Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 
The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
Before creating a new section, please note:

Before commenting, note:

  • This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
  • Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals.
« Archives, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

Automatically mark all stubs as stub-class[edit]

I would like to propose a bot action. The bot would find every article in Category:StubsCategory:Unassessed articles, and for every WikiProject banner on the talk page without a quality rating, it would add |class=stub. Since the quality ratings are managed by WikiProjects, they can opt-in to having ratings automatically added to the articles in their jurisdictions. Qzekrom (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: If there is consensus for this, I'd be happy to code up such a bot; I think it should be pretty easy (a SMOP) for me, given my scripts to get pages from categories and perform the same edit on all of them. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Great! Would the best place for this be WP:Village pump (proposals) or some wider venue? Qzekrom (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: That would probably be the right place; can't really think of a wider venue. Or, if its on an opt-in basis, maybe on the specific wikiprojects you were thinking of? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I feel that this is mostly at the discretion of individual WikiProjects, but there might be externalities from tagging on a massive scale; see, for example, the current discussion about GreenC bot at WP:Village pump (proposals). I think we would post on WP:VPPRO and then put {{WikiProject please see}} notices on WikiProject Council and some of the largest WikiProjects' talk pages to see if they would be interested in participating in this bot run. Qzekrom (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, note—Category:Stubs contains articles while the likes of Category:Unassessed articles contain talk pages, so your script would have to do the matching. Qzekrom (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: Yeah, the matching would be pretty easy, or I could create the list with AWB... but its more the consensus issue that should be addressed --DannyS712 (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: What do you think about this text?

I propose that we have a bot mark stubs as stub-class en masse. The bot would find every article in Category:StubsCategory:Unassessed articles, and add |class=stub to each approved WikiProject banner if the banner does not contain a quality rating. Individual WikiProjects would opt-in to having their articles automatically rated. DannyS712 has offered to write the code for the bot.
We have two questions:
  1. Would your WikiProject participate in this bot task?
  2. What side effects do you foresee from this bot task, if any?

Qzekrom (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: I say get some wikiprojects to opt-in first, and then make the full proposal. Something along the lines of:
...if there is community consensus for such a task, would you like to opt-in (meaning that stub ratings would be added to templates for your project)?
We (I) also need to figure out a way to ensure that it doesn't mark it as a stub if other wikiprojects have it rated as start or something - then it would need to be humanly resolved to determine which is right.
--DannyS712 (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Good point! Maybe the bot would throw it up on a noticeboard? It could also, more generally, detect conflicts between different projects' quality ratings for the same articles.
In terms of WikiProjects, I heard from Ferret on Discord that some of the most active WikiProjects are WP:MILHIST, WP:VG, WP:MED, and WP:ANIME. I'll also hit up WikiProjects that I'm part of, such as WP:ECON, WP:COMPSCI, and WP:URBAN. Qzekrom (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I would rather have the discussion in one centralized place, though. I'll post in WikiProject Council, then notify the major WikiProjects about the discussion. We can think of this as user research. How does that sound? Qzekrom (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: That would probably work --DannyS712 (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, here might be better because we already have a discussion going, and it's called the idea lab for a reason. It'd be better not to fragment the discussion. We could still post notices on WikiProject talk pages. Sorry for my waffling. Qzekrom (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Do you feel comfortable putting this up on WP:BRFA now? Qzekrom (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: I'd rather wait a bit longer, given how little discussion there has been so far. As far as I can tell, only 1 WikiProject (medicine) has officially opted in --DannyS712 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: If only WPMED opts in, we'd only have 20 or so pages to auto-tag; Category:Unassessed medicine articles and Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles are both very small. We should focus our efforts on the Wikipedia assessment backlog (which I just realized was a thing). I'll go and ping some of the WikiProjects represented there. Qzekrom (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: Thanks. Or, if you want to phrase it as opt-out (since assessing articles that are tagged as stubs as stubs should be non-controversial) that's another option --DannyS712 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Attention WikiProjects[edit]

We are developing an idea for a bot script that would perform a few article assessment–related tasks. The tasks we've come up with are:

