Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Criteria for proposals to this page

Inappropriate posts to this page are a fairly frequent and persistent problem. I'd like to change the line which currently reads * Consider developing your proposal at Village pump (idea lab). to * This page is for concrete, actionable proposals. Consider developing earlier-stage proposals at Village pump (idea lab). to indicate, in line with de facto usage, that this isn't the page to just throw out a thought. Thoughts? Courtesy pinging Blueboar, who reverted my attempt at bold implementation. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Other thoughts on how we could change the rules/practices to limit inappropriate postings here would also be useful. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think we need to limit things to proposals that are “actionable”. Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Blueboar: What criteria would you establish? I think Sdkb's change was a good change because we do get a lot of proposal-cruft on this page that is dead-on-arrival because it hasn't been shaped and/or researched (via VPI, sandbox, or otherwise). --Izno (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with “Concrete”... and I could add “well thought out”. I just don’t think it needs to be something “actionable”. Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Something actionable to me means "I need to change some other page or pages to enact the proposal". What kind of change can you think of that isn't actionable that should be at this VP? --Izno (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I support this. We should better enforce the VPR–VPI division of function or get rid of VPI as unnecessary complexity. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to re-add the change as the prevailing consensus (since I'll otherwise probably forget about it, and I'm not sure anyone else is going to show up here), but if others want to weigh in, feel free to continue the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Add to VP menu

This links to the previous point. I suspect that most users of the VP have forgotten that there is a VP "main page". I propose we add a "main page" link to the menu in the {{Village pump page header}} template. Like this...

⇒

The main page link then helps when we add more details to the VP main page to clarify the uses for each of the VP pages and especially their differences. See the complete header in the template sandbox. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. The village pump main page is really just a fancy disambiguation page. Since it's already possible to jump between the pumps via the tabs, I'm not sure the link is all that needed. Part of the issue might be that we call it the Village pump when really it's the Village pumps, plural. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The main page should really be more of a "front door" that explains what the individual pumps are for and routes people to the right one for their post. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
If each pump were a subpage of the main page, as Wikipedia:Village pump/Proposals, I believe there would be a link to the main page automatically placed under the title of each subpage. If we could do that (I'm pessimistic), I think that would be preferable. Alternatively, we could actually make them subpages, using redirects to avoid breaking links to the current titles. Since that's probably what should have happened in the first place, I would support it, although a structural change like that won't be made based on the limited participation on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Well I see that the subpage title is a bluelink redirect, suggesting that they were once subpages. I can't imagine why anyone thought that was a bad idea. Does anybody know anything about that? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss, from the history, it seems the redirects were created as redirects, not from move. A recent move request snow failed on WP:BROKEN grounds. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I see, thanks. That's a terrible and unfortunate application of BROKEN, but typical of the current culture. I can see a new proposal would be futile at this point and withdraw the suggestion. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:PROPOSE" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:PROPOSE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 23#Wikipedia:PROPOSE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

On This Day and Today's Feature

Could the sections "On This Day" and "Today's Featured Article" be picked surrounding/about a more localised/regionalised article. Most articles tend to slant towards the US and Europe. These bears (in my case) very few articles of interest worth digging deeper into the history of the articles. Just a humble request to the very under-staffed, underpaid, and most of all un-appreciated but dedicated and passionate staff/workers/volunteers of Wikipedia. (I do appreciate everything Wikipedia has done for the fair and free disbursement of this vast database of knowledge for the world to use) Thank you and thank you, all of you Ralte (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem that we have with "Today's Featured Article" is that it is limited to featured articles and, at least when I looked a few months ago, most of them were not about subjects from Africa, Asia or South America. We really need more editors from those continents, or at least with an interest in and knowledge of them, to bring articles to the required standard. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ralte Feel free to get involved in the selection process at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. You can make suggestions for what gets included in "On This Day" for particular days, edit articles to make sure they're ready to go, etc. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of the RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign

