Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 186

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191

Quotation mark after dot

Is "quotation mark after dot." some American thing? Eurohunter (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: Its part of the Manual of Style. See MOS:LQ. See the guidance there for if the punctuation goes inside or outside the quote. There is also the essay at Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia. In short, it is not a British vs American thing. RudolfRed (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: I just found there Quotation marks in English#Ending the sentence. Eurohunter (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Barbenheimer has an RFC

Barbenheimer has an RFC on whether a certain instance of humor is appropriate on Wikipedia. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

No, the RfC is not about humor but about the use of an appropriate long-term caption with explanatory cites and links (notice the cites and links are not included in the nomination text) and the unusual interest in changing the caption to highlight the name of one of the two film characters being discussed and lessen the in-universe name of a female icon. The RfC itself should be null and void for another reason other than the nomination not listing the caption correctly: its biased name. The name of the RfC is "Okay, everyone, let's do this!" Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

IMO the RFC is mostly WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT people arguing with WP:IJUSTLIKEIT people. Anomie⚔ 12:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of discussion I want to spend my Sunday participating in. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Did the old "Superprotect" protection level ever have its own lock image?

I was wondering because I was thinking of adding an image of it to the "Former deleted protections" section of WP:PP. LOOKSQUARE (👤️·🗨️) talk 00:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If it did, you'd probably find it at Wikidata, where Superprotect was used on a few items (with community consensus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We never had a padlock icon for superprotection. That prot level was never used here, and although superprotect is mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 16 theer is no suggestion of a possible icon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

NJOURNALS again

For context, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_183#NJOURNALS_essay_under_discussion along with WT:NJOURNALS and its archives.

A new Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)#RfC_on_notability_criteria dropped. Would love to see if any watchers here may have any way to help.

jps (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Use by others, and notability of sources.

We are having a bit of of a disconnect on this subject. Some examples:

• Recently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ImportGenius was closed as no consensus. Nobody constructed a clear case that the subject met WP:CORP, but there was a lot of discussion around the fact that the company's data (its product, that is) was cited frequently by RS.
• Recently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnergySage (2nd nomination) was also closed as no consensus. Again, no compelling case that the subject met WP:CORP. Some discussion around its use by others.
• Note also the ongoing RFC specifically about notability of journals at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals) § RfC on notability criteria.

One of the trickiest parts of this is that it's particularly hard to find good sources for sources, especially ones for which the notability is right on the margin of meeting WP:GNG. You end up overwhelmed by citations of the source. It's not an ideal state for a 7-day AfD discussion, nor for editors choosing whether to bring an article to AfD in the first place.

I will also note an essay Wikipedia:Notability of reliable sources that has discussed this in some depth, no prejudice towards any of the specifics in it.

If we could come up with a clear, broad subject-specific notability criteria for sources based their use by others, we could resolve a lot of this. I don't have a specific proposal yet but wanted to gauge thoughts in this area at this time. —siroχo 06:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on a quick search/skim of sources given, I agree that these two companies are marginal. If I had !voted it would be weak X on whichever side of the line.

I think that a source being consistently cited (as opposed to discussed) by other sources on high-risk topics (e.g. topics with potential corrections/libel risks) can be an indicator of reliability. But I'm not sure it's an indicator of notability. If it were, that would extend notability to every glorified PR agency, dubious purveyor of fluff polls, and entrepreneur guy who likes to be quoted in the press as an expert, etc. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on that front. I think mixing notability with reliability is not the way to go. Hypothetically, it would be convenient to be able to craft an SNG that requires a source to be reliable, but we'd risk overwhelming WP:RSN with notability questions, and also it might fall afoul of NPOV to base our inclusion criteria on Wikipedia using the source itself.

I'm hoping there's a different way we can exclude such things. The essay I linked had one hypothetical critera There is an in-Wikipedia consensus among experienced editors that a source is especially important for a niche topic which could be a starting point. I.e. a criteria not actually based on reliability or use per se, but instead on the collective knowledge of editors that a source is, in fact, notable due to it's importance. —siroχo 07:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I get what you're trying to do; I'm just not sure that it's possible to generalize beyond a case-by-case basis. There's a difference between thinking a company produces reliable enough data to put in your magazine article (for instance) about something else, and thinking a company is noteworthy enough to run an entire magazine article about it.

I don't think any of the suggestions in the essay you linked are feasible, nor do the suggestions seem especially informed. ("There is no obvious audience for publishing on [sources]"?) Not sure whether you're suggesting this but an unreliable source can still be notable -- e.g., the National Enquirer. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not planning on relying heavily on that essay as anything more than a possible starting point. In my opinion, the GNG would still be an option, this would just be meant to reduce repetitive discussions about whether reliable sources are themselves notable with a clear, NPOV guideline. I'm hopeful that it's possible but I hear you when you say it may not be.

Anyways, thanks for your input, I will think more on this and other possibilities. —siroχo 18:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC on GENDERID in BLP

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.

---

Should the content guidance addressing the former names of transgender or non-binary individuals stay in MOS:GENDERID and be expanded to include deceased individuals, or should it be moved to WP:BLPNAME and the MOS entry reduced to style? If it should move to BLP, a further question of scope is included. An oppose !vote keeps the status quo. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 - Expand MOS:GENDERID to deceased
Add this paragraph to MOS:GENDERID: For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.

Option 2 - Move content restriction to WP:BLPNAME with normal privacy exceptions, and revise down MOS:GENDERID

Add this paragraph to the end of WP:BLPNAME: It is reasonable to assume that a transgender or non-binary individual would not want a former name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name, it has been widely published by reliable sources, or it may be reasonably inferred that the individual does not object to the name being made public. Revise MOS:GENDERID to remove content restrictions and other cleanup: Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Option 2a - Move content restriction to WP:BLPNAME with only exception for notability, and revise down MOS:GENDERID

Add this paragraph to the end of WP:BLPNAME: It is reasonable to assume that a transgender or non-binary individual would not want a former name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name. Revise MOS:GENDERID to remove content restrictions and other cleanup (same wording as Option 2): Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Background RFCs and proposals

It would be very helpful to read the closing of two recent RFCs, one closed 7 June 2023 and another closed 20 July 2023. See also extensive discussions of proposals for this RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 2 - As nominator, I have to point out the elephant in the room, that "Gender-related topics" are identified as an example of Civil POV Pushing, a problem that ArbCom has had a "difficult time dealing with". The current MOS:GENDERID seems to be an example of regulatory capture, where those invested with their POV have been successful at expanding the MOS to inappropriately include content restrictions that violate WP:NOTCENSORED without any clear policy-based justification. Supporters of the last two RFCs seemed to support expanding restrictions out of "dignity", "respect", and the subject's "wishes". I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of BLP, and it has a justification for removing unencyclopedic content for living and recently deceased individuals, but there is currently no policy to justify expanding privacy protections to long-deceased individuals. It would require some form of new policy and it is far beyond the scope of the MOS. The Wikimedia Foundation made a Resolution with the advent of BLP that urges us to take "human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information". In that spirit, I propose enshrining the privacy protection for transgender and non-binary people into BLP and out of the MOS, using the normal privacy exceptions of when the person was notable under the name, it has been "widely published by reliable sources" (wording here is debatable), or the person does not object to its dissemination. In the process I also proposed a cleanup to MOS:GENDERID that reduces it to style-only. As a courtesy to avoid a second RFC, I included option 2a for those who want BLP to have the more restrictive language of only notable former names. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close as this RfC is too convoluted to reasonably reach consensus. The community has been through multiple lengthy discussions on related topics, and it would be better to start on the right foot. The OP has received, as far as I can tell, universally negative reception to this RfC format at WT:MOSBIO. There are many issues, chief among them being the way that Options 2 and 2a are presenting a change+move combo that obfuscates the ways it would devastate the guidance currently in GENDERID. I have sincerely tried, and I cannot envision a way that this makes more sense than separately considering changes and moves. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close as failure to do WP:RFCBEFORE. Editors are currently working out an RFC over at the talk page for MOS:BIO. This exact RFC language was proposed there and got no support. Actually starting it is clearly an attempt to jump the gun of that discussion. Loki (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close per Firefangledfeathers. This RfC is not yet ready. There are multiple outstanding unresolved issues that have been raised by many editors in the discussions at WT:MOSBIO, including that this RfC is asking questions about text that had not yet been finalised in other discussions, and that both options 2 and 2a are incorporating significant changes to the scope of the guideline that are wholly separate to moving portions of it to BLP. There is also at least one other proposed format for an RfC on these issues, that seems to have slightly stronger support as it more clearly delineates the scope of what is being proposed here. As those discussions are still ongoing, this clearly fails WP:RFCBEFORE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  As a prime and easily demonstrable example of why this is not ready, when Cunado presented a version of this two days ago, I questioned whether option 1 was mutually exclusive of options 2 and 3 of the draft (options 2 and 2a of this live RfC) as on the surface the two of the three choices are fully compatible. Cuñado responded asking if it would be helpful to include in the preamble that option 1 can be combined with other options to enshrine an MOS-based policy about past-RDP deadnames?. I replied with a maybe, and raised the point that it might be better assessed as either a separate RfC or a separate question within a multi-question RfC. None of that feedback has been actioned here, and options 1, 2, and 2a are presented by Cuñado as being mutually exclusive.

  For those who wish to read more, there are a multitude of other issues that have been raised in the (up to now) ongoing discussions at WT:MOSBIO. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#GENDERID in BLP is the most recent discussion, however the TNT on GENDERID, and WP:BOLD restrictions on the use of deceased transgender or non-binary persons birth name or former name are also of relevance here for why this is not yet ready. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close: This RfC‘s scope is just too broad (and context is changing as we speak) to reach consensus, as others have pointed out. On a side note: I think the flexibility afforded by GID being a guideline (and not policy) is quite important at the moment, as evidenced by the RfC I opened on the MOSGID talk page, where most feedback boiled down to „editors making reasonable case-by-case decisions is better than trying to account for edge cases here.“ Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 19:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close As others have pointed out there is an ongoing discussion about this and this RfC is completely jumping the gun on that with no support. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close with a minor “trout” to Cuñado for rushing the gun and not listening to input and requests when formulating this. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2023 (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.

RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has been opened for a month, with only two comments this August. Numerically there are 5 supports, around 30 opposes, and a couple other comments that were not explicitly supports or opposes (there was also a small minority of opposes that supported more restriction on NBOOK but opposed this specific wording). As there is not a considerable difference in the strength of the arguments to override the very clear numerical count, I find there is consensus against this proposed wording to alter NBOOK. (non-admin closure) VickKiang (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the following be added to Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Other considerations, below Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Articles that are plot summaries?

Sources that are plot summaries

When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes from the book should be omitted when determining whether a source contains significant coverage.

02:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Survey (book notability)

• Support. First, to comply with WP:NOTPLOT we need to be able to write an article that is more than just 90% plot description; unless there is significant coverage of the work beyond plot description this is not possible. Second, this will address the issue of indiscriminate coverage of books published by major publishers, as part of the publishers marketing strategy, by organizations like Publishers Weekly. Most of these reviews are churned out for said strategy and contain little beyond a plot summary; such routine coverage is not an indicator of notability and would be excluded by this proposal.

To date, these low standards haven't been a problem; there have been practical barriers to the mass creation of book stubs. However, with the advent of large language models these limitations are removed; we need to act now to close the barn door before the horse escapes. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - independently published books with multiple reviews are of inherent encyclopaedic interest and Notability; the idea that books have to be shown by special, "non-routine" reviews to be "more worthy" than other books seems to presuppose an unduly diminished view of the potential for an online encyclopaedia, and also runs counter to the development of enwiki to date.
  There may well be problems arising for Wikipedia from the development of large language models and neural networks, but adding readily gamed restrictions on required content in a book review is not a response that would help with any of Wikipedia 's current and upcoming challenges. Newimpartial (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• I would want to support narrower language: something like Reviews that consist mostly of plot summary and quotation are not considered significant coverage. I think the proposed langauge implies that there is a hard amount of text required for SIGCOV that doesn't really exist. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing that implication; my intention was to just apply our normal standards of assessing WP:SIGCOV after we have excluded plot descriptions and quotes. For your alternative I think it is actually stricter language; it would exclude reviews that are 70% plot review even if the 30% amounts to WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Reviews" that are only plot summaries and quotes are not reviews, those are recaps or summaries, and those are primary sources, which are automatically excluded from GNG notability.

  That said, a review that actually is more than just plot summaries, and uses the plot summary or quotes to describe themes or other aspects of reception that are evaluations or criticisms that fall within "transformative nature" of secondary sources are fine. Thus, you can't just simply discount or ignore the plot/quotes from a review article to access its appropriateness for notability. Masem (t) 03:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  A recap is a source that talks about the primary source, making it secondary by definition. Maybe it's a mediocre kind of secondary source, but that's a separate question. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  No, secondary sources require transformation of thought, something that we can't do via WP:NOR. Something that just summarizes a primary work is primary itself. This is why news reports of an events are primary, since they are summarizing the events without additional transformation. Masem (t) 15:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  News reports of an event are primary because we have no access to the event that is more direct. An event is an event, not a primary source about itself. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  If the reporter wasn't present at the event but collected information from eyewitnesses, authorities, etc. that were there, that would still be a primary source using other primary sources of information, because they are not using any type of critical thought to transform the information into something new, all per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. The same applies to simple rote recaps, compared to reviews that provide critical thought. Masem (t) 12:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, mostly per WP:CREEP. This is a proposal steamrollered through by BilledMammal without listening to any of the negative feedback in its discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). It is focused only on a subset of the books (the ones that have plots to summarize). It fails to recognize that a description of the plot of a book can actually be transformative content about the book, artificially describing it as not significant not because it is actually not significant (if it were, we wouldn't need an extra rule to say that it is) but because the nominator wants to have more ammunition to delete articles. It solves a non-problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not all plot summaries are transformative and thus not necessarily secondary. In fact, the way that we are supposed to summarize plots is to a level of non-interpretative, sterilized rote repetition that our plot summaries would be considered primary works, as there should be no significant transformation (original research or thought) involved. And there are other works out there that create plot summaries in this same manner. (This is comparable to news reports - those just describing events without larger analysis are primary sources to the event.

