impose a cost on visually impaired readers" I would like to debate facts not assertions. I think one person so far has endorsed Sturm's view. Do you struggle to read biblio details? Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, one person in this unpublicized discussion says that it's a problem for them. So, at the very least, one reader is disadvantaged by the current format. That's a issue because that one person stands for an unknown number of other readers who aren't aware of this discussion. Let me turn your question around; how will you personally be inconvenienced if the format is changed to 100% text? Other than aesthetically, that is, 'cause that appears to be at the foundation of your argument, however much you cloak it in "that's the way that we've always done it". That's logically fallacious and does not stand when even a single person has admitted readability problems because of the smaller text. You need to address the accessibility guidelines, which are the basis for my entire argument, but you have entirely failed to engage with them thus far. How and why do you believe that the current format for refbegin/refend do not fail the guidelines? It's a simple question, deserving of an direct answer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Still waiting for an answer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• I too find small text unhelpful (at best) and downright obstructive much of the time. My eyesight is quite good for a man of my age (49), or so my optician tells me. I don't need glasses to read most books. DuncanHill (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Two people say it's too small and one infers that many others do too; I think we need something a little more scientific before accepting a change to the status quo. PS I'm a dashing 57. Keith-264 (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • In a discussion that is not publicised, and does not mention text size or accessibility in the header. "I can read it so it isn't a problem that we should do anything about" is not a great argument. DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't the village pump a place for publicising something? If not, get off your backside and publicise it; show me how and I'll help. This is beginning to look like pathetic excuses on (poorly focused) stilts. PS I've been short sighted since I was an early teen, read with varifocals and have never had trouble reading reduced scripts. I haven't come out against a change, merely a capricious one. Did I mention that I was a dashing 57? I'm also debonair. On a technical point, does it have to be all or nothing or can Wiki be arranged for individual preference? Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Does Parsec actually have a point or is he whining again? Keith-264 (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • And here we are, again, trying to derail the conversation with personal attacks. Your stonewalling is pretty transparent, Keith; drop it, or we'll be heading to ANI. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Yet again you claim the victim role and try to frame the debate as hostile; if you don't like retaliation, stop provoking. Simples. I'll set the example. If you make a substantive point I will reply but I will take no more notice of the extraneous comments. My question was simple, "how many people find the biblio details hard to read?" Two or three so far. I suggest WP:STICK Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
      • What you're doing is classic WP:SEALIONING; your question is BS and you are well aware of that fact. Answer this. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The number of people complaining is a measure of the necessity of a change, particularly when there is a lack of consensus. This [4] was perfectly civil but when I mentioned it here [5] you got uncivil rather quickly, instead of waiting for other editors to venture their opinions like me. Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
      • How many people have complained somewhere besides this thread that you or I don't know about? How many people have had trouble reading the print and haven't said anything? What you're asking is an unanswerable question, and I'm sure you know that. Oh, and here's a thought for you: if in this short discussion, a few people have complained about it, how often do you think it's a problem for the readers who will never see this discussion to tell you they also have trouble with small text?
      • As for the rest, post a diff where I said something uncivil. If you can't handle being called out for dodging questions, maybe try answering them. And if you don't want to be accused of stonewalling, maybe don't engage in behavior that an objective person might reasonably describe as stonewalling. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Why don't you ask around like I did? I thought that after what you disclosed on the Tel el talk page asking on the milhist board was your next step. I got fed up waiting and did it for you. Look how you responded. I humour you here by answering your loaded question and you write "how often do you think it's a problem for the readers who will never see this discussion"? Why don't you do the work like I did on the milhist board, instead of sniping? Keith-264 (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Um, why do you seem to think that Sturmvogel and I are the same person? This is the second time you've conflated the two of us. (And no, you have yet to respond to any question I've seen directed your way [by me or anyone else] in a direct manner; do you see why I label this behavior as stonewalling? Do you see how this is clearly unproductive on your part?) Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Your presumption in trying to be judge and jury in your own cause does you no credit. I suggest that you change your approach. What do you want re: refbegin refend? Keith-264 (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
      • It would be helpful if you responded to points made, though it seems you have no interest in an actual debate, despite your repeated utterances to the contrary. I suppose I ought to stop trying to squeeze blood from that particular stone. I'll answer your question with one of my own: why do you think yourself entitled to answers when you refuse the same to others? Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Propose renaming section - I suggest "Keith-264 derails all attempts at debate". It still won't mention font size or accessibility, but it would be more accurate. DuncanHill (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• I suggest you get a life; as for PSB he's still sulking so I'll leave it there. Keith-264 (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• I truly don't care whether the references have font-size: 66.6% or 100%. Somebody else can vote on that. But I do feel strongly that any templates that allow customizing it on a per-page basis should have that feature removed. ―cobaltcigs 05:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cobaltcigs:Why, though? Lots of things are customized on a per-page basis, including most things to do with references. Why is this specific thing different? Parsecboy (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

So let's suppose the following:

• [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] specifies a default size of font-size: 85% for references.
• [[User:Alice/monobook.css]] overrides it to 60% because she just fixes spelling and doesn't care about refs.
• [[User:Bob/monobook.css]] overrides it to 100% because he's hard of seeing and often clicks the wrong things by accident.
• Both users independently stumble upon [[List of Turkmen jellyfish]] which contains some crap like

  {{reflist|font-size=92.5% !important}}<!-- DO NOT CHANGE PER WP:TMJF CONCENSUS [sic] -->

  (based on a 3–1 vote by members of some WikiProject that neither of them (and none of us) have heard of).