  • @BilledMammal: - you've failed to actually sign your rather weird procedural set-up, so there's no indication of who to actually ask about the process (i've added an unsigned, as it was so key). Secondly, afaik, the WMF makes numerous tweaks to their banners during the Dec fundraising campaign, beyond the variety they start with - often every couple of days. How is this methodology supposed to interact with these? Thirdly, have you provided prior notice to @JBrungs (WMF):? Fourthly, who are these pre-specified closers - and how are/will they be found by people without a stated interest in a certain position on the RfC? Fifthly, for such a major RfC (in that it risks direct en-wiki/WMF clash), I assume its workshopping was publicly listed. There are a few discussions on this topic, so I may have missed it - where was the most prominent public post of it? Apologies for the long list, but they're fairly fundamental Nosebagbear
    @Nosebagbear: I hope you don't mind, but I've moved this to the talk page.
    Point by point:
    2. JBrungs (WMF) has promised to provide a list of all banners that will be run, so that shouldn't be an issue
    3. JBrungs (WMF) is on the list of editors to be notified when the RfC starts; there have been discussions with him regarding the banners, but not directly on the proposal.
    4. The closers have not yet been identified; I will be posting on WP:RFCL two weeks prior to the close asking for volunteers, and if none have come forward within a week I will post a request on WP:AN.
    5. There was no publicly advertised workshopping, though there was some public discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/Special report.
    BilledMammal (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
    Point 2 is good, point 3-wise, while I saw Julia (note, I assume a "her" not "him") on the list, this certainly feels like the type of thing where it would be polite to let her know in advance formally - her response should be included at the top of the RfC, rather than having a number of !votes before it goes in. Point 4 sounds reasonable, while the final bit is somewhat disappointing - a regular RfC might not even need workshopping and even most significant policy ones are fine just from some interested editors doing it beforehand, ones at this level should have been noted at VPI or the relevant talk pages. Nosebagbear (talk)
    One additional question was whether amending the common.css was capable of doing tailored banner-exclusions (vs just stopping all banners from showing) - I know very little about css/JS, so this may well be a simplistic question. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
    I will make a post on her talk page notifying her of this RfC now, though I won't invite her to include a response above the survey as I don't believe it would be appropriate for any position to receive undue prominence within the RfC. I will also keep VPI and relevant talk pages in mind should I be involved in drafting future RfC's like this.
    I believe it is possible, but impractical, to block individual banners. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
    @BilledMammal sorry for the slower response, I'd someone noted the bottom sentence but not the top. In short-form, this is a fairly odd position to hold. By setting the topic the "remove banners" position has a raised position, and not having a position from the key body we want changes from (yes, I, too, want changes - I just don't think this is a good way to do it. And I include procedurally in that). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Nosebagbear: That's a fair point, but at the moment the arguments for the positions against and for do not receive undue prominence. Would you find it appropriate to invite the WMF to provide a position below the survey, and linking that position in the question? (Are all of the banners that the WMF is planning to run for the November 2022 fundraising campaign appropriate? If they are not, what changes need to be made before the campaign can start? The WMF has provided a response to this RfC below.)
    What do you think would be a good way to do this, including procedurally? BilledMammal (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
    Commenting here as a volunteer and like @The Land I've experienced being a fundraiser first hand, and in my case I've specifically done fundraising as a job at the WMF in the past. It is incredibly easy as an observer to simply say "it should read like this instead" but creating and designing fundraising messaging that works is incredibly challenging. Even with decades of combined experience, minor changes can result in profoundly unexpected consequences. It is an actual science as it should be, and it requires an iterative approach to be successful. We shouldn't expect the to WMF tear up its messaging and halt on a dime in a way that simply isn't compatible with that iterative testing. Fundraising messaging by committee (or in this case, consensus) just doesn't work.
    For the RfC to have a genuinely productive way forward, it should seek to propose a full suite of possible changes and variations than can then be tested rather than trying to cement a messaging that requires sign-off by consensus. That way we can help the WMF carve a path forward that leverages that iterative approach rather than simply throws a road block which works against it. Spending the time to clearly identify concerns, come up with a whole host of ideas and then give the team the time to test them. If those fail, we propose more. And we keep at it: carving a way forward, being accountable and testing more and more. That way we a fundraising campaign that is both effective and matches the needs and expectations of the community in messaging that represents us. I genuinely believe that can be a productive and effective approach for bringing about change.
    Speedrunning this RfC, trying to create and then enforce consensus without any informed testing, is a destination filled with nought but disappointment and failure. I don't think it has to be like that. We, as a community, have been in far more dire circumstances and even then avoided such over-the-cliff-edge approaches. It is a lever that should only be flipped in the most extreme of circumstances and we simply aren't there. Let's gives ourselves time to think and be smart about this, be creative, and then give the WMF time to get to work based on our collective input. The world will still be there on December 31 if we do that and I genuinely believe we will all have a far better outcome in the long run. Seddon talk 12:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