  But that's not to say plot summaries from all works are primary. Secondary ones that present the necessary transformation and OR that we can't do on Wikipedia, exist. I am sure there are examples of analysis of Shakespeare plays that have the combination of plot summaries along with this type of analysis. Or the old sarcastic summaries that existed at Television Without Pity for various TV episodes would definitely qualify as secondary. Masem (t) 12:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Re "not all plot summaries are transformative": this is precisely why I chose the verb "can" rather than "is" in writing "a description of the plot of a book can actually be transformative content". It was a deliberate choice. But this proposal would eliminate that distinction and pre-emptively declare that all plot summaries are non-transformative. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Please demonstrate one single example (more are fine, but since I'm asserting no such thing exists, a single source will prove me wrong) of a non-transformative plot summary. Masem, David Eppstein or anyone are welcome to respond. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Published books covering TV series that typically include a summary of each episode (for example, this book at Amazon, or from this book from which this is a preview page. Simple rote iteration of what's going on with the episode in terms of summary. Now yes, these books add additional details and may be appropriate to expand on production details, but those plots are very basic and definitely not transformative. Masem (t) 04:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Turning a video into text is necessarily transformative. For example, someone had to watch that episode of The Simpsons and decide that Lisa was not just calm, but "eerily" calm. They bother to mention the name of Homer's business; they write that Lisa declares she is changing her name to Lisa Bouvier without specifying, as another might, that Bouvier is Marge's maiden name. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Then that would mean all of our plot summaries are transformative and violate WP:NOR. These summaries still are primary recaps. Details like where Homer works or what Marge's maiden name are well visible details of the show as a whole so that's not transformative (eg our equivalent of allowable SYNTH). Compare to the examples that BilledMammal gives below to reviews from AV Club or IGN which insert commentary and reviews in the recap. Masem (t) 15:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not to the extent they reflect RS'ed plot summaries in line with NPOV. I mean, that's not even a remotely hard problem to solve withing longstanding policies. Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  lol 87.115.35.12 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NOTPLOT is about how we write about books, not about what sorts of independent reliable sources we can use to do so, a point the RFC initiator has been told before. A plot summary is transformative, hence a secondary source, because the summarizer must decide what is important and what can be left out. RfC initiator has failed to incorporate this feedback, and has put forth a proposal that is incompatible with NPOV: that policy requires our work to be representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This would impermissibly exclude some RS'es, hence being dead on arrival as a guideline contradicting a policy. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  This would impermissibly exclude some RS'es I believe you have misunderstood the proposal; this would have no bearing on what sources we could use in the article, once we have decided we can have an article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please explain how removing some secondary sources from only book notability consideration would not be an NPOV violation. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Because asking whether an article that doesn't exist is neutral is a nonsensical question? To be honest, I don't even understand why you think it would be an NPOV violation; I note that other SNG's where we place restrictions on the use of sources that don't apply elsewhere, such as at WP:NCORP, aren't considered NPOV violations; I don't see any reason why this would be different? BilledMammal (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  NCORP is an SNG. Any corporation that fails NCORP can still meet N by meeting the GNG. So, you may have a point there... unless anyone disagrees that SNGs are positive only and can't exclude anything meeting the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Straightforward application of established policy. If a source merely summarizes the book and does not elaborate on why it is important or meaningful, it cannot be used to establish notability. Avilich (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem, Newimpartial and David Eppstein. This is a "solution" that would not solve any problems that currently exist, nor would it solve the non-problem it claims to if that were actually a problem. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose There's a good concept in there of acknowledging that plot summaries on average are less indicative of notability, some severely so. But the wording, amplified by it's categorical form really is wp: creep, with likely unintended consequences. And does not acknowledge the variations described by Masem. And the bar for wording needs to be set higher because this is basically a calibration ( = modification) of GNG rather than being standard SNG fare. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose plot summaries are secondary coverage. This is the same kind of bad source limitation creep that is seriously hampering our coverage of other topics. Jahaza (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:CREEP and fundamentally, after reading the discussion leading to the RFC, I do not see a problem that needs to be fixed. --Enos733 (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, policy creep, doesn't seem to address a problem that needs fixing. —Kusma (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Absolutely support. Our book notability guideline is grossly flawed in treating all "reviews" as equal. One that just regurgitates the plot with little in the way of critical thinking should not count toward notability, as it lacks depth of coverage. This has been a problem for a very long time, and we have a whole lot of stupid, spammy articles on garbage books as a result. Even my efforts to merge some of them back into author articles have met with revert-warring to retain miserable perma-stubs on the books as stand-alone articles, even though they are not of genuine excyclopedic merit except as bibliography section entries or maybe author article subsections at most. It's all because of the overbroad way we treat "reviews". There are entire publications that do nothing but rote book reviews, and any book that is not self-published is apt to be covered in more than one of them, which means any non-self-published book is apt to be falsely taken as "notable" enough for WP. It is not working. Just read the actual wording at WP:NBOOK: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." Not a single mention of depth or what kind of depth. Even the five footnotes do not help, as they address pretty much every term and concern other than "reviews". What we need here is a new footnote that qualifies that term, as only including analytical reviews not plot-summarizing/abstracting reviews.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not for use to insert our value judgments about what reviewers (or RS generally) choose to focus on when discussing a narrative work. The purpose of GNG is to determine how much coverage a given subject has received from RS, as a measure of whether a statistically significant number of readers would benefit from the utility of an independent article on the subject. With respect, I strongly disagree with SMcCandlish's view that a detailed description of the plot of a novel does not constitute "in-depth" coverage, even if it includes a large volume of discussion of the contents of the book; I know of no policy or piece of community consensus connected to notability or weight which suggests we should be utilizing our own idiosyncratic impressions about how critically-oriented a source is (i.e. how much it involves subjective analysis of a subject) before it can count for the purposes to which we apply RS. Indeed, such a standard would be clearly rejected if proposed for any number of other subject types: we wouldn't exclude an article on a natural phenomena or historical event or an individual because all of the sources we presently had access to described these topics in purely descriptive terms, absent subjective analysis. Nor would we do so for any other variety of subject I can think of. Of course it's often of more value to our reader when we have sourcing of both the descriptive and analytical variety, but just so long as we can establish that a significant number of readers would get encyclopedic value out the coverage of a topic (and that the discussion of that topic is best effected through a separate article) we should have that article, even if what we are able to say about it (in terms of sourceable statements) is fairly straight forward and superficially descriptive. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for three reasons. First, because the only valid question in evaluating source-based notability is "are there enough adequate sources to support an adequate article". Anything more than that is simply exclusion for exclusion's sake and has no place in a project such as ours. A plot summary from a reliable source provides substantial article-building material. A valid point was raised above, that a plot summary alone cannot support an entire article. But it would be an exceptionally rare situation in which there were no sources at all beyond plot summaries. Second, because a couple decades of engaging with AFD wikilawyers tells me that this would immediately be weaponized to exclude any source that even contains a plot summary. The amount of harm that AFD has done to the project is immeasurable at this point, but the last thing we should do is add to it. Third, on general WP:CREEP and no-problem-requiring-a-solution grounds. -- Visviva (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have anywhere near as overwhelmingly negative an impression of AfD as you do, but for a certainty, one of the main practical concerns I have with this proposal is the absolutely certain (and probably quit marked) increase in edit disputes that it will lead to as editors begin to argue subjective standards for where the line between plot summary and a plot analysis lays in individual cases. All for the sake of addressing a supposed problem, the extent of which has not really been established here. As to the valid point regarding WP:NOTPLOT: well that's precisely where WP:PAGEDECIDE comes in. If the subject does have substantial sourcing, but that corpus of sourcing has blindspots that make construction of an independent article difficult or impractical, an argument can always be made on precisely the basis of the policy/carveout that already exists for that and similar pragmatic situations where notability exists but a standalone article is inadvisable.

  Now, don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that there are many occasions where such a NOPAGE approach can be (and are) stonewalled in favour of keeping a separate article, simply because that is much closer to the default presumption, once notability guidelines have been satisfied, and this really lets WP:ILIKEIT !voters to dig in. But that's an argument for reforming, clarifying, or just strengthening community consensus on the existing PAGEDECIDE standard. By comparison, the proposal here feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, by creating a new rule (that does not comport with our usual approach to sourcing and notability) that will undoubtedly lead to the removal of (or at least edit warring/content disputes centered around) many articles that have a perfectly valid encyclopedic purpose. Just for the sake of making it easier to excise a relatively small handful of articles that might be superfluous (without first even having a good showing that such supposedly problematic articles even exist in significant numbers), even though we already have tools for addressing those theoretical problem articles. To me, the likely cost-benefit analysis of the proposed approach just does not feel like it is flowing in the right direction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I see this as akin to assessing whether a particular RS interview can contribute to notability: if it contains significant independent secondary analysis/commentary--that is, material that is not quotes from the interviewee or the interviewer restating/paraphrasing what the interviewee said/felt, it may count. Editors find this easy enough to understand at AfD, even for pieces that have quotes/paraphrasing interwoven with commentary; I don't think the comparable nuance of plot summary (primary with regards to notability) versus analysis would pose a problem. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is akin to declaring, in GNG, that all interviews are non-independent, preventing participants from making the kind of assessment you describe. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Many AFD !voters are in fact already taking the position that all interviews are non-independent. I think this is incredibly wrongheaded, but that's where we're at. Jahaza (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Uh, no, absolutely not; the proposal just states that the plot summary content within a source should not be regarded when assessing the amount of SIGCOV the source provides. That does not prohibit all sources that contain plot summaries--or that even those that are mostly comprised of plot summaries--from counting toward notability. JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose A bad attempt to fix a non-problem. A review that spends time doing plot summary is still attention paid to the book. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  And just because we can't or shouldn't write an article that is all plot summary, that doesn't make reviews which focus on plot summary useless. A "Reception" section could say, for example, "Reviewers praised the intricacies of the plot while noting that the characters generally fell into broad archetypes..." XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Competently summarizing a plot is work. It requires making creative decisions: how much detail do you include? Do you describe flashbacks in chronological order of events or where they fall in the narrative? Do you describe what the detective notices when they notice it, or when they reveal it? How much can you leave out as understood due to genre conventions? I'm sorry, but this proposal amounts to insulting an entire category of secondary sources for no good reason. XOR'easter (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  If the only sources that provide SIGCOV of a book are plot summaries, how can we write an article that does not fail NOTPLOT? JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd like to offer an eloquent explanation for my view, but I really can't improve on the arguments offered by Snow Rise and Visviva, and I agree with what they've said. Although WP:NBOOK isn't a very high bar, there have been a number of books that I've read that I was unable to create an article about because there simply wasn't the non-trivial coverage necessary, so I know that not every non-self-published book qualifies under the SNG, even without the proposed change. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – There is no reason significant coverage should have to be a specific type of coverage beyond covering the subject in detail. Even if a book only receives significant coverage focusing on its plot, that is much more coverage than the vast majority of books, which won't receive any kind of coverage outside of self-published sources or catalog/shop entries. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Visviva, SnowRise, and the example given of a 'problematic' review that David Eppstein and Jclemens said more than enough about. I note that books (especially nonfiction and non-Anglophone fiction) are an area where Wikipedia has disastrous coverage, and the idea we need to discourage article creation for them feels rather like the idea we need to do so for any of our other underrepresented areas. I'm working towards a challenge to write articles on books in every hundreds-category of the Dewey Decimal system; it's incredible both how many books we're missing, including very recent and popular ones with substantial mainstream coverage, and how easy it is to write high-quality articles on virtually all these books (the four I've written towards it so far include one GA, one GAN intended to become an FA, and one FAC). Mass book stub creation through LLMs also doesn't really seem representative of the issues with LLMs for Wikipedia -- 'mass stub creation on subjects where it's easy to demonstrate notability' is a problem that doesn't require putting LLMs in the loop (as we know fairly well by now), and the practical/actionable issues (rather than the philosophical ones) with LLM content are mostly about issues orthogonal to the quality of existing sources, like the falsification of plausible-looking sources that don't exist. Vaticidalprophet 00:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support: routine plot coverage should not be enough to indicate notability. Also per @BilledMammal:. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. While this proposal seemed superficially appealing, I am persuaded by the "oppose" comments (especially the concrns raised by David Eppstein) and believe this would become a tool for abuse. Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on account that the nominator doesn't contribute positively to the encyclopedia. It's easy to pontificate and tell others how you think they should edit and what approved sources they can use when you yourself do not create content for the encyclopedia. Honestly, BilledMammal, I would unsubscribe from the RfC notice list that spams your talk page and really ask yourself why you're here, because it's not to build an encyclopedia. You are actively driving contributors away whether you know it/care or not. –Fredddie™ 18:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is not a forum for discussing editorial conduct, let alone your general impression of another community member. Nor is "I generally don't have a high impression of the OP" a valid reason for opposing the specific proposal here, such that the closer can give it any weight for forming consensus. If you feel the editor has clearly violated any policies, content or behavioural, such that th on another user to yourself. Regardless the observations in this case, as presented in your "!vote" above, definitely don't belong here, and are in fact violations of WP:ASPERSION, and borderline WP:PA/WP:DISRUPT themselves. I'd consider striking or removing them entirely. And note that I say all of this as someone opposed to the proposal who does not think it is particularly well considered. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I will not. Spades should be called spades at every opportunity lest they continue their spadely ways. –Fredddie™ 22:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Suit yourself, but I'd recommend reviewing WP:POINT; regardless of whether or not you think you are doing the principled thing by noting your low impression of another editor here, this project has clear rules about when, where, how, and under what circumstances to "call your spades", and I'm telling you as a random community member with no previous experience of either of you or any underlying disputes that you are not comporting with those rules with the comments above. Please bear in mind that there is more than one kind of spade in the deck when it comes to behaviours this community considers disruptive, and coming to a content/policy discussion to expressly air your grievances against another editor rather than discussing the merits of the issue being considered could easily result in you getting called for a spade yourself. That said, this is the extent of the advice I am willing to provide, precisely because this is not the space for behavioural discussions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with anything you're saying about me; you could rightfully call me an asshole and you would most likely be correct. But you see, the nominator has a pattern of butting into topics that simply don't affect him because he doesn't contribute content to the encyclopedia. It's akin to someone who has never ridden in a car much less learned to drive one openly advocating for stiffer penalties for speeding, not using your turn signal, and putting the registration sticker in the wrong corner of your license plate. I think it's absolutely relevant to this discussion to point out this behavior. To that end, I think all of our notability guidelines need to be loosened, not tightened. –Fredddie™ 03:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I was going to leave this with the note I left on your talk page, but since you removed that and insist on repeating the personal attacks I will ask here: Please strike the above, and if you have a problem with me bring it to my talk page or to ANI. Discussing it elsewhere is uncivil and a violation of policy, and given that I don't want to derail an unrelated discussion unfairly denies me the opportunity to respond. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I will not. Your character is relevant to this discussion right now. I'll also note that I have mentioned displeasure with your lack of content creation on your talk page. You ignored it. –Fredddie™ 04:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  If you feel that not meeting your expectations about the level of content creation is a reason for sanction and that I haven't suitably addressed your concerns, then take it to ANI. Your personal opinion of me is irrelevant to this proposal.