  1. Finding all stubs without a quality rating belonging to a specific WikiProject and tagging them as stub-class. This would be done only with the consent of that WikiProject as we don't want WikiProjects would be able to opt out if they don't want us to interfere with how projects they assess articles.
  2. Finding articles where different WikiProjects disagree on the quality rating and throwing it up on a noticeboard, where a human can review those articles and harmonize the ratings as warranted. Dropped as not feasible

Please tell us which WikiProject(s) you represent, whether you think these proposals would be useful to your WikiProject, any other ideas for assessment-related bot tasks that you have. Feel free to post any miscellaneous thoughts as well. Thank you! DannyS712 and Qzekrom (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: The noticeboard thing isn't as easy, but the bot would definitely skip pages where there is disagreement among WikiProjects as to the assessment, or disagreement between the rating and the presence of a stub template. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics Qzekrom (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have historically done most of the article assessment for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I am familiar with WP:ORES and have worked with User:Nettrom on automated article assessments in the past. Stub predictions with ORES are perfectly reliable – I don't recall ever having found one that was incorrect. I welcome this being done for all medicine-related articles. If/when it's easy, I ask that you additionally tag any article that is also tagged for WPMED as a WP:BLP or as a business/organization with |importance=Low and |society=yes. (Please ping me if you have further questions.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I've seen very, very few instances in which differences in WikiProject assessment were based on substantive differences. More often than not, some editor only chose to update one banner or one of the banners has a required B-class process and won't trigger that classification without a bunch of other banner parameters letting it. In short, I'd be wary that the effort to build and maintain the tooling would be worthy of the fix. Plenty of other WikiProject maintenance tasks that needs tooling though... (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Czar: So, justs for marking these as stubs, since that's not really based on individual project's views, it should be opt-out? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    Auto-classifying unassessed articles with prose length below 1500 bytes as stubs is uncontroversial, in my opinion. But sure, it's possible that some projects would want to opt-out. Depends what the bot operators require for consensus. But before investing in writing a bot, however, might want to check in on the meta:Community Tech/PageAssessments conversations linked from Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Class once, which would ostensibly change the assessment tooling. czar 09:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Czar: It seems like most Wikipedians don't care whether assessments are done at the site level or project level; I reckon that WP:Ownership applies to project-level ratings as well.
    We are planning to get automatic consent for the bot at the project level but want to be careful in case there's a reason auto-assessments might be disruptive (have externalities). Qzekrom (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm okay with auto-assessment of stubs for computing and econ articles, but I'd want to check with other members first. Qzekrom (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women Qzekrom (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Side-question: Is it possible to have the banner detect the article's page length, similar to how the banner can automatically detect whether the article is a redirect? Would save a lot of bot trouble, if so. czar 01:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  1. Would the noticeboard be sorted by Wikiproject somehow? I don't usually have difficulty harmonizing ratings if one of my projects in involved but don't want to try to do this for other projects.
  2. How are stubs to be identified? I assume looking for {{*stub}} at the bottom of an article would be non controversial. Basing it on article size would require some discussion.
(2) Yes, we would look for {{*stub}}, but we'd skip articles that already have a rating higher than stub. I'm not sure what we'd do with articles longer than 1500 bytes, but we could temporarily mark them as stubs too and also put them on the noticeboard. We could also add |reassess=yes if the project banner supports that. Unfortunately, it's not in {{WPBannerMeta}}, and not all projects have the reassessment category.
(1) Yes, the noticeboard entries could be sorted by WikiProject. DannyS712, what do you think? Qzekrom (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I think we should also create an "Articles needing reassessment" category out of all the individual project reassessment categories. Qzekrom (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: I'm not so sure about a noticeboard, at least at first - it would be a lot harder to program. But, I would completely just skip any with issues. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Okay, we definitely don't have to do the noticeboard right away. I think we should propose (1) at BRFA now as it seems uncontroversial; we can skip (2). What are your thoughts? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 20:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: BRFA filed --DannyS712 (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

New WP 1.0 Bot[edit]

This may be only tangentially related, but y'all might want to check out this announcement. Qzekrom (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Permalinks to archived discussions[edit]