    The thing is, User:Seddon, we've been here so many times ... The best way forward at this point is to establish some limits as to what the banners should not say any more – any messaging implying that money is urgently needed to keep Wikipedia online, to avoid the WMF having to charge a subscription, to protect or defend Wikipedia's independence and so on should be off limits. These wordings were appropriate in 2005, but not today, when the Foundation has more money in the bank than it ever has had at any point in its existence (cf. June Signpost report). Andreas JN466 12:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
    Whilst there is always room for improvement in the specifics. I disagree that the intent in the messaging is no longer appropriate.
    • Supporting and growing the foundations budget with small donors does protect its independence and our communities ability to full OUR own mission rather than someone else's. Large numbers of non-profits of our size frequently end up being in receipt of large amounts of government or other foundation grants, and can often become the majority income source for a charity. That results in organisations chasing funding and loosing a focus on mission. The effect is a pseudo-erosion of a charities independence. Keeping a strong small donor base as the majority source of our funding is core to maintaining the independence of websites and projects etc. (addendum: especially when diversifying funding)
    • A good chunk work is focused on keeping Wikipedia online. Denial of service is a huge threat to all websites and combatting that really is about keeping us online and we've invested hugely in that area and its still a massive challenge. But that challenge is no longer just technical one. It's not just about keeping a handful of servers running. For much of the last decade its also been about keeping the legislative and regulatory environment conducive to our continued existence and remain accessible to our end users. Whether it be things like section 230 in the US, or challenging governments like Turkey who have in the past denied access. That really is all about keeping us online and available.
    Its really hard and a big challenge in trying to keep messaging accessible and concise, the result will always result in ambiguity in wording with multiple interpretations. Seddon talk 13:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
    The messages never speak about growing the Foundation (the budget grew more than tenfold in a decade, from 2010 to 2020, and the Foundation has had eight-figure surpluses for nine of the last ten years). Instead, the messages are always designed to give the impression that the Foundation is struggling to have enough money to keep Wikipedia running – an impression the WMF has not sought to dispel. Andreas JN466 14:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
    There are a whole host of things the WMF has needed to get better at communicating at. Growth itself should never be a goal, it should only be sought done in service of a charities mission, vision and strategy. Given that, growing the foundation it is not in and of itself something that should be the focus of fundraising messaging. Fundraising messaging should always be focused on a charities mission and its always a challenge trying to convey that succinctly and convincingly. Seddon talk 13:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
    We tried a similar approach and the WMF said they were listening and collecting the feedback we saw around the Helpdesk, the Teahouse, the general VP boards on English Wikipedia, and here. Unfortunately, looking at the banners the WMF has been testing, they have chosen to ignore that feedback which is why we feel a new approach is required. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Just a thought experiment of sorts: if the WMF's budget were small, with a handful of staff, and all of the money unambiguously went to improve the projects directly, would people still object to the fundraising messages? Certainly it might assuage some concerns about "you don't need more money", but there are typically other objections raised about being manipulative, etc. My suspicion is it wouldn't really be on most people's radar, and fundraising would be seen the way it's seen in every other similar instance: something nobody wants, but which plays an important role, so leave it to the pros. These often seem like proxy battles for disputes over how the foundation spends money (we don't like how you spend your money, so we'll make it harder for you to make money). I wonder how it would work if we just came out and said "we have a few demands. meet them and your fundraising team can run banners here" (not necessarily advocating for that -- it just seems more direct). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Money is always a challenging and murky topic. How its raised and how we think it should be raised definitely ties to emotions relating to how it's spent and how its not spent. How money should be spent has always been a really difficult for us as a community to come together and agree on. It's made more challenging when the power dynamics across the various Wikimedia projects are so asymmetric and there are serious sources of tensions between some of those projects. I think we struggle to think about how we as a community of different projects and websites work together. The result is that often that work is is led by the more affiliate/chapter minded people but that ends up creating a new source of tension. Resolving all of that is huge challenge and consensus processes often break down when trying to resolve challenges at that scale or require some creative interpretation. The times we do come together are rarely examples of actual consensus processes based on discussion and simply turn into products of majorities/super majorities, and often emotional ones. Seddon talk 13:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
It isn't that for me. It's just seeing the WMF amass literally hundreds of millions of dollars by begging for money from people like this, and then pay themselves salaries that today, in 2022, are probably nudging $500K. Andreas JN466 14:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a lot more that could be said about accountability and transparency – witness the discussion at m:Talk:Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Current_status or the WMF's recent decision to stop publishing its quarterly tuning session presentation decks – but these are secondary issues. However, they do all seem to have their origin in the same mindset. Andreas JN466 14:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Nor me. The issue with resource allocation is separate from the issue with banner content. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Panel close