  I'm not going to take this further, but if you make such personal attacks in the future I will take you to ANI myself. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Fredddie, nobody can make you strike the comment, but at a minimum this line of discussion needs to stop immediately or I can tell you with confidence that BilledMammal will not need to take you to ANI--one of the rest of us will do it for him. As has been said here, if you have concerns about his conduct, there are forums reserved specifically for that. Take it there: it doesn't belong in this discussion about a policy proposal, even if you see a link between the proposal and what you do not like in his approach; even in that instance, the proper place to raise the topic of his behaviour is ANI, on a user talk, or an admin channel, depending on the nature of the supposed violation.

  All of that said, if you do take this to ANI, I would advise you not to lead with the "you don't edit articles, therefore you have less of a say" shtick: the community has, for a long while now, considered that a low quality and problematic argument, and many editors in good standing with the community have lower than normal mainspace editing ratios. Making a point of saying that you have gone out of your way to complain to BilledMammal about this is actually not a good look. I'm starting to feel you might be the ace of spades in this personal dispute. I'd really let this one go. But even if you can't, you've been told where to take such behavioural matters, about four times more than should be necessary; if you can't find the way, we can ask an admin to guide you there. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I was intending to oppose this proposal, but I've been trying to ween myself off of policy discussions for awhile now. However, I just had to jump in here and say that you should really take the advice being offered by Snow here @Fredddie. This is not the way to handle confrontation in a collaborative manner. I want you to know that I have had my own unpleasant experience with the way BilledMammal has conducted business in the past so I'm not "taking sides" here, but I think you should strike the comment as BilledMammal has asked, and rethink about how you approach problems in a more productive way that doesn't involve slinging poop like a mad monkey. Lol. Huggums537 (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• I support making notability more restrictive, but oppose this particular solution, mainly because it can probably be handled with existing guidelines. If sources are not much more than a plot summary, then the consideration Articles that are plot summaries would probably justify deleting it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is about sources as plot summaries, not articles as plot summaries. It's an important distinction. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal is not compatible with GNG. This proposal would render non-notable some books that satisfy GNG. There is no reason why books should be subjected to a higher threshold of notability than other topics that only have to satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. We already have guidelines about what articles should be (eg WP:NOTPLOT). And within the notability guidelines we have the language "presumed notable" (with explanation). There's no need, in this case, to limit which independent, reliable, secondary sources can be used to establish notability to write what would otherwise be an acceptable article. If such a case were to truly threaten pillar 1 or 2, other policies and guidelines would cover it adequately, including the existing notability guidelines. —siroχo 22:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as unworkable and undesirable. It's common for high-quality reviews to inextricably mix plot summary and commentary. The selection of aspects of the plot that the reviewer chooses to focus on, and their manner of presentation, can be of crucial importance: they can't simply be excised and ignored. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as a solution without a problem. Unless someone can demonstrate why this change is needed this discussion is a non-starter, we don't just add bits and pieces to policy/guideline without having an actual problem that needs to be addressed... Thats actually a really good way to create problems where none existed before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The depth of a review can be evaluated separately from its coverage of a book's plot. For example, this review of a book I've written about recently, describes the book's plot without being "simple regurgitation" as other editors have described. :3 F4U (they/it) 03:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Meh Virtually all summaries in good critique exist solely in service of the critique, that is the critic chooses how to summarize based on what they really want to say about the author's work. It might be nice to have a premise that poorly written and constructed critique does not count, but that is unlikely to work in practice (perhaps work on guidelines concerning where the critic needs to be published in various genres). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Opppose. The whole basis of new criticism (particularly as applied to books) focuses extraordinarily on close readings of the text of the book itself—including plot description and analysis of direct quotations. This guidance would have the effect of excluding many works in the academic field of new criticism (and other related formalist schools) from contributing towards notability despite there being little motivating reason for excluding these sorts of analyses. Rather than implicitly excluding large parts of a whole academic movement of literary analysis (something that may well cut against the heart of neutrality if applied to content), I don't think that we should eliminate works whose principal methods of critique and criticism are plot description and direct quote from the piece. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that's at all a plausible read of this proposal and discussion. An in-depth "new criticism" review that happens, by its very nature, to include a lot of detailed plot coverage is not a depth-free "review" that consists of nothing but plot coverage and some unvarnished opinion. The "reviews" that just consist of the latter drivel are what we're trying to address here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unneeded, WP:CREEPy. Large language models (for me the abbreviation LLM always means a master's degree in law) may be able to summarise plots but any review site that posts such summaries isn't going to pass our reliability/notability standards. This reads as though it would exclude, for example, an academic piece discussing the qualities of a particular book-character. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reliable sources is what confers notability, and I don't see a benefit in restricting that by subject matter. As a project that endeavors to capture the sum of human knowledge, we should lean towards keeping articles, not deleting them. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is some appropriate criticism about people imposing their preferences on a topic area without knowledge of how the sourcing in that topic area works, which to me makes this proposal a solution in search of a problem. Imzadi 1979 → 21:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a solution entirely in search of a problem. Adding this to our notability guidelines is not necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't a problem warranting this solution, and I think this proposal would more likely cause issues, specifically in debates/deletion discussions (per Snow Rise and Visviva). While I understand concerns about LLMs, Vaticidalprophet and FOARP have addressed how this proposal does not solve issues related to LLMs. Wracking ^talk! 05:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Current guidelines could handle this. A pure or functionally pure plot-summary would indeed not be countable towards notability, but I wouldn't exclude any plot aspect from assessing, say, Sig Cov length - as it's sort of a core bit of any review. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose this would be an artificial and inflexible rule and make book coverage on Wikipedia worse. Jack4576 (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The rule isn't necessarily wrong, but it's WP:CREEPy and we should be smart enough to discount those sorts of reviews anyways. I also don't necessarily see the problem this is trying to solve - do we really have books skating by on this alone? SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (book notability)

• I'm not seeing how this would make discussions much clearer. Most significant coverage of a book would have to include plot descriptions, and perhaps quotes, or there would be little to analyze. A regurgitation of a plot with no analysis probably isn't significant coverage, but from there on it's fuzzy and analysis and plot descriptions/quotes can easily be interwoven. CMD (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Clarification needed. What is meant by "quotes"? Does it mean "quotes from the book"? Or is it meant to include "quotes about the book"? Cbl62 (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Cbl62: Quotes from the book. Quotes about the book from the publisher or author are already excluded for lacking independence, and quotes about the book from other reviews are better sourced to said other reviews. BilledMammal (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Can you accordingly modify the proposal to refer only to "quotes from the book"? Cbl62 (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Cbl62: Done. BilledMammal (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Request - Could we get an example of a source that would be excluded by this proposal? Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would make a more specific request for a source that (1) would be excluded by this proposal and (2) has been used to support notability (at AfD or elsewhere) without being immediately laughed out of the room. In other words, is this proposed solution solving an actual problem? Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is more pernicious is topic areas such as television episodes than books, but in those topic areas the horse has already bolted from the barn; I am proposing acting in this topic area because there is there is currently the potential for the horse to bolt but it hasn't yet.

  That isn't to say it is no problem in this topic area; an example of a book review used in an AfD that would be excluded by this proposal is this review. BilledMammal (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  So it is your position that sentences like "The second book in the trilogy ... probes deeper into the relationship between Calwyn and Darrow, the man she rescued from being sacrificed to the Goddess. Darrow's mysterious upbringing and how he came to wear the ruby ring that once belonged to Samis are presented through flashbacks. Kimberly Farr's melodic voice enhances the strong characterization and lyrical language of the story, drawing listeners ever deeper ... The effectiveness of the background music varies-sometimes complementing the reading, at other times distracting from it" are purely regurgitation of plot content, and are in no way transformative? And that other discussion participants should be pre-empted from making that analysis by declaring that such content is automatically non-transformative? It is a short review, but if it is to be judged too short, it should not be because it happens to mention some plot points along the way; it is largely evaluative rather than narrative. You are, in fact, presenting the perfect example of why we should not approve this proposal: because editors like you will immediately try to use it against reviews that happen to mention plot points as illustrations of their evaluative points, rather than limiting your condemnation to reviews that are only about plot. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  The proposal is that the review would need to contain significant coverage beyond plot analysis, not that it would need to contain coverage beyond plot analysis. That article contains coverage, but I don't believe it contains significant coverage.

  Since I've raised the topic of television episodes, I'm curious what you would think of sources like this and this in the context of this proposal? BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Both of those are secondary as they have review and commentary atop the simple recap of the episode. Masem (t) 15:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wait, so we're not even just talking about RS plot summaries but also plot analysis? Yeah, that's even further a bridge too far. Definitely a non-starter proposal if that's where you want to set the exclusionary constraints. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Plot analysis is intended to be fine - my personal metric under this proposal would be that if a sentence could support content outside a "plot" section (for example, an "analysis" section) then that sentence would count towards assessing whether the source contains SIGCOV.

  There could be difference of opinion over whether a specific sentence could support content, but I suspect that would be easy to resolve; the editor believing it does contain such content could easily demonstrate it by using said sentence to support content. BilledMammal (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with David Eppstein here. If this what you want to exclude from consideration, BilledMammal, I am even more agreed that your proposal should fail on its merits. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2023 (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.

WP:TOR is weird

Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor only gives advice to registered users. For unregistered users, they need an account but can't create one. However, the relevant section tells them to follow the same instructions under the section 'IP block exemption'. Only registered users in good standing can request IP block exemption, so the section is completely useless.
WP:WPCP have been inactive for a long time and the setup instructions are complex; There is only one server and one server admin; I don't expect that the admin can respond quickly. This section is also essentially useless.
Although the section 'Alternative proxies' says that many proxies are only soft-blocked, it is still very hard for users to find such. Essentially useless.
So I wonder if the WMF really care about the unfair blocking of new and unregistered users. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 02:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit of compromise to keep the volume of advocacy & public relations editing from multiple terminals under control. Graywalls (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Notable covers are eligible for standalone articles, provided that the article on the cover can be reasonably-detailed based on facts independent of the original.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clearly no consensus for overturning the status quo that was established at the previous RfC some time before. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