Can the archive bots be set up to change links to discussions to permalinks on the archive pages when those discussions are archived? Qzekrom (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

ClueBot already does this. It is, however, very expensive for ClueBot to do so, and has stopped ClueBot from operating before. --Izno (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Good question. Vorbee (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vorbee: Please consider not "posting just to post". --Izno (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hide references.[edit]

I know we don't generally early-close good faith proposals at the Idea Lab, but I'm going to WP:IAR close this to save other people wasting their time reading or replying to it. As has been pointed out, the references are the most important part of any Wikipedia article, not some kind of optional extra, and there are no circumstances in which we're going to consider hiding them. As has also been pointed out, other than a very few articles from the early days which still have inline citations, the references are invariably displayed after the rest of the article, so their presence or absence has no impact on the reader experience for those who only choose to read the body text. ‑ Iridescent 08:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The references at the bottom of each page should be hidden and only be shown if the user presses on a special button, this way the user doesn't see a long page and doesn't get discouraged to read it, and this raises the average knowledge of humankind and will make humankind stronger!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamMichaels784 (talkcontribs) 17:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, because mobile support for expanding collapsed content is so bad, MOS:DONTHIDE. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I also disagree with this idea, because people reading Wikipedia should understand that it is only reliable in so far as it cites reliable sources. The references are in fact the most important part of any article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Poster: Everyone pretty much understands that there are references in Wikipedia article, and it will be plain evident when they see the "Show references" bold (maybe yellow), I can imagine a way where there's the words in bold in red in mobile: "Show references" and clicking it is super easy and it will open the references, maybe even make when pressing on a number of reference in the article's text it opens references, most people just read the article and if there's something that is controversial they press on the number of references and it opens all the references and scrolls automatically to the reference chosen, as a 29 years old man who uses Wikipedia all day I have never in my life pressed to check for the reference, in the first place it's not hidden it's just not shown unless a tiny simple click is pressed, imagine how many people will proceed in reading after not being discouraged by the enormous "text" when opening a Wikipedia article and how much this will make people more knowledgeable especially in their fields, also when people read and understand and think this makes them smarter and by epigenetics this may even pass to their children's intelligence, you do understand the length of the page would drastically change and not a little bit right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamMichaels784 (talkcontribs) 21:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Your last comment consists of one 220-word sentence preceded by "Poster:". You have written exactly one full stop in this entire section—in the heading, where we generally don't use or need full stops. Please express your thoughts in sentences of reasonable length. Also, please WP:SIGN your comments in talk spaces. ―Mandruss  22:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
References are at the bottom of the article, hence the last thing you see when reading an article on a mobile. How exactly does this discourage you from reading Wikipedia? DaßWölf 22:40, 13 March 2019 (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.

Wikipedia at 20[edit]

Possibly a bit early, given that Wikipedia's 20th birthday is 22 months away - but could a 'WP 20 Challenge' be set up? There might be several levels - easy (updating a dormant/orphan page, creating a wanted page etc), moderate, difficult and 'fiendish but feasible' etc. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific on what examples of each category (easy, moderate, difficult and fiendish but feasible) might be? Thank you. Vorbee (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Almost reached legal drinking age in the U.S. Praemonitus (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Translatathon (translation Wikipedia competition)[edit]

I'm curious if any editors would be interested in a Translatathon (portmanteau of "translate" and "marathon"), a Wikipedia competition encouraging multilingual editors to translate and promote Good- or Featured-class English Wikipedia articles at other language projects. For example, an editor might earn points for translating and promoting Grammy Award for Best Disco Recording (Good article at English Wikipedia) to quality status at Spanish Wikipedia (exists, but not quality status), or German Wikipedia (does not exist). This seems like a great way to get quality content developed at other language projects, and I'm not sure there are major translation competitions or initiatives hosted here at English Wikipedia. Might be fun to organize a one-month pilot competition. Of course, I'm open to other names, rules, judging, forms of recognition (barnstars?), etc. I just wanted to float the idea here and see if any other editors had thoughts or previous experience to share.

Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that the Village Pump is a page that attracts a lot of new and new-ish editors who aren't necessarily familiar with all our policies, just a few reminders to anyone considering taking part in this (or just inspired to start translating):
  1. Don't even consider posting unedited machine translations into the Wikipedia article space unless you have a particular urge to be indefblocked (if you're not fluent in both languages, don't consider translating articles between Wikipedias);
  2. Anything translated must credit what you translated it from in the first edit summary, or it will be treated as a copyright violation;
  3. It's strongly recommended to put the {{translated page}} template on the talk page of any article you create here;
  4. If you're translating from another language to en-wiki, bear in mind that our rules on sourcing are generally much stricter than those of the other Wikipedias, and you need to check the sources in the article to confirm that they actually conform to our definition of "reliable source" (and also that they actually say what the article claims they say);
  5. If you're translating from en-wiki to another language, bear in mind that each Wikipedia has different policies and procedures for how they handle incoming translations, a list of which can be found here.
By no means let any of the above put you off, but be careful; translation has a long history of getting people into trouble very quickly if they're not sure what they're doing. ‑ Iridescent 00:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Iridescent, This is all incredibly helpful, thank you. I think part of what I envision is a relatively small but experienced group of editors who would be more than willing to adhere to these recommendations and organize their own activities, much like the Guild of Copy Editors, WikiCup, or some other variant of a WikiProject. I would not be opposed to having specific rules that require strict adherence to what you've outlined. The idea here is to establish a group of editors who are motivated to translate properly, support one another, and perhaps even form a sense of community. I'd love to participate in a project like this, but I only speak English, unfortunately. Thanks again for your feedback. I'm curious to read what others think as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Iridescent: a few things to keep in mind:
  1. Some projects (esp dewiki) make heavy use of transwiki history imports - so before starting over there get familiar with their requirements)
  2. To create a new article with WP:CXT here you must be extended confirmed, but you can work around this by creating it in Draft: space. We will not heavily "advertise" this (such as by putting up a banner) but it can be useful for organizers.
  3. If creating a page here, we can always bring in the original history from the other project (and again this is especially useful if it comes to here from dewiki). To do this, FIRST make your translated article here, THEN drop a request at WP:RFPI.
Good luck! — xaosflux Talk 00:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tdslk: I know we've discussed translation projects before. I'm curious what you think about this, and specifically, if you have any insight into how the GOCE model could be applied here. If you're uninterested, no worries, just wanted to invite you to the conversation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Another Believer:! Yes, this is definitely something I am interested in. I think there is a lot of potential for projects and coordination of translation efforts across Wikipedias. I am a bit nervous about calling anything a "competition," though, except maybe for single best article. Anything that incentivizes quantity would run the risk of generating lots of poor-quality translated content. @Iridescent: points out some other important considerations around translation projects. Tdslk (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Tdslk, Totally understand re: "competition". But, isn't GOCE also a competition of sorts? Ditto the WikiCup, which seems to focus on quality. I'm just trying to think of a fun way to incentivize participation, and I'd definitely be open to whatever rules other editors think are best. Just getting the ball rolling here and trying to gauge interest. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Another Believer, is your goal to "export" high-quality articles from the English Wikipedia? Or the other way around? The considerations are very different. For example, if you're "exporting", then none of the local rules about needing to make 500 edits before you can translate an article apply, and most editors will have access to machine translation (which is generally available English-to-other, but not other-to-English). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I guess I'm open to whatever, but I had envisioned translating Good article good English Wikipedia articles into other languages, and having them promoted to quality status locally as well. I realize the processes of promoting quality content are content consistent across all projects, but again, this initiative is really just about translating quality content and creating/improving content at other projects. Again, I'm just getting the ball rolling here and I would welcome all to continue the conversation and determine project/competition goals/rules. If there is enough interest, I would welcome forking this conversation to Wikipedia:Translatathon or wherever. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Right. So I think you need to talk to User:Amire80, who probably knows more about translation than anyone else.
As for the competition aspect, creating 'missing' articles is often more valuable than updating an medium-quality one to good quality. It's also easier to measure. The new m:Programs & Events Dashboard might be useful for tracking participants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

An option to hide page issues (infoboxes, stub notices, and inline templates)[edit]