While normally the best time to call for a panel close of an RFC is when it starts winding down, we're a week away from December. This RFC isn't going to get any easier to review. Who wants to sign up? Needless to say, I'm in. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Joe Roe agreed to close it at WP:ANRFC * Pppery * it has begun... 19:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I see..
@BilledMammal and Joe Roe: Would you agree with my assessment that this should be a panel close given the nature of this request? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Up to BilledMammal really, but I think the correct timing for such a suggestion would have been a week ago. At this point, it may result in accusations that people sought to interfere with the closure process that was set up beforehand. --Andreas JN466 23:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
My primary concern is that the close is prompt due to the time constraints and the need to give the WMF time to decide how they will respond before the campaign starts; if organising a panel close now will delay the close then I would oppose it, but otherwise I have no opinion on it.
I will note that I would normally oppose panel closes on principle, but I make an exception here due to the significance of the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
We have plenty of significant discussions closed without a panel. Truthfully this strikes me as easier to close than the messiest AfDs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
My reading so far is that this is a long discussion, but not a difficult one. I don't see the need for a panel close and yes, coordinating between multiple closers will definitely add a few days to the proceedings. – Joe (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
It's a case where the weight of opinion is pretty clear, but the details of the wording of the outcome are important, and the consequences of the result are more... consequential? It might be easier to read than a messy AfD but the stakes are much higher. Indeed, there's one scenario where this RfC is the most consequential debate for at least the last 10 years; hopefully we won't get there but we might. So I would definitely advise a panel close. (And tbh, the more eager anyone is to take drastic action off the back of this, the more they should be in favour of a panel closure). The Land (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
@The Land: I posted my closing statement before I saw this, sorry. If there's something wrong with my wording, it can of course be discussed, challenged, and changed in the usual way. But as you say the weight of opinion was blindingly obvious. – Joe (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Note you've got a typo in "closer's hat". Andreas JN466 12:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: no complaints from me, a very fair summary. Thank you. The Land (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I can't say if the close is any good or not because I haven't fully read the discussion, but I would concur with The Land in saying a panel would've probably been required if more drastic actions were to be taken. I don't have any objections to how the close turned out, though; given that such actions weren't found to be needed. Hopefully that makes sense. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
If those volunteering to close want to do it in a group, sure. I disagree with mandating that multiple editors must collectively close the discussion. isaacl (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there's any provision in policy or guideline that really requires panel closes for complicated closures. A panel close usually occurs because the one who volunteers for the job wants help, as isaacl said, but it's never been a requirement. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Please archive