---

WP:NSONG Anyone else think this should be changed to WP:NCOVER, which states "When a song has been recorded or performed by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article)"? I'm looking to change the guidelines. We shouldn't be clogging up our encyclopedia with worthless cover versions, this also creates confusion for the reader, etc... the gradual change of Wikipedia into Wikia... Therapyisgood (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• I definitely get where you're coming from, but I think that notable cover versions do more clogging inside other articles than they do standalone. For starters, the original isn't always the most notable: take "Barbara Ann", for example. The Beach Boys cover dwarfs the original so much that the Regents' original gets barely more than a lead mention. As Levivich notes in his close of the RfC, that leads to the Regents getting an article for a non-notable song they write because of the inherited notability that comes with the Beach Boys cover, and is also a cluttery, unexpected, and undue way to write an article. There's no reason to be that strict: plenty of derivative movies and books have articles of their own, as do plenty of tribute bands. Truly notable song covers can have one or more of distinct lyrics, distinct music (which can be covered in-depth by music theorists), distinct composition, distinct production, and distinct critical review in the press. It'd be like merging Macbeth (1971 film) back to Macbeth.
  In any case, part of WP:NSONG is set by RfC. If you'd like to overturn it, I think we should have another RfC to let the community weigh in again. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Most cover versions by notable bands are just that and should definitely be within the article on the original song. Others, on the other hand, get their own spat of notability ("Africa" by Weezer is one) and can be separate. But this should be seen as the exception, not the rule. Unless there's good reason for a separate article on the cover, the original song article is suitable. Masem (t) 03:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• This is an attempt to reverse the outcome of an RfC from just over a year ago. Either evidence should be provided of why that recent consensus a) was procedurally invalid or b) has led to negative effects, or this should be speedily closed. -- 'zin^{[is short for Tamzin]} (she|they|xe) 04:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @Tamzin: Did you even read my nom? "clogging up our encyclopedia with worthless cover versions, this also creates confusion for the reader, etc... the gradual change of Wikipedia into Wikia", all of which are negative effects. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Additionally the close was by a non-admin, before I take this to AN for a close review is there a specific time limit on a close review? It appeared to be a no consensus to me, judging based on the rough count. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Those are asserted negative effects. You have provided no evidence. Are there cases of unsuitable articles being kept at AfD under this rule change? Currently your objection seems to be, simply, that you don't like what the consensus was, which is not on its own a basis for a new RfC. As to challenging at AN, I would say that once a reasonable window passes without an RfC's outcome being challenged, the lack of challenge in itself contributes to the close's validity, making it black-letter law; but if you want to try a challenge, I mean, I can't stop you. Although I'm not sure why it matters whether the closer was an admin. -- 'zin^{[is short for Tamzin]} (she|they|xe) 04:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Therapyisgood, I think you're missing the point in multiple regards: theleekycauldron has already explained why a general prohibition on cover song articles is not a good idea, and the closure appears to be fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
        • @Tamzin: I think we are already seeing the negative affects of this. Just today I had to start a merge proposal on We Didn't Start the Fire (Fall Out Boy song), which was a great waste of time. That kind of proves my point. The well-respected wiki mod @Amakuru: has said this shouldn't have been its own article, even under the new rules. See here for proof. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
          • If that page fails the current version of the guideline, how is that evidence of a fault with the guideline? And you've started this RfC without waiting to see if others agree with your merge proposal. This whole thing, Therapyisgood, seems very hasty and ill-thought-through. -- 'zin^{[is short for Tamzin]} (she|they|xe) 02:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• I think the discussion here is missing the core question: what do we mean by a "song"? Are we talking about a composition, or are we talking about a recording? It seems to me that in many cases we really are talking about a composition. We cover musical compositions that predate recordings, whether Piano Concerto No. 5 (Beethoven) or "The House of the Rising Sun", which seems quite reasonable to me. Once a composition has become notable (and it will generally do that through recorded forms), it seems that it is most informative to keep versions in a single article with only severe exceptions (such as the article growing too large that it needs to be split), as those various recordings and how they relate to one another are key to the history of the song. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I generally agree with this, though Theleekycauldron is correct in pointing out exceptional cases like "Barbara Ann" where a particular recording dwarfs all others and the composition itself; there's no question that a few covers merit independent articles. But something like the "Blue Monday" cover by Orgy does not, and should just be covered in WP:DUE amount at the article on the New Order composition and recordings (they made more than one of it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose making a hard rule against this. Individual recordings can be notable, and sometimes it is better to present them in an article about the original work, sometimes it is not. This is true for modern music as it is for classical. For example, we have Bach: The Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould album). Often, as leeky observes correctly, putting cover versions into the original song articles clutters those up; we should not make a rule enforcing that. I'd rather have a separate article on UB40's Can't Help Falling in Love than having to scroll past all of its chart placements while looking at the article about the Presley song. —Kusma (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose establishing a hard-and-fast rule, per the above comment. This is one of those areas where article organization has too many complexities and caveats to be amenable to simple bullet points. XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per others here; this is trying to solve a non-existent problem. Covers don't usually get enough significant coverage to have their own page, but when they do, they should have one! WP:NCOVER should instead be updated. I'd add something along the lines of Depending on how much reliable sourcing exists for a cover, a separate article can on occasion be warranted. and removing the (never in a separate article) parenthetical. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with removing the parenthetical, and I think that many of the comments here support that as well. I'll start a subsection to focus on that in case this goes unnoticed. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - the previous RFC overturned years of practice in making it default for covers to have their own articles. That is wrong. There will be occasional cases that are so significant that one is merited, but those are the exception, and we need to close this before the floodgates open.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, a song doesn't even need to meet NSONG if it meets GNG (and never did, the latest RfC didn't change how notability works on wikipedia) so this just seems pointless. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose based almost exclusively on the use of "never" in the proposal. Never is an absolute, suggesting that in all cases the statement is true; suggesting that anyone can account for all instances of anything – let alone covers of songs – is hubristic and fails to account for the numerous instances where this simply isn't the case. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I strongly disagree with the idea that simply because notable covers can or are eligible for a standalone article that they should have one. Last December, theleekycauldron promoted the idea at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 26#Cover songs that should be split: "Now that WP:NSONG has been changed to allow covers, we should start making a list of songs that should be split out. Off the top of my head: [list of 13 songs]". The discussion that followed showed opposition to the idea and questioned whether the change to NSONGS was undertaken properly. The decision on whether a cover should be split off into a separate article should be undertaken only in response to a real need to do so, as determined by a discussion on the song's talk page. Otherwise, it seems like "here's the solution, let's find the problem". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • That is an excellent point, thank you for bringing this up. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposal violates the spirit of the 5 pillars, most importantly 5P5, but also 5P2. We shouldn't have guidelines that sound unbreakable per the spirit of pillar 5. Also we shouldn't have guidelines that directly restrict the ability of editors to make decisions that are best for NPOV (pillar 2). Beyond the proposed wording, I also do not agree with the expository language in the proposal "worthless cover versions". Wikipedia is built on notability and verifiability, not "worth". And if it gives any solace, as an editor who has taken some long breaks over the past 2 decades, Wikipedia is less like Wikia than it has ever been. —siroχo 01:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Before any action is taken, I should let everyone know that WikiProject Songs, a project that should definitely have a say in this RfC, was completely left in the dark about a previously similar discussion, which I think was pretty rude. I've notified them this time and hope some members will comment. As for how I feel about creating articles for cover songs, I've made my stance clear on the previously linked discussion and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 26#Cover songs that should be split. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The fact the WikiProject wasn't even notified of this should be enough to just overturn that original RfC. I'm pretty active in the songs space and had no clue this change had happened. Toa Nidhiki05 17:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  WikiProjects (which are only groups of editors who want to work together) have no special role or extra rights in discussions like this. WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations and do not have authority over any articles. This is documented both in the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages and the policy Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus.

  This is a sitewide discussion on one of the highest traffic discussion pages in all of Wikipedia. An invitation to a small WikiProject (only 10 editors have posted to their talk page during the last three months; two of them have already posted here) is permitted but not required. If you think it would be a good idea for them to have another notification of this discussion, then feel free to leave a second notification there yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not saying WPs have extra authority in RfCs, because they don't, but I still believe it's common courtesy to notify them, even if their members aren't active. A thousand questions are fired when strangers come in changing our guidelines, but by that point, it's too late to do anything. In any case, I did notify them, so my mission here is done. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: and words should be added to WP:NSONG and WP:NCOVER to clarify that cover songs, if notable, are allowed to be described in a stand-alone article. Jack4576 (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• I haven't been involved with any of this discussion to this point, but shouldn't a cover be eligible for its own page only when WP:SPLIT applies? SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Handling exceptional cases

Elli has pointed out that the current guideline explicitly forbids separate articles, yet I see a lot of comments here supporting the idea that sometimes covers are independently notable and deserve an article. I feel like more attention on that may help to resolve this. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Orange Suede Sofa and Elli: that's wikiproject guidance, not actual guideline – it was just never updated with the RfC a few months ago, but it is superseded by it. It should probably just be updated to match NSONGS (either before this RfC ends or after, if we don't want to do it twice). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We do not even want the appearance of a WP:POLICYFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 23 July 2023 (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.

AFD discussion related to previous VPP discussion

See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Nippon destinations FOARP (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Quick clarification question that's semi-related to that: between the AFD and the RFC mentioned in the former's justification, there seems to be consensus that lists of airport destinations are non-notable and should be deleted with extreme prejudice. Does the same also extend to lists of airport destinations within other articles (e.g. Southwind Airlines#Destinations), or just standalone lists? 2603:8001:4542:28FB:4C89:6F75:861F:2F97 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Article content is not the same as article existence. Normal editing processes and standards, such as WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, should be used when handling the text within an article, and prior approval is not required for you to make an article better, though if there is a dispute, discuss rather than edit war. In simpler terms, feel free to do so, but be prepared to defend your actions on the talk page if someone objects. --Jayron32 13:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Occupation in infobox for localities affected by the ongoing military conflict 2: Crimea

Back in February there was an RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 179#RFC: Occupation in infobox for localities affected by the ongoing military conflict regarding template:Infobox settlement.

I have posted a followup discussion, proposing to remove an exception from the scope of that decision, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine #Occupation in infobox for localities affected by the ongoing military conflict 2: Crimea  —Michael Z. 03:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

BOTPOL and LLM-assisted editing

I have found at least one editor who appears to be making rapid gnoming edits by using ChatGPT or equivalent to generate wiki-markup. I'm basing this on the speed at which a new editor is ostensibly reading and reformatting articles. As best as I can tell, BOTPOL does not explicitly prohibit this, as they haven't introduced errors AFAICS, and haven't made purely cosmetic changes; most changes are adding links.

I haven't named the editor because this isn't the forum to discuss their conduct, but I would appreciate thoughts on whether this is against current policy, and if not what our response ought to be. It concerns me because the volume of edits this could enable is likely to swamp our ability to check, even if most individual edits are fine. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anybody can know unless we see the user or examples. Is the bot free to use? Does the user take requests? Seems like GenAI would be ideal to tweak for auto-templating and auto-filling of citations, which I've spent literally hours doing by hand. Tons more ideas limited only by expense. Nothing wrong with the use of GenAI to make a bot; un- or inadequately supervised bots, as well as making large-scale changes in general, are already covered in existing policies. SamuelRiv (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOTPOL has nothing specific to say about using LLMs, any more than it has anything to say about whether you should use Python. It looks like you've already evaluated most of what it does cover.

Outside of BOTPOL, there have been discussions specifically about LLMs on the Village pumps recently which may have something to say on the use of that. Anomie⚔ 11:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, what makes you think that this involves ChatGPT instead of a forked (or just old) version of AWB? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It's ostensibly a brand new user who lacks AWB permissions, and the links added include ones that a competent AWB user would avoid for overlinking reasons. I also tested the capability of ChatGPT to produce the relevant markup, and it was trivially easy to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

AWB is open source; you can (and people have) change it however you want, including to not care about permissions, though if that were the method, you probably wouldn't purposely remove or break the existing anti-overlinking code. A home-grown script, on the other hand, might not include such content.

Wikitext follows sufficiently regular patterns that you would expect any LLM to be able to mimic it, but you also wouldn't expect any LLM to know which articles exist at the English Wikipedia (which would make linking difficult). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay fine I will write the thing jp×g 09:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Policy (policies) on using a defence blog as a reference.

This discussion is now taking place at RSN Graywalls (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Would like to ask about having a defence blog/website as a reference. I'm seeing this in Philippine military/police-related articles. I do replace them with non-DB/DW articles when I find same or similar info. Ominae (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ominae. Can you provide the specific source you're talking about? That would make it easier to give good advice. Is your concern the fact that the source is a blog, or the fact that the source may face COI issues due to being connected to the defence industry? Pecopteris (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Example are this and this, the latter being linked to this. Ominae (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I see that the author of Pitz Defense Analysis used to work for the military and now has some undefined role in the government. On MaxDefense, I see a number of articles that are clearly opinion pieces about international events. On PhDefResource, I see mostly descriptive information about acquisition projects.

I'm concerned about these sources having direct ties to the Philippine government. That is sure to color their analysis of geopolitics. There are also the general concerns about citing a blog on Wikipedia.

My two cents: These sources could (and in the absence of better sources, should) be used for purely factual claims (i.e. the caliber of a rifle that the Philippine Army is acquiring), but anything even remotely resembling commentary should be avoided. Pecopteris (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Definetely agree on the former. I just leave those there in case I can't find better sources. But with the latter, I make an effort to change to better sources when I can. Ominae (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a question for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Graywalls (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I can go and post the question there for a second opinion. Ominae (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

They've already started a new discussion there. Graywalls (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Moderating WP:NOTBROKEN and bringing it more into line with actual practice

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Redirect#NOTBROKEN needs to be moderated – I've raised some concerns about how stridently opinionated WP:NOTBROKEN has become, and how out-of-step with actual practice. It also involves some related language at WP:NOPIPE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to change number format to use spaces instead of commas as separators

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

There's a proposal (no RfC tag) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Grouping of digits with commas is not allowed for numbers in the SI, to change our number-formatting from "1,234,567.890" to "1 234 567.890" or perhaps "1 234 567,890". This verges on something to list in WP:PERENNIAL, but it's worth a pointer here, since implementing it would affect many, many articles. I've suggested that development of a Javascript "gadget" to reformat numbers on-the-fly on the user side is probably the solution we should seek for the issue that different readers have different preferences in this regard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC on non-free videos

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 article for the killing of Nahel Merzouk features a non-free video of the incident as the lead media. The file has been nominated for deletion with users claiming that a video cannot meet the WP:NFCC#3 minimal usage requirements. This is despite the fact that WP:NFC permits the usage of non-free videos, so long as it's a minimal sample, akin to audio files.

I've noticed that there appears to be a lack of precedent and discussion regarding non-free videos, with even WP:NFC lacking a comprehensive, dedicated section to it, merely grouping it with other types of NF media (in contrast, for example, audio files have WP:SAMPLE). The argument used by those espousing for the file's deletion is that you can technically claim that 10 seconds is enough, then 9, then 8, and so on, so it inherently cannot meet minimum usage requirements; this is despite NF audio clips suffering from the same issue. There appears to be not standard in place for this and I think that we really ought to address this instead of leaving it in limbo to establish a set precedent.

The issue is that however you put it, the rationale of "a video cannot be NFC" is fundamentally at odds with WP:NFC, which again does permit the use of non-free videos, and again, we acknowledge that non-free audio excerpts can fall under fair use despite having the same issue of "what's minimal usage" (hell, you can even make the argument that NF images may suffer from this since their resolution can still be reduced without impeding on the reader's understanding)? So, with this, I ask,

A. Do non-free videos fall under fair use Do non-free files pass WP:NFCC#3?
. If not, then what makes it different to non-free images, audio, and other types of media?

- Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 19:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• In answer to question A, it is irrelevant whether or not videos are fair use, in the strict meaning of fair use, because that is not the standard that Wikipedia uses. In answer to question B, videos should be treated the same, for our purposes, as any other media in determining NFC inclusion or exclusion. Based on the description above of the dispute, the issue appears to be that some editors are arguing that no video can satisfy WP:NFCCP #3b. That argument is an incorrect understanding of the NFC policy. As stated in 3b, the amount of the video used here must satisfy: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." So if, for example, a non-free video is 11 seconds long, one can use a portion of it that is 10 seconds or less (preferably at reduced resolution). Whether one uses 10, 9, or 8 seconds depends on what "will suffice" to provide the information that one wants to convey in the Wikipedia article. Generally, the less one uses, the safer one is with criterion 3b, so it comes down to a decision about balancing that against the desire to present enough useful information. But if one is using less than the "entire work", one has satisfied 3b. The argument that no video can satisfy 3b because it is impossible to define how much less than the entire work is still usable, if that argument is really being made, is incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think A is irrelevant. Wikipedia's criteria are stricter than fair use. Therefore falling under fair use is not sufficient, but it is necessary for use on Wikipedia. So if videos cannot fall under fair use we can't use them. But I am not nearly familiar enough with copyright law to have an opinion on the matter. PS: I posted a link to this discussion at WP:Media copyright questions to bring this to the attention of more people with copyright experience. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  You and I are actually saying the same thing in different ways. I'm just saying that passing fair use doesn't tell us one way or the other whether NFCC are passed. Of course it's also true that something that is not even fair use doesn't stand a chance of passing NFCC. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  OK. Then I misunderstood you. Sorry. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  No worries! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize for the confusion; I accidentally mixed up fair use and NFCC3 in the above text. I've corrected it. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 00:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• You got a better argument if the video itself is the subject of the article as a creative work. That...kindof...adds an element of irreplaceability. GMG^talk 23:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  If by "irreplaceable" you mean WP:NFCC #1 ("no free equivalent"), I think the video at hand qualifies: it is the only known footage of a high-media-profile incident. No equivalent footage can be created after the fact (even if you reenact the scene with actors, it will not be an authentic recording taken on the scene).

  If you mean WP:NFCC #3 ("contextual significance"), that’s of course a harder sell. I tend to agree with posters below that in theory a full video could qualify but in practice screenshots are often enough, but that applies to a creative work as well (if L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat was still copyrighted, I doubt the full video would pass NFCC#3). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I mean in the sense of #3, of trying to determine what is the minimum we can use and still provide encyclopedic coverage. That includes something like whether we can do as we did with Central Park birdwatching incident and simply provide an Archive.org link to the full video. That can actually provide a lot more value to the reader than us trying to arbitrarily chop it up to squeeze under NFCC. That get's a lot of mileage under #8 also, as to whether omission would be specifically "detrimental".

  I'm not saying that a video can never meet NFCC, but the bar is set extremely high. That's by design. It's less "this makes it better" and more "not having this would be ruinous." Having a subject connected to a viral video is a dime a dozen, and doesn't automatically meet that. In practice, most non-free content is used when the content itself is the subject of the article (er, or logos, but that's not relevant here), and not simply related to it. As in the case of Dennō Senshi Porygon below, I can't adequately describe this to you in prose, the media is the subject of the article, and we have a very specific rationale for why this portion is used. GMG^talk 11:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• The actual video aspect of the video, given that we can always use a single-frame screenshot, has to be what has been discussed in sources as essential to its understanding per NFCC#8. Most NFC video content fails this test. --Masem (t) 00:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• I think that for NFCC#3 the deciding factor is whether or not a screenshot (or may be two screenshots to show before and after) is sufficient. Is it necessary to see motion, is it necessary to have audio, is it necessary to see multiple things that are not shown at the same time and could not be shown by the use of a limited number of screenshots, etc? So in my opinion a video can meet NFCC#3, but only when screenshots are insufficient. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Dennō Senshi Porygon is one case where a non-free video, File:Seizure clip from Dennō Senshi Porygon.ogg, is used in the infobox. The article is about an episode of the Pokémon anime which is infamous for giving children seizures. Because it is a cartoon with rapidly-flashing lights, a video helps to illustrate how bad the flashing was. To be clear, this very file has been extensively discussed on that article's talk page and in WP:FFD, so this much has definitely been vetted by the community. As such, I think it's clear that videos are allowed under NFCC. 1937 Fox vault fire, a featured article, also contains a non-free video, with which the article passed its FA nomination, though the file's description discusses the possibility of {{PD-US-not-renewed}} applying. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Videos can meet the NFCC. This does not mean that a specific one does (or does not), but it is incorrect to claim that a video can never meet the criteria. What counts as minimal usage will obviously depend on the length of the video, what it is being used to illustrate, etc. In some cases 2-3 seconds may be enough, in others you might need 10 seconds or even more. That screenshots will suffice in some cases is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• As per above. If someone is saying video content may never be used under NFCC, that is inaccurate. That said, usage of nonfree content is still expected to be as minimal as possible. If the use of a still frame or two would suffice, use of the video clip is more nonfree content than necessary and so fails #3a. But that won't always be the case. As always, whether the use of nonfree material is appropriate (outside some normally accepted areas; book/album covers in the article about the work, logos in the article about the organization they represent, etc.) is evaluated on a case by case basis. So, I would say we should generally be somewhat skeptical of the use of video material as NFC, but not categorically forbid it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Per above, but NFCC video must be minimal usage (both in resolution (audio and video) and in duration relative to the original work). In the specific case presented, it could clearly be lower resolution, and the clip could be shortened to a couple of seconds prior to one second after the incident of note. I think it passes NFCC#8 as the context is the specific police claim that it was self defense and an officer was about to be run over (which our sources and this video refute). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• It's possible, though not likely, that a non-free video may meet the minimal usage criterion, but the threshold is high and is unlikely to be met. As others mention, in most cases a screenshot will suffice. Stifle (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Are there a way that people could see it through {{external video}} template? Because the original owner may post it elsewhere, using it as a source is possible. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 12:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• In order that a video can qualify under NFCC, it must not be replaceable by a reasonably small number of screenshots with a reasonable amount of explanatory text. Additionally, only other use the relevant time frame; low resolution; and no audio unless this it can be shown to be necessary. Animal lover |666| 08:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• This user supports the fair use of media to improve the encyclopedia.
  (In other words, yes, there are absolutely videos that qualify under NFCC. They're legally permissable and improve the encyclopedia, so we should use them in applicable situations.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Remember that we do not work off the concept of fair use to determine what to include, but what non-free content allows (which will by default consider fair use, but more restrictive than that). Masem (t) 15:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that non-free videos can meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. If a small amount of content, such as a few screenshots, can't sufficiently explain the material, a video would be good. But needing a video would be uncommon. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• I saw that the two bigger problems about fair-use videos than what's currently being discussed here are "how long can a fair-use video be" and "how high can a fair-use video's resolution be". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NFCCP is significantly stricter than fair-use. So first we have to decide whether or not NFCCP allows us to use a fair-use video at all. Then the next step is to determine criteria for fair-use. You already mentioned length and resolution, another question is whether or not to include sound. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  The answers are "no longer than needed to illustrate what it is illustrating" and "no higher resolution than is necessary to illustrate what it is illustrating", the specific values are inherently dependent on the individual video and the reason it is being used. For example if a video is of a police officer hitting someone with their baton six times when the officer claims they only hit them once then it will be necessary for the video to play long enough to show all six strikes (assuming screenshots are not sufficient). If the officer's claim is that they didn't hit them at all then a portion of the video showing a single strike may be sufficient. If the police officer fills the entire frame then it is very likely a lower resolution will be sufficient than if they fill only a small portion of it. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• I would argue there is precedent for non-free video files being permitted under WP:NFCC#3. See — 121 non-free video samples. I agree with Thryduulf, it just boils down to "no longer than needed to illustrate what it is illustrating" and "no higher resolution than is necessary to illustrate what it is illustrating" Stick to that rule of thumb and WP:NFCC#3 will be satisfied. You're not proposing any specific changes in the language related to WP:NFCC, so I'd say it's just fine. It's unfortunate that the file you are referencing about Nahel Merzouk got deleted. I'm not familiar with how long it was, or how long the original video was, but if it was fairly short, it should have met the standard of WP:NFCC#3.— Isaidnoway (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, non-free videos can meet all NFCCP requirements so long as the entire video (rather than a still image or audio fragment) is widely discussed in reliable sources. "Minimal use" requires that the clip could not be made shorter without losing information or context that the reader needs. A video that sparks countrywide protests could certainly meet NFCCP, though I've not seen this specific video or read the sourcing. — Bilorv (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• It’s extremely rare that we need unfree videos, but there’s no reason we can’t use them i.e. in the infamous Pokémon example, where an image literally could not convey the same information. Dronebogus (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• I would say yes. As stated by Dronebogus above, there are sometimes no free alternatives and we do have to rely on the NFCC, though if possible, I would suggest that we use external media templates before going ahead. The article on the murder of George Floyd is a good example, though I do believe if the original link does get taken down for some reason, editors should reach out to the content owners and attempt to convince them to release such content to us under a CC license (or release it into the public domain) before relying on the NFCC. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, they can, they are not treated differently to other forms of media. Jack4576 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Unarchived to allow for closure. Cunard (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2023 (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.

Updating the guideline

I created a discussion about updating the guideline after the RfC closure. Cunard (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC on capitalization after dash in titles

Please see and comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RFC on capitalizing after dash in sports article names. The outcome could affect a fairly large number of article titles (and beyond sports, because of WP:CONSISTENT). Dicklyon (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed amendment on revision deletion for articles on ongoing Ru military operations

Within the territory of the Russian Federation, a number of Wikipedia articles have been banned, which relate to ongoing military operations undertaken by their armed forces. Some of these banned articles have resulted in fines for Wikipedia's parent, the Wikimedia Foundation. As of July 2023, there have been a total of 7 fines resulting in over 8.4 million rubles. Similar measures may also exist to a degree wrt to Ukrainian laws on the relevant topics.

After doing some digging around, it appears that the Russian Wikimedia arbitration committee has made the decision to anonymise editors for topics directly of a military nature, for the purposes of the safety of editors. I am proposing that similar measures be implemented for the English language site for at least until the end of military activities. The justification for this move would be to help with preserving the privacy, and security of editors in an environment with potential increased risk. Specifically, this would be a temporary addition to the WP:RVDL criteria, focused on the removal of editor usernames/IP, as well as edit descriptions which mention users.

Interested in hearing what people think 222.154.81.234 (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Articles directly related to the Russo-Ukrainian war on en.wikipedia should be extended-confirmed protected due to the general sanctions in place, therefore no IP editors should be able to edit such articles (though they can still make edit requests on talk). For registered users, it's generally left up to them how anonymous they want to be. In the case of someone who's already "out" and at risk, I wonder whether editing this area would be legitimate grounds for using an alternate account? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. In general, I would agree with the use of extended confirmed protection, although this may possibly make the use of alternative accounts difficult.

For already involved users, perhaps still extending the RVSL criteria to include requests is still an option. Still think that the original proposal stands as registered editors with more contributions have a higher chance of a breach of personal privacy. 222.154.81.234 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Including @Ad Orientem and @Primefac in this conservation 222.154.81.234 (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this in principle. However, I am concerned about the logistics. How is this going to work? We are potentially talking about a lot of articles, some of which are edited with great frequency. How do we determine who qualifies for having their IP or account name revdeled? This could potentially create a great deal of work for an admin corps that has been slowly shrinking for many years and some believe is already understaffed. And lastly I need to point out something inconvenient, that even someone as technologically challenged as I am understands. Revdel is not an especially effective shield against against persons or entities with strong technical skills or tools at their disposal. If you are trying to protect an editor's identity from the Russian secret police, I doubt revdel would be even a speed bump for them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem I believe Wiki Ru space utilise a bot/script to perform these actions, but this is likely to be quite demanding on resources. Perhaps it may be worth cross talking to find out more how this is done. Alternatively, this could just be considered a potential option for those who feel need it.

Regarding your last point, I would say that the scope of this policy would strictly be limited to that of general privacy and prevention of lower level doxxing, as opposed to anything on a nation state level. 222.154.81.234 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Including @Oleg Yunakov and @Neolexx as they may be able to provide more information in this regard. 222.154.81.234 (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, a good start would probably be the three English Wikipedia articles listed here

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/ru/c/ce/558144-HB.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/ru/4/44/633973-HB.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/ru/b/ba/558145-HB.pdf 222.154.81.234 (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

My tech skills likely peaked with the advent of the electric pencil sharpener so I am not a good candidate for anything involving the technology aspects of this. But FWIW I am not opposed to the idea or the proposal for a narrow modification of WP:CRD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think a client-side anonymizer would be best to conserve the wiki's resources. Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 08:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely would be grounds for a WP:SECURESOCK Jack4576 (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, although this proposal would be largely for edits that have already been made, hence the addition of criteria in WP:CRD. 222.154.81.234 (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Reading with interest as someone who has had concerns related to this. As a professional opinion I would like to emphatically second the point about it probably not being possible to protect editors from a determined state actor.

I don't see SECUREALT as being much help however. What good is that if my user page would have to say "btw I am also so-and-so when I am discussing Putin's offshore bank accounts?? Get out ;)

With no knowledge whatsoever of the wikipedia backend, however, I wonder if there could be some script that scrambles or obfuscates editors signatures, which would be identifiable by regex, yes? The challenge I see is how it would be possible to hold a discussion on the talk page, but maybe something could be done with cookies? That's a bit out of my actual expertise, which is more big-metal WANs. Just a brainstorming suggestion Elinruby (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem Any idea how we could get this to the attention of the arbitration committee, with the somewhat urgent nature of English language articles being listed?