Both users would be rightfully pissed to have their settings nullified. ―cobaltcigs 18:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Apropos my comment above, I'm not wasting any more time on this; if anyone wants to change the status quo, the burden is on them to make a case. No-one has so the matter rests. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• That you refuse to see the argument that several of us has advanced is irrelevant (and only goes to further demonstrate your bad faith here); it's really quite simple: the size reduction does zero good (as you yourself have tacitly admitted by refusing to provide any benefit to it) and it causes harm to some readers. That's all we really need to justify the change. Parsecboy (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Dark Mode display preference

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T26070

Screen technology has been changing, and OLED displays are becoming more common. Enabling a dark mode option for the Wikipedia site would save energy and reduce eye-strain. I have no doubt it would increase readership with a younger demographic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DillC137 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia with Firefox's "Dark Reader" add-on, though I stick to a standard view when editing to match what most readers will see. Certes (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like that, too. It's rather difficult to edit Wikipedia before bed without some sort of dark mode. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This is being (slowly) worked on - for updated you can subscribe to phab:T26070 or one of its subtasks. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

What good news. It's not just vector that tires the eyes, monobook is also far too bright. I started working on User:Wugapodes/DarkThemeTest.css but it's got a lot of problems. People are welcome to fork it until the phabricator ticket gets resolved. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• There is a gadget in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (Use a black background with green text) - it can be a bit of a jarring experience though! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• I admit, I love looking "L33T", but it's a bit jarring — moreover, the contrast when someone adds a significant amount of information is difficult to notice (that is, the dark green is difficult to make out). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think the wikipedia app has a dark mode for readers on mobile devices too. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Automatic solicitation of minor scientific review

This proposal is meant to deal with all fields of science, but may be relevant to other fields as well.

When a citation reference is added, an automated process may be able to discover the e-mail address of the corresponding author of the original source. Then, a short and succinct message can be automatically sent to the original author requesting their support by reviewing the cited section. This message should be very clear, very short, and provide a really easy and direct way (links) for editing the specific sentence. For scientists, reviewing one sentence citing their own research and revising it if needed should take only a minute or two. Yet, this would result in a much more accurate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butbutbat (talk • contribs) 08:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That is an interesting suggestion. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat related: User:ExpertIdeasBot, see coverage here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems like an interesting idea, but let's poke at it a bit. The bot should perhaps know how many times to message the same person somehow, just so to prevent message spam. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just so I understand the intent here... the goal is have an automated mechanism to double check that Wikipedia is accurately presenting what the source says? Why limit this to just science related citations? I would think this could be used for any citation to an academic source. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't anyone replying be accused of having a conflict of interest? Thincat (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

→ True- this goes for any academic source. Why conflict of interests? I imagine that participation of experts in editing the content is in the interest of Wikipedia users. Note that this proposal is for double checking citation by the cited person (which is probably **the** expert regarding the accuracy of the citation, if not the content itself). The motivation for this automatic process is to increase the involvement of academics specifically in the curation of academic citations. This is almost effortless for the expert, while primarily contributing to the content is much more demanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butbutbat (talk • contribs) 07:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am an academic. I love editing Wikipedia. I'd love to know every time I was cited. But I suspect most of my colleagues would be horrified by what they would see as extra spam. Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. No automatic process should be sending out emails, especially to people who have not expressed their consent. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What about a monthly report (if there's anything to report) for those who expressed their consent in some way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butbutbat (talk • contribs) 06:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine any method being accepted as polite, other than opt-in. And that raises the question, how shall sources be alerted about this service? Jim.henderson (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

use font differentiation to separate two components in edit view

By means of font, differentiate between citations and article text in edit view. This would be easier on the eyes. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose it's all wikitext to me, although VisualEditor might be different. Would this apply only to citations, or other non-"text" elements such as templates and nowiki tag enclosures. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't edit use VisualEditor. When editing articles, which generally have citations interspersed with text that appears in articles, it would be helpful if all citations were rendered one way and all text appearing in articles were rendered another way. It doesn't matter how this differentiation is achieved, but I think differentiation by color would be a good idea. As for non-"text" elements such as templates and nowiki tag enclosures these could either be lumped together with citations or separated out further, by for instance color. My idea is not to have any further breakdown of the components found in edit view. My idea is just to differentiate article text from everything else. Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Not because it is bad idea, but because it is already available. Go to your Preferences and enable the syntax highlighter. Kerry (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you. OK, I guess this suggestion can be withdrawn. Bus stop (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Followup. I've already had to turn it off. It is an annoyance. Bus stop (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)