At least the long RFC discussion about banners... it is unlikely interested editors are unaware of the discussion, or of its closing. The page is getting a bit long in the tooth. Thanks. 65.88.88.68 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Move Vector RFC to subpage?

Less than 24 hours since launch, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Wikipedia return to Vector 2010 as the default skin? is already at 140 KB and got over 100 comments. I think this should be moved to a subpage so as not to overwhelm VPR for a month. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I support this, this was the original plan as discussed at WT:VECTOR2022, before another editor jumped the gun and posted their own RfC here. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 sounds like a better place to house the RfC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, but I might suggest a more vague title such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Feedback on Vector 2022 launch. Because of Question #2 etc. I would also propose a Question 3 which is a hybrid Vector 2010 with the purple links, additional sidebar TOC added, and restricted width as a default-off on-sidebar toggle. (everything else the same as V10 including the original on-page TOC) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that, the primary proposal is whether to roll back the skin entirely. Any alternate proposals should be filed under a new Level 3 heading titled "Alternate proposals" or something. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes but I worry that would overly de-emphasize those alt proposals. Having the "rollback" Q be first is already clearly a benefit to answering that Q and I expect it will have the most responses no matter what we do. It's not going to be an issue, but I also don't think it's particularly important what the page name actually is, as long as it's short. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The main question that is the subject of the RfC is whether Vector 2022 should be rolled back. This should be made clear in the title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: while moving the RfC also reorganise the comments into support and oppose subsections.--Æo (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: most of my watchlist entries are now discussions about the new skin; they dwarf changes to the actual encyclopedia. Let's separate this understandably large discussion to avoid drowning out other important business. Certes (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. We can just have notices on those pages indicating the move, and it will help VP and VPT remain functional for longer. A small box could also be added to the top of WT:VECTOR2022 saying "here to discuss whether or not to keep the new design? and if so, how? Please discuss further here." — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
    A link is already on the FAQ, which I've also transcluded on the talk page's editnotice. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a proposal on my talk page to reorder all comments into "Support", "Oppose", and "Discussion", similar to the format of the previous RfC. This will take time to do, however. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Kizor has completed the reorganization, as discussed at § Publicizing this RfC and my talk page. I will be executing the split shortly, stand by. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Archiving issues

The last archive subpage mentioned in the page header is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 195, with only 9,854 bytes content. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 196 does not exist yet. And the bot just skipped it and moved recent VPPR discussions to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 197, and then continued to Archives 198, and currently Archive 199. What went wrong with the bot? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@CX Zoom: This edit bumped the counter without actually archiving anything. Really, it should have been reverted at the time, and whilst Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 195 would still have been short, there wouldn't have been a gap in the sequence. It's been six weeks now, and there have been several archive edits taking the sequence from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 197 up to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 199, so it's too late to simply adjust the counter. There are two things we could do: the easiest is to create Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 196 as a dummy page; or we could move Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 197 to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 196 and so on up the chain - this is slower and more accurate, but may break inward links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I am going to do the later. The number of inward links low for these 3 archives (197, 198, 199). WP:TPO allows for fixing links. – robertsky (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
And... moved, moved, moved, edited links on the following pages:
197->196:
198->197:
199->198
.. and adjusted the counter to 198 as well, some 1.5-2 hours before the next archival edit is made by the bot. If the bot ends up creating 199 instead of adding to 198, we can adjust the counter back. – robertsky (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_2&oldid=1249156927"