It seems quite feasible for an implementation based on WP:RVDL. In order to lessen the burden on administrators this could be a fairly narrow modification of the deletion criteria, potentially operating on an opt in basis. This would help in the case of accounts that have already contributed to pages in some manner, and thus may not have the advantage of a sock account. 222.154.81.234 (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not quite sure whether we (ArbCom) can make amendments to the RevDel policy like that; if anything the community would need to demonstrate that it is a desired thing (at which point it might as well just be implemented). Primefac (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think SECURESOCK is likely the best option until/unless the community agrees to a more tech focused solution. Anyone needing it could quietly contact an admin and I am sure most would be more than happy to grant EC status to a an alt account and post a note on their user page explaining that it is an alt account created for legitimate reasons. I used to have an alt myself for situations where I might have to use a public computer, but I never used it and have long since abandoned it. If memory has not failed, I think I actually blocked it as a security precaution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Anonymity or registered users is immensely important for many many reasons. This proposal (at least with respect to registered users) seems to ignore that or dilute that concept. North8000 (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Although it's normally acquired automatically, extended-confirmed status can be granted to anyone, such as a SECURESOCK vouched for by its main account in a private message. It will be obvious that the sock is a legitimate alt of a regular editor, but not which one. We could even have an admin place a template on its user page, or add an entry to a protected list, to mark it as such. Certes (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If it's a matter for individual admins, then it probably doesn't require any policy change. Personally, I think getting involved, however peripherally, in a conflict where all sides are very much playing for keeps is above my pay grade and better left to the WMF office.. Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

A few (very prolific) undisclosed paid editing companies are paid to edit articles about the conflict (e.g. Bennet43/Orangemoody, Ugbedeg, Bodiadub) both with accounts and logged-out editing with residential proxies. Systematically revdel'ing these IPs and usernames will make them really hard to deal with. I think this should be dealt with existing policies: more ECP, SECURESOCK, occasional oversight for accidental logged-out editing, etc. MarioGom (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed wording change to CITE re in-text attribution to conform to V and NONFREE

I have posted a proposed wording change to WP:CITE at its talk page; please comment there if interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The change to CITE has been made. I have now suggested a corresponding change to the close paraphrasing essay, here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Review of draft of previously deleted title

I have a two-part question about situations that I encounter from time to time. First, I am reviewing a draft, and I see that the title has already been deleted following AFD, and the title is salted, either as a locked redirect to another article, or simply create-protected. I couldn't accept the draft even if I wanted to. If the submitter seems to be making a good-faith submission, what advice should I give the author, or what should I as a reviewer do? I have in the past advised the submitter to go to deletion review to consider desalting. However, I have also been criticized for sending editors to DRV. I could advise the submitter to go to Requests for Protection to request unprotection, but the administrator there may not want to override an AFD. So what advice should a reviewer give, or what should a reviewer do, when the title is salted?

Second, I may be reviewing a draft where the title has been deleted repeatedly, but is either not salted or only ECP-protected. I can accept the draft, editing through ECP, but should I? Are there special precautions that I should take when reviewing such a draft?

What should be done by a reviewer who is reviewing a draft when an article with that title has been previously deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Visit the talk page of one of our more helpful sysops and explain. In the circumstances you describe, they'll unprotect without the need for further process.—S Marshall T/C 22:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is common enough for any kind of regularised procedure to have developed, but I think the easiest way would be for the AFC reviewer to request unprotection (or downgrade to EC), either from RFP, the salting administrator or any other administrator. Probably more likely for the request to be accepted, the more obvious it is that it's as part of the AFC workflow. Same way how an experienced editor could probably easily get a deleted article refunded to draftspace whereas a newbie might not make the request well enough and end up getting sent to DRV Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Language at WP:UPNOT

There's a sentence there that reads "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor". Intrepretation of this seems to be a bit vague in terms of whether someone can actually act unilaterally or not for something they percieve as extremely offensive per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#Did I do the right thing here?. I figured this might be suited to a broader community discussion if acting on said language is actually generally discouraged. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, trying to police other's userpages generally just creates more drama than it's worth. The issue of "offense" also tends to be fairly subjective. You get a whole bunch of people adding a "Kashmir is a part of India" userbox, and you're liable to create a crap-storm that burns ANI to the ground. I just don't think it's worth a whole lot of community time to try to clean up userpages unless (operative word) they are being otherwise disruptive. Obviously there are especially egregious cases: "Kill All [insert group]", "I Support Child Pornography", things that are probably themselves illegal in most jurisdictions, including the US where the hardware sits. GMG^talk 11:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, I was thinking that stating that one enjoys a work widely described as transphobic (What is a Woman?) would qualify as "extemely offensive material". I got the impression that community consensus isn't as strong for that being as clearly cut offensive as hypothetically speaking, stating that one enjoys a work like the The Turner Diaries which is widely described as racist. Unless the situations are different enough that a comparison would not be valid. But considering the universal code of conduct includes discrimination based on gender/gender identity or based on a contributor's race, it seems to be a fair enough comparison to note if we treat transphobia and racism differently. Or is indicating support for a work that espouses those ideas not quite the same thing? Would unilaterally removing content in both of those situations still kind of be a grey area? I was thinking if it's the latter, the phrasing at the actual policy page should make that more clear or give different advice. What counts as "extremely offensive material" exactly and when should someone consider not removing it? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that "extremely offensive" can be subjective. Especially when it comes to culture war issues like in the case you linked, as a major tactic in the culture war is people on both sides taking extreme offense over any indication that people disagree with their viewpoints to further the polarization. Anomie⚔ 12:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So if these judgements can be especially subjective, maybe the language at WP:UPNOT should be changed somehow to reflect current community norms? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

But how to you legislate subjectivity in detail, especially with creative works? As a modern counter-example, Tarantino has made a few movies that are deeply and intentionally racist, to the point of people crying on set because they were reenacting visceral scenes of slavery, like...actually in the hot sun...actually in a cotton field. Django specifically inspired a lot of controversy, but...it's also won two awards from the NAACP and one from the African-American Film Critics Association. GMG^talk 13:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I think there has to be a line somewhere, or how else would we define disruptive edits about contentious topics that lead to blocks? I'm not sure how one would go about legislating subjectivity, but I do genuinely think that there should be something nuanced about how to approach situations like this if the general community consensus ends up being to not do what I did. It's not that great for a PAG to suggest a course of action that isn't in line with community norms – it sets people up for failure and more drama. That's why I think some sort of clarity for the language used at WP:UPNOT would be useful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe something like an explanatory note saying that what counts as extremely offensive can be subjective? Or that it may be best to try other methods first (like what was suggested in the ANI thread)? There has to be something we could say that'd suggest a course of action more in line with community norms. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is probably broadly covered by the text above the table, and the general principle that the WP weapon of choice is just talking to somebody if you see an issue. Most people are generally accommodating and don't intend to give overt offense. GMG^talk 21:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it, though? I feel like reasonable people can read that text above of the table and come to the exact same conclusion as I did, especially considering the comparison to indicating support for racist ideology. I'm not completely close-minded, Pecopteris's comment is the closest I've come to feeling like there might be some way of more clearly outlining what's considered an okay lassez-faire action from any one individual editor and what isn't. I think you raise an interesting point in regards to how someone could enjoy/support a work without nessecarily endorsing its core themes...

As an example, I grew up as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm incredibly familiar with how what is considered offensive can depend on a lot of factors. I'm genuinely curious how to reconcile differences within the community with mutual respect for all parties. Given what's stated here includes "People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns", I guess my question then goes into what happens when someone's beliefs contradict that? What is a Woman? is well-known for its speech in which Walsh says: "You are all child abusers. You prey upon impressionable children and indoctrinate them into your insane ideological cult, a cult which holds many fanatical views but none so deranged as the idea that boys are girls and girls are boys."[1] This response is in regards to the school board creating a policy that respected preferred gender pronouns. I suppose its possible I'm reaching too far here? Or maybe I'm not communicating what I'm thinking clearly enough? Am I really the only one seeing things this way? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing about "people who identify with...pronouns", in simpler English, means "If an editor tells you that he's a man, then stop referring to him as 'she' in discussions on wiki." The community isn't asking editors to swear undying fealty to particular philosophical or religious beliefs; we're just asking editors to stop being rude to individual editors when/if they're ever told that their guesses about other editors were wrong. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, and on wiki, you shouldn't assume that you know more about other editors than they know about themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• My thoughts - I actually appreciate it when an editor includes potentially offensive material on their user page. It alerts me to the potential that the editor in question may not be able to maintain a WP:NPOV on a particular subject. It is helpful to know people’s biases upfront. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  I second @Blueboar's remark. I would also like to add the following perspective:

  The Wikipedia project, I think, could be summarized as "bringing together a community of people from around the world to create an open-source encyclopedia that reflects, to the greatest degree possible, the sum total of reliably sourced human knowledge". Is that not a fair summary?

  With that in mind, I think our community standards should not only reflect the "norms" and socio-cultural beliefs of those who are currently active here. Instead, the community standards should create an environment such that any human being on earth that wants to contribute to this project should feel like they are valued and welcome to participate, regardless of their cultural background or views on certain subjects.

  That includes LGBTQ+ folks, like myself. It also includes folks who are religious or otherwise socially conservative and watch things like "What is a Woman?". Within reason, community standards need to allow for constructive contributions from all types of people, including those who have personal views we find deeply offensive.

  From that perspective, removing a userbox that says, essentially, "I like 'What is a Woman'" because it's "deeply offensive" makes about as much sense as a deeply religious editor removing a "pro-choice" userbox because they find it "deeply offensive". I think @GreenMeansGo is on the right track here:

  • remove content that is illegal or discusses things that are illegal like CP
  • remove "Kill all the X" or equally direct calls for real-world violence
  • remove anything that's a personal attack against another user (like a user dedicating their userpage to direct bullying of another editor because they're trans, for example).

  Outside of that...I say let people have their views, and express them to a reasonably measured degree, as with the use of userboxes. As long as they're constructive editors. If they're trying to POV push those views into mainspace articles, we already have strong safeguards against that. I don't think this subjective piece of language, "deeply offensive", adds much of value to Wikipedia, and its use and interpretation seems to cause discord in the community that would be avoided with a more laissez-faire attitude. That's my (possibly offensive) POV on offensive POVs. Good day. Pecopteris (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC (WP:UPNOT)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is the current language at WP:UPNOT reflective of current community norms and the Universal Code of Conduct, or should it be changed in some way? In particular, the content that states: "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor." Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• No - change or remove - First of all, thanks for opening this RfC, @Clovermoss. I think it's very good to clarify this issue. I will copy/paste most of my above comment here, with minor modifications. I look forward to reading the ensuing discussion.
  The Wikipedia project, I think, could be summarized as "bringing together a community of people from around the world to create an open-source encyclopedia that reflects, to the greatest degree possible, the sum total of reliably sourced human knowledge". Is that not a fair summary?
  With that in mind, I think our community standards should not only reflect the "norms" and widely-held socio-cultural beliefs of those who are currently active here. Instead, the community standards should create an environment such that any human being on earth that wants to contribute to this project should feel like they are valued and welcome to participate, regardless of their cultural background or views on certain subjects.
  That includes LGBTQ+ folks, like myself. It also includes folks who are religious or otherwise socially conservative and watch things like "What is a Woman?". Within reason, community standards need to allow for constructive contributions from all types of people, including those who have personal views we find deeply offensive.
  From that perspective, removing a userbox that says, essentially, "I like 'What is a Woman'" because it's "extremely offensive" makes about as much sense as a deeply religious editor removing a "pro-choice" userbox because they find it "extremely offensive".
  I think the following would be reasonable guidelines:
  • remove content that is illegal or discusses things that are illegal like CP
  • remove "Kill all the X" or equally direct calls for real-world violence
  • remove anything that's a personal attack against another user (like a user dedicating their userpage to direct bullying of another editor because of their identity or beliefs, for example).
• Outside of that...I say let people have their views, and express them to a reasonably measured degree, as with the use of userboxes. As long as they're constructive editors. If they're trying to POV push those views into mainspace articles, we already have strong safeguards against that. I don't think this subjective piece of language, "extremely offensive material", adds anything of value to Wikipedia, and its use and interpretation seems to cause discord in the community that would be avoided with a more laissez-faire attitude.
  That's my (possibly offensive) POV on offensive POVs. Good day. Pecopteris (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  remove content that is illegal or discusses things that are illegal like CP flatly wont work as a hard-fast rule in that wording. Cannabis is illegal at the state level where I live, and even if you live in a state where it's legal, it's still illegal on the federal level. Being gay is illegal in a third of the world. If we think that's not going to be somehow equated with child pornography...go ask one of those countries because it very much already is. GMG^talk 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Internet piracy is illegal in most places. Porn is illegal in many countries. The Human Centipede 2 was banned in New Zealand. In 1920s America a user couldn’t talk about alcoholic beverages. On the other hand things many people find abhorrent are in fact the law in many places, like corporal punishment and genocide of gay people. Dronebogus (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes it's OK I guess. (Summoned by robot). First off I'd like to hear what practical operational problems of a large publishing concern (which is what we are) are solved by this.
  IMO the passage should actually be a lot stronger, like "expressions of political and cultural ideology are not allowed" or something, as "I am a (American) Republican" or "I am a (American) Democrat" adds little or nothing useful to the project and are just going to alienate some people and and attract others (and all we need is bunch of Democrats or Republicans etc. getting together to work on articles). If get a request for help or cooperation from someone who has "I like Trump" on her userpage, I'm likely to tell her to fuck right off rather than helping or cooperating. Like it or not that is how enough people roll to matter. So tell me how allowing her to put that on her userpage is helpful to the project.
  The Wikipedia has an ideology, and a strong one, and and a radical one in terms of history and, to a good degree, present times: the Wikipedia is an Enlightenment institution. As such we obviously favor sourcing to observable facts rather than authority, but along with that the other enlightenment values are baked in -- liberty, democracy, natural rights, toleration (but see Paradox of tolerance) and so forth, in general. I would have to say that there's been a progression in Enlightenment thought since the 17th century to cover changing situations, and the direction of this progress is pretty obvious: in favor of female equality rather than against it, in favor of racial equality rather than against it, in favor of a broader acceptance of sexuality rather than a narrower one, and so forth.
  All this being so, people who are against democracy, natural rights, toleration, racial equality, and so forth, just aren't welcome here. (For some purposes; I mean anyone can work here, even a Nazi, if we don't know they're a Nazi and they keep it themselves and work on articles about motor sports.) Somebody's got an "I like [some crypto-fascist politician]" statement, I want her gone, or at any rate far away from articles on politics and culture and history etc (which there's no mechanism here for that and it'd mean constant policing) Because "determining facts without fear or favor and stating them without regard to effects" is an Enlightenment value, not an authoritarian or monarchist or theocratical or fascist one.
  But neither do we want to allow Social Democrats but not conservatives state their beliefs. Just, we shouldn't have any of that. We should have a stronger statement IMO, but certainly not a more watered-down one. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  The operational problem I was trying to solve was whether the phrasing in that guideline reflects actual practice given that everyone has told me up to this point that I shouldn't have actually edited that person's userpage even if the end result would've likely been the removal of said content, just not from me. I thought this had a broader impact and that it'd be a good idea to clarify what someone's expected course of action actually is if it's not what the guideline says you can do. As I said before, it's setting people up for failure. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think this is a good contrast to what I said. I do agree that an outright ban on any expressions of political, social, and cultural ideology would be more reasonable than the status quo. In my view, that would include "This user is a Democrat", "this user is a Republican", "This user is conservative", "This user is LGBTQ+", "this user is pro-life/pro-choice", "this user believes that Black Lives Matter", "this user believes in the U.S. Constitution" - all of it, gone. I've seen some support for this elsewhere.