Today, some Wikipedia readers which:

  • Not interested to contribute and just read the article
  • Not frequently or never doing major edits like adding citations and improving stubs (I’m also same here)

... are annoyed by the templates involving the issues on the page. They think the article editing is too time-consuming, so they are also simply dismissing the “page issues” and just reading the article. I want an option to disable them if they are reading Wikipedia for knowledge purposes. —Ijoe2003 (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Major issues with the article, such as a failure of basic verifiability or neutral point of view, should never be concealed from the reader. However, minor content issues could be hidden, such as stub status or a lack of incoming or outgoing links. – Teratix 04:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I wondered why the major issues mustn’t be concealed from the reader... —Ijoe2003 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: I forgot about this. Does the “citation needed” thing is the one of the minor issues? —Ijoe2003 (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Major issues shouldn't be concealed because they have a serious effect on the reliability of the content and thus its usefulness to the reader. (Of course, Wikipedia should not be solely relied upon for a piece of information, but some articles are more reliable than others). A "citation needed" tag is an important issue because it indicates that part of the article is not verifiable. – Teratix 06:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is designed to turn passive readers into active editors. That's the entire paradigm of the website; every editor here used to be a reader who was initially uninterested in, ignorant of, or not bold enough to seize the opportunity to start contributing. Readers need encouragement to take that step. All of us here turned into editors by reading about something we are interested in, noticing something that could be improved, and realizing that there was nothing stopping us from becoming the person who makes the change.
But Wikipedia is about freedom, too. While I think it's a bad idea to advertise an option to hide maintenance tags, it exists. With some CSS hacking, one can hide anything they like, either at common.css if they are a registered user, or by using a browser add-on if they are not. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 06:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your points they should add this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Government Man (talkcontribs) 14:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Ijoe2003, the Reading team re-designed the "Page Issues" stuff a little while ago, to make it more prominent. If you and your friends are finding that it's just in your way, then they'll want to know. Please feel free to post more details about your experience with it.
Teratix, I like to believe that our readers are smart enough to notice when those blue clicky numbers aren't present, even if there isn't a banner at the top that says an editor has noticed that they aren't there. We have never done any research to figure out whether those banners provide any value to readers; they might be as pointless as the one in the middle of this essay. It's also worth remembering that information can be verifiABLE even if it's not verifiED. This is explained more fully at the lead to WP:NOR, which IMO is worth reading in its entirety, including the footnote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Links without https and without underscores[edit]

Please visit: Wikipedia:Help desk#Links without https and without underscores

Pinging MusikAnimal, who is great with scripts.

Many thanks,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing when non-administrative closures are permitted[edit]

Editors may be interested in participating in this discussion about what types of non-administrative closures are permissible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we should add an in a nutshell section for some articles[edit]

wikipedia is very good at making in depth and knowledgeable articles but one thing it often fails at is summarizing. I think that some articles could benefit from a small paragraph long section that gives a general overview of the topic. Just an idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Government Man (talkcontribs) 14:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Government Man, That is what the lead at the beginning of the article is for. From WP:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". If you can't find the summary in the lead good enough, it just needs to be rewritten. WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
This sounds like a request for an even shorter summary. Instead of four paragraphs, many readers probably want one sentence – more like "Rheumatic fever is a complication of strep throat that can cause heart damage" than what you'll find at the top of Rheumatic fever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You can't get much shorter than {{Short description}}. Praemonitus (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-Protect All SPIs[edit]

Is it feasible to semi-protect all Sockpuppet investigation subpages? In the last few days, these pages have been under attack by new accounts that edit them to report that no match has been found and the investigation is being closed. The pages are then reverted and the new accounts are blocked. This appears to be the work of one trollsockmaster (except that trolls don't wear socks). Would automatically semi-protecting the pages when they are created, normally via Twinkle, prevent this vandalism? The trade-off is that new editors who are not autoconfirmed, and IP addresses, would not be able to report sockpuppetry. That seems like a small price to pay, since new editors and IP addresses are just as likely to be sockpuppets as to know enough to be able to identify and report sockpuppets.

Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)