  From my POV, that would be a bit excessive. No, Wikipedia's not a social network, but it is nice to give users the opportunity to express something about who they are and what they think about the world. In moderation, it's a fun, harmless bit of community building. I have no problem with someone saying "this user is trans", "this user is pro-choice" or "this user is a Marxist", but it's not really tenable to allow those, but not allow "this user likes popular conservative movie X". Allow it all, within clear, objective guardrails like the ones I suggested, or ban it all. That's my two cents. I'm going to back off now so that I don't monopolize the conversation. Pecopteris (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'll think I'll take a step back from the conversation myself. I will be responsive to pings and direct questions, etc. But generally I've kind of made it clear what my perspective is and said more than enough. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hmmm... interesting but a little too extreme, in my view. I agree that the current phrasing is untenable, however (as what I find "extremely offensive" probably differs from what you find "extremely offensive", and so on.) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think the userspace police are more of a problem for Wikipedia than the offensive userpages are. I would favour toning down or, ideally, simply deleting UPNOT.—S Marshall T/C 08:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • This is also the position upon which I have settled. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes: for instance, a lengthy text encouraging violence against Jews can be removed by any editor without discussion. The wrong application here (stating that you like an anti-trans propaganda film does not rise to this level) does not make the guideline wrong. — Bilorv (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Change "offensive" is too open for interpretation. Model WP:UP#POLEMIC after WP:ATTACKNAME. Restrict removal right to admins – when something is bad enough to require removal, chances are it is bad enough to warrant admin attention. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• No, the current status is not acceptable and should be changed, specifically per the option offered in this RfC, i.e. the sentence "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor" should be deleted.
  We should allow in users' pages a far more free expression of ideas, opinions, and stances. (And, yes, I'd never object to, and, of course, would never remove content that shows the user holding "extreme" political or social values, e.g. that they are fascists, communists, anarchists, nihilists, etc. Note, please, that these examples are what most people, per polling, consider "extreme" views. I'm not equating fascism with other ideologies.) For one, it would occasionally help the work here tremendously. E.g. I cannot understand the stubborn efforts by user XYZ to glorify some SS butcher. checking his user page I find a plethora of 88's. This simplifies things: I can try and keep that user away from, at least, fascism-related lemmas.
  It's instructive how messy the conversation gets when we try to censor users' pages but "not too much" and particularly not much when the pages contain material with which we disagree though not excessively, e.g. "I like Trump," but we want to censor when they contain material we find abhorrent, e.g. "I like Merloni." Take a look at the discussion between Herostratus and Pecopteris, above. Yet, freedom of expression of personal opinions is specifically about opinions we find abhorrent. The so-called paradox of tolerance is essentially a weak argument against the position adopted in the United States' Constitution Bill of Rights, a position we should at last adopt here, too, or at least get nearer - as far as users' pages is concerned.
  A side note: Fellow users such as Herostratus see Wikipedia is as "an enlightenment project". Ours is an post-Enlightenment era in which the values of that movement have spread and taken root in most places on Earth, in general. And Wikipedia is a project that does not promote nor allow obscurantism, dogmatism, or fanaticism. And by having Wikipedia standing in a de facto opposition to the resurgence of the latter phenomena, we can rightfully claim that the project itself acts as an instrument of human progress. Such an opposition would most emphatically be amplified through more freedom of expression, a major aspect of the ert=a of Enlightenment.
  But I digress. -The Gnome (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment In general, I agree with Random person no 362478479. Wikipedia is still the encyclopedia anyone may edit. If something posted on a user page is not liked, inform an admin or start a community discussion. More conflict and problems will be caused by giving any user the right to go censor another's user page than by restricting it as suggested. Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep the status quo. Editors should be able to remove anything at sight which is comparable in intensity and offense to anti-semitic rants. Changing the policy could risk our ability to do this speedily. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with Random person no 362478479. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Status quo It is quite impossible to itemize all of the ways someone could post something abhorrent on their user page. The current language is fine, if you put something horrifying on your user page, expect it to be removed by anyone. --Jayron32 16:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• No. I have number of thoughts on this matter:
  • User pages are not highly ranked by search engines, so the potential for widespread dissemination of offense is low.
  • There is a fairly strong norm against editing someone else's user page without their permission. Having your typos and formatting issues corrected may be welcomed by some, but when the edit is motivated by a disagreement (as in, a disagreement over whether the given content is offensive or not), it's a heavy-handed intervention of the kind that only admins should be doing.
  • Offensive is in the eye of the beholder. WP:NOTCENSORED covers this persuasively. UPNOT implies NOTCENSORED "relates to article pages and images" only, but (a) NOTCENSORED does not actually include the "only" part, and (b) even if it did, it shouldn't, because it's sound advice for all content across the whole project. There can be a very fine line between removing offensive content, and policing beliefs.
  • UPNOT talks about bringing the project into disrepute. Policing of beliefs will most certainly bring the project into disrepute.
  • It is extreme hubris to think that our current intellectual milieu is optimal, has all the morally-right answers, and can objectively identify offensive content. If we enact policies which have a chilling effect on heterodox thought, we will invite a purity spiral, we will become institutionally blind to the diversity of perspectives that exist in the world, and we will thereby fail in our mission to build an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view.
  • Using userboxes to out yourself as a holder of abhorrent beliefs is probably quite helpful in attracting scrutiny and alerting the community to your potential for POV-pushing. Better to have that information out in the open.
  • Nevertheless, I don't want to see user pages become some kind of "free speech zone". We don't want to see the extreme fringes of trollsome garbage. But drawing the line requires judgement, and so we must choose our judges. I'd be OK with admins having discretion to remove such content. But I think that removal should almost always be on the basis of an associated disruptive behaviour, not the content in isolation. It's not inherently disruptive to state an opinion that others find unpleasant. Block behaviour, not beliefs.
    • Digression: Ideally, we would disallow all statements of allegiance and identity. Editors would be disembodied spirits unshackled from corrupt and earthly concerns. But alas, editors are human...
• In summary, and on balance: change the offending paragraph to Material supporting disruptive behaviour may be removed on sight by any administrator. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  User:Barnards.tar.gz, aside from the merits of changing UPNOT, you are deeply wrong about WP:NOTCENSORED. I truly think the majority of people who cite WP:NOTCENSORED haven't read it, and assume it means I or we can be offensive, anywhere on the project, and there ain't nothing you can or should do about it. But it is about Wikipedia articles, about readers, not users, and is about meeting our encyclopaedic purpose. Articles and readers are each mentioned three times, editors and user pages not once. Everyone who reads (or cites) WP:NOTCENSORED should also read the linked guideline WP:GRATUITOUS which contains the important point that "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. You will see there that offensive material has to meet a bar where editors agree it is necessary for the encyclopaedic purpose of the article.

  A user page stating that the person holds particular beliefs or hates particular things or even people, say, has zero encyclopaedic purpose. User pages serve a function towards other users in supporting our community, but not our article content, and they are not aimed at readers and not part of our mission to educate readers. If they are helping the community get along with each other and understand each other then that's great. If they cause hostility and make some people feel unwelcome on the project, then not so great. It is entirely compatible with WP:NOTCENSORED that the community can decide for itself what is suitable for user pages, our guideline and policy pages, and other forums like the village pump. For example WP:NOTCENSORED isn't illustrated with a giant penis, even if some of our less thoughtful editors might argue that would get (their interpretation of) the point across succinctly. -- Colin°^Talk 08:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please see clause (b) of that bullet point where I hoped I’d made it clear that even if you read NOTCENSORED as applying strictly only to articles, the underlying reasons why we choose not to censor are also useful in evaluating user page content. There are various reasons why we have the NOTCENSORED policy, such as:- we don’t want to endorse a particular POV by censoring its anti-POV, we don’t want to litigate what is or isn’t offensive to various different competing groups, we don’t want to become an echo chamber... Basically all the reasons coming out in this thread. That’s why I cited NOTCENSORED. For all the same reasons we give a long leash to potentially-offensive article content, we should give a long leash to potentially-offensive user content.

  … and yet not an infinitely long leash. I’m sure you will have noticed that my recommendation doesn’t endorse free speech maximalism. I agree with GRATUITOUS. I think gratuitous use of potentially-offensive material on user pages would constitute the kind of behavioural issue that should trigger admin intervention. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, your point b is really saying that even if I (Barnards.tar.gz) am wrong about NOTCENSORED applying to more than just articles (because, you say it doesn't itself explicitly state that it only applies to articles) then it should. But there are very important reasons why we restrict some issues to articles. We require NPOV in our articles but not our sources and not our editors. We permit editors to have a POV, whether explicitly stated in conversation or on user pages and boxes, or whether bleedin' obvious from their edit pattern. Of course, we don't want that POV shouted all the time, but we certainly don't require editors to be neutral in their writing on talk pages, for example. For many topics, to not have formed an opinion would indicate a lack of familiarity and knowledge of the topic. So concerns about NPOV dot not apply, though it is interesting that you see censorship of an anti-POV as problematic wrt "endorsing a particular POV" but don't seem to see a problem with the original POV declaration that someone wanted to remove. Surely if one took the view that editors must not endorse any POV at all, that would apply to declaring a view just as much as removing such a declaration. In practice, we do allow limited declarations of POV and declarations of identity.

  The vast majority of user pages document things solely concerned with Wikipedia. The limited number of users who declare things about themselves are either clearly helpful to the project (what languages someone knows, if they have developer skills, etc) or mundane (where they live or grew up or were educated). Some concern identity and some people are hostile to those identities (e.g, LGBT, or a religion). I think on a collaborative project, it is ok to declare one's identity but not ok to declare one is hostile to other identities. Anyway, your final point, about exercising judgement about what we allow or not allow, is something we can agree on (though I don't share your opinion about admins). Really, NOTCENSORED (and NPOV and V and OR) are entirely irrelevant to whatever the community thinks is appropriate on user pages. That's why we are having this debate. -- Colin°^Talk 10:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  there are very important reasons why we restrict some issues to articles I agree for some issues, but not for all issues. As you point out, NPOV isn't something we should try to enforce on User pages or Talk pages. But I view NOTCENSORED as an example of a policy whose spirit does have utility outside of article space, even if it's not intended to be a binding policy on those spaces. And the spirit tells us that trying to litigate what is or isn't offensive is a minefield. In article space, it risks POV issues. In user space, it risks the chilling effect I mentioned. I just don't believe anyone who claims that distinguishing offensive from acceptable is easy, and when decisions aren't easy we often look to admins to take the lead. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just because something's hard (a minefield you claim) doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. NOTCENSORED doesn't exist because deciding what's offensive couldn't be achieved by a community reaching consensus, but because, in article space, we regard encyclopaedic value higher than the bar that someone somewhere is offended. Wikipedia:Offensive material exists because some material will be regarded as (potentially) offensive by reasonable people, so it isn't like we say "deciding what's offensive is too hard". We weigh the two and may decide that there's multiple other ways to achieve our mission without offence or shock. The issue that seemed to spark this discussion was that one user felt the need to tell other users what they think about trans women not being women, or something of that ilk, which I don't think anyone here would think is suitable for this project vs Twitter. It's a fairly classic "I want to declare my contentious politics" mistake. Questions being asked are whether to give examples or a list and how to go about it (e.g., be bold, ask on a forum page, delegate to admins, etc). The problem with citing NOTCENSORED in these discussions, is that it is a debate terminating move (even if you do later say you think we should exercise judgement). Even if you think you are referencing NOTCENSORED in a nuanced way, be aware that to many it is a nuclear weapon to silence any opposing view. People will skim your post and go away thinking Barnards.tar.gz claims we can't remove offensive material from user pages because NOTCENSORED, which I don't think is your point. Citing it here, even if you can see some similarities, is not IMO helpful. -- Colin°^Talk 19:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• No change. It's common sense to allow anyone to remove content that's extremely offensive person, over and above ordinary material likely to cause some degree of offense. It's highly disruptive and puts us into disrepute, akin to vandalism, which is also removed as soon as possible. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• No change - I think the key word that was missed in the nominator's interaction was "extremely". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Wrong question What are the "community norms"? Should the UCoC really be twisted so far as to apply to the situation that led to this RFC? The real issue behind this RFC seems to rest on those questions, not on the content of WP:UPNOT. The discussions at ANI and the pre-RFC section above both seem to have disagreed that "community norms" would support the user box in question being considered "extremely offensive" to fall under WP:UPNOT, nor has there been much agreement to the idea of bending the UCoC to that extent.
  As for the question asked, both the "extremely offensive" part called out and the part about "Very divisive or offensive material" in the table seem open to this sort of issue, and seems to come up time and time again when people with one viewpoint (and usually a belief in the paradox of tolerance) see a userbox supporting the opposing viewpoint. Anomie⚔ 19:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Status quo ± clarification sentence: I would avoid editing other people’s user pages but some things are so offensive they should not be on Wikipedia. While "offensive" may be subjective, we already accept that some things will be removed for that reason. WP:CFRD states that "grossly offensive" edits may be redacted. Perhaps we should have a clarification sentence regarding what sort of material can be summarily deleted by any editor (as opposed to needing input from an admin or wider consensus, or asking the author to remove it themselves). I would suggest that if an editor expects that the material is so offensive the edits could be redacted then they should feel able to delete it. Mgp28 (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Or continuing that thought, maybe we could change the word "extremely" to "grossly"? Mgp28 (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• No change - However if material is removed that is not "extremely offensive" then the change should be reverted and remover warned, or dealt with appropriately. Our real issue is to determine what "extremely" means. in our case example, liking a film is not offensive, even if content of the film offends some people. So that should not be removed based on that rule. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • How to avoid different interpretations is that we need a generally accepted essay on what "extremely offensive" means. We need to allow diverse people here, and they should be allowed to say they support various ideas or things that offend other people in order to show the point of view they are coming from. Now when it comes to offense, it is in the eye of the beholder, so often these people are choosing to be offended for political purposes. Content should not be removed because of this opinion. However if a user page is designed to cause offense, that is when it should be edited. Also deliberately promoting the material or ideas rather than a simple infobox may be pushing to far. On the topic of shat should be acceptable, anything that has been in political debate anytime in the last 50 years or so should be acceptable whatever side of opinion the user expresses. This applies particularly to current political debates and controversies. For example in our case here, people should be able to express support or opposition to transgenderism by an infobox or userpage statement. Behavioral issues by users are different, and not only by what they put in their userpage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Quick comment: I don't think it's necessary to mention the Universal Code of Conduct in this RFC. That could potentially make a simple question more complicated. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. jp×g 07:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  My thinking in including it came from an extension of the argument about excluding stuff that was illegal where our servers were hosted. Because the WMF also kind of has a role? I get that the Universal Code of Conduct is controversial but the way I understand it the WMF can decide to overrule community consensus if it goes against it. I thought that anything that might be relevant should be brought into the discussion? Anyways, I'm kind of focused on other things at the moment. One of my relatives died yesterday so I was hoping to tie any loose ends before my wikibreak. I don't know how this is going to proceed from here but if anyone has questions or concerns, you can just ask at my talk page and I'll get back to you eventually. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, but it should be made even stronger. Wikipedia is not a social media platform, and users do not own their userpages. The inclusion of anything on Wikipedia should be contingent on whether it benefits the encyclopedia. Contentious content on userpages does not benefit the encyclopedia, but it does harm the collaborative environment that we need, and it's something that should be considered from the perspective of editor retention. There's a reason why they say you shouldn't talk about politics or religion at the dinner table: it invites conflict and creates bad blood. If you want to talk about these things online, good for you. Go start a blog. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, and I agree with the comment just above mine. I missed the ANI that prompted this as I was on a short holiday, but the relevant editor had previously been final-warned by me for transphobic language in edit summaries (relevant edit my warning), something which appears to have been missed in that discussion. Black Kite (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Current language seems fine to me. People should just not assume that anything potentially offensive is "extremely offensive". —Kusma (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Not out of compliance, but modify language - I like the suggestion in discussion above that a second sentence should be added highlighting "what is "extremely offensive" can be highly subjective and further complicated by the intent of the editor."

Above added by Nosebagbear. -The Gnome (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Question: Could we get a definition of "contentious material", please, from those who support its deletion from users' pages? And, while we're at it, could we also have, finally, some definition of "extremely offensive"? I put it to y'all that starting with that is "offensive" first of all would be the proper place to start a process, before any RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I generally support the current phrasing (I don't think we need some kind of massive overhaul), but I agree that we need to define extremely offensive. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I would personally describe "extremely offensive" as endorsing or glorifying extremism (think stuff like Nazism), terrorism, advocates for content or activities that is illegal or deemed dangerous in most countries (e.g. spreading of malware), discriminates people based on someone's demographical factors or beliefs (race, gender, sexuality, age, religion, etc.) and/or harasses other fellow editors (e.g. a list of baseless accusations about stuff that Editor XYZ did wrong, a list of "Editors I do not like", etc.) — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 15:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Prodraxis For reference, there are currently userboxes listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics that express support for terrorist organizations, violence and war, dislike of specific nations and nationalities, every variety of communism, and every dictator you can think of besides Hitler. All of these would fall under your definition. Many of them adorn the userpages of prominent members of the community. Would you hold that all of these should be considered "extremely offensive"? (I say yes, throw the lot out and scrutinize anyone using them.) And that's before we get into userboxes supporting the death penalty and abortion, both of which a sizeable portion of the population would consider to be violence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  So your proposing to remove anything that could possible be viewed as controversial in any way? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 23:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  My opinion is a few comments up, but it applies even more to advocacy of hate, oppression, or violence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say that an editor with a history of making edits like this and this using their userpage to support a work like this is intentionally being inflammatory. I think it's reasonable to find someone invalidating an entire group of people's existence (transgender people in this instance) contentious and extremely offensive. If we were talking about someone who said antisemitic things and had "I enjoy reading Mein Kampf" on their userpage, why would the problem be another editor removing said content because they find it offensive? I've never started a Wikipedia-policy RfC before, I just wanted to make sure that the way our guideline is phrased actually reflects practice. Because everybody at ANI says it should have been removed, just not by me. So if it's not true that any editor can act on what's at UPNOT, that should be changed. I'm trying to let all this go but the truth is I'm having such a hard time doing so. I've cried and lost sleep over this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Clovermoss. I want you to know that, although I disagree with the initial action you took (removing the userbox), I think you had a very clear rationale for doing so, one that I can empathize with, and I think that your behavior subsequent to that has been exemplary and worthy of respect. You've done everything the way you should have - from asking for more feedback from the AN, to coming to the village pump and opening this RFC. I know that being at the center of a debate like this can be very stressful, and it can feel like you are being scrutinized and harshly judged. I want you to know that nobody here is scrutinizing or judging you - I think everyone here would agree that you are acting in good faith, and we need more people with your attitude towards dispute resolution, instead of people that want to yell and argue. These sorts of conversations are normal - please try not to take it personally - you've done the right thing by creating an RFC and I think everyone here respects you for it.

  I'll add one general thought: so far, I've noticed that the "no/change" votes have consisted of multiple complex sentences and in many cases, multiple paragraphs of thought and elucidation. The "yes/status quo" votes are almost all very short, saying something to the effect of "no change, this is common sense." I think the fact that this RFC exists is evidence that it's not common sense.

  I still maintain the view that continuing with the status quo will create more and more discordant situations within the community, like this one. Letting users apply "common sense" to understanding the term "extremely offensive" will almost certainly lead to the biases of the editor community being reflected in a purity spiral, the result of which will be a much more ideologically insular and less diverse community of editors. I see that I am not alone in this concern.

  A request to those who have voted 'yes/status quo'

  To those who have voted to keep the status quo - I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on the above - namely, how we can avoid situations like this while maintaining the current recommendation to remove "extremely offensive content", and how we can make sure that we don't end up in a situation where every userbox someone dislikes gets removed. I still think the best way to avoid these scenarios is to either adopt a laissez faire attitude towards userpages, with some very basic guardrails, or to institute an absolute ban on all expressions of identity and belief in userpages, including expressions that many users may find innocuous. I see maintaining the status quo as the worst course of action, but I'm open minded, and I'd like to hear some more details from the "status quo" voters regarding the concerns raised by the "no/change" voters. Pecopteris (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Firstly I'd like to add how sorry I am to read how this is affecting Clovermoss. I haven't perceived comments here as critical of your actions and I hope you will come to feel that way too. But I certainly appreciate that it must be horrible to feel you are at the centre of this debate.

  Regarding @Pecopteris:'s question:

  I wouldn't personally object to a more restrictive policy on user boxes. But many people have many of them. I assume they are attached to them and that it would be difficult to get consensus to do away with them. And if we try to prohibit only some of them then we come back to the question of deciding where offensive becomes unacceptably offensive.

  The opposite option of having virtually no rules just seems dangerous.

  I hadn't considered the example above where a user box is interpreted in the context of other edits. My interpretation of the line in UPNOT was that it referred to statements that would be independently offensive when read in isolation. I made reference to WP:CFRD's use of "grossly offensive" as I feel that is the sort of area where the threshold for unilateral action could reasonably be found. If you see something that maybe should be redacted then I think you should feel free to delete it. If something is objectionable but less urgent then other channels, such as admin involvement, would be more appropriate.

  The exact threshold of "extremely offensive" may shift over time. I think that's OK. Too precise a rule and we risk spawning a raft of Wikilawyers with carefully calibrated offensiveness that we struggle to get rid of.

  So after all this, I still feel that the sentence "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor" is OK. But I increasingly think that we need to add some further clarification so that people can be more confident that they are acting appropriately. Mgp28 (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Clovermoss, I'm sorry you're having a hard time. There is a perfectly good rationale behind the RfC, and no-one is criticizing your actions. Maybe take a step back for a few days if you're feeling stressed– that's what I usually do. Cheers, Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I was trying to step back. I realized pretty much at the start of the RfC that this was affecting me strongly, which is why I said I'd take a step back. I did, somewhat, but curiousity and strong convictions prompted me to not do so completely. But it is probably for the best if I do step back further. Thanks for caring about me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• No change, this is consistent with our community norm that extremely offensive material can be removed, collapsed, revdeled, or otherwise hidden from anywhere on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• No change, and let me suggest that trying to provide a comprehensive list of what counts as extremely offensive is not such a good idea, even if your hope is that people will learn not to do those things from the list you make. There are relatively few sustained disputes on this point. I remember one of them over a user who wanted to say "This user is homophobic", and there has been an infamous userbox declaring "respect" for a certain dictator, but generally the rule is that if your content would cause good editors to feel like they don't belong because of characteristics named under the non-discrimination statements, then it should be removed, and, as always – as is absolutely routine in a collaborative project – if it's a borderline case, or you're not certain, then ask for help. Anyone who is concerned that "extreme" isn't extreme enough for them is invited to put typical hateful phrases into the search box and see what's been tolerated in userspace so far. Start with something simple like "I hate women", which gives me two hits in the userspace today. Stop when you've gotten it all cleaned up or are disgusted with humanity, whichever comes first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• First choice leave it alone: Most people can tell the difference between “extremely offensive” material and merely disagreeable or personally offensive ideologies. Second choice, remove the sentence outright: the sort of content that should be removed should almost go without saying, and without that sentence, most editors should generally agree that cases of illegal content should be removed, and doing so unilaterally is fine (surely there’s policy elsewhere that covers illegal or targeted harassment etc?). Third choice, spend the next month and a half coming up with a watertight categorical system to prevent illegal content, content that condones illegal behaviours, calls to action, personal attacks, etc. I understand Herostratus’s motivation on limiting political content, but that really feels pretty illiberal as its own action (and I can’t see how that could be practically enforced—am I allowed to mention my race, my gender? Life is political, and as you’ve pointed out, so is Wikipedia). Honestly I just can’t see this as a problem… unless you personally have been attempting to remove conservative literature from userpages, Clovermoss? — HTGS (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  The origin-story of this RfC is that Clovermoss unilaterally removed a userbox from another editor's userpage that said, essentially, "this user likes the movie "What is a Woman?". Clover wisely sought feedback on their decision, which they believed to be a common-sense enforcement of the "extremely offensive content" policy. They found that there was much support for their decision, but far from unanimous consent that expressing a fondness for that film is "extremely offensive", and there was some limited concern that the "extremely offensive content" phrase could be taken as an invitation to invasively police and nitpick at userpages on political grounds. That's how we got here. I don't mean to speak for Clover, but I think the above is important context for this debate, since @HTGS specifically asked. Pecopteris (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, so don't change. For starters - this policy has been enforced for over fifteen years without issue. Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater over this one incident with the movie? I agree that "Extremely offensive" is subjective. Many things on Wikipedia are subjective - "significant coverage", for example. One of Wikipedia's founding principles is that rules are bendy. Subjectivity is not a bad thing. casualdejekyll 00:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. But as part of that, highlighting that it is subjective might ease the difficulties. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment- There are two connected, but distinct questions here: 1) Should some user page content be considered so offensive that it should be removed? and 2) If so, who should remove it?

My answer to the first question is: Yes. However, we need to set that bar fairly high.

My answer to the second question is: it should be an admin action. Further, I would require two admins to discuss and agree on that removal. This would ensure that the removal isn’t done by a) someone who is overly sensitive, or b) someone who has a cultural/political axe to grind. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• No change Having lived through the userbox wars, I think the current guideline has worked reasonably well for years. Personally, I pruned a number of userboxes off my user page during that period, and since have avoided any I think might be at all controversial. I do think that some leeway in what may be expressed on user pages should be allowed, but there should be limits. - Donald Albury 12:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No change “extremely offense” is material that would constitute vandalism anywhere else, namely purely gratuitous shock content and unambiguous hate speech. Any other change would just be pushing a minority opinion on “userpages are a free speech platform” over “not a social media site” instead of forming a case-by-case consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Pecopteris put it well in comment above @23:41, 20 August. Alsee (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Hi, I was just wondering if everyone agreed with Snow Rise's assessment over at the now reopened ANI thread? There's a lot there so I suggest taking a look at everything for context, but in particular I was wondering if everyone agrees that Obviously no one should be going around directly antagonizing trans editors about their stated gender identities; that I believe should and would be treated as disruptive by this community. But merely having (or expressing) the abstract belief that a transwoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man is not considered by itself to be a WP:PA, WP:DISRUPTION, or other type of sanctionable offense, at this time. And if the response to CM's RfC is any indication, that's not likely to change any time soon. is an accurate summarization of the consensus at this RfC so far? I'm worried I'm too involved in all this to think clearly, especially given recent events in my life. But it doesn't feel quite right to speak for everyone else in the thread even if I'm not doing my best, so I figured it'd be useful. Maybe Novem Linguae is right and this RfC is unnecessary. Thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I would disagree with the second part of the statement. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 01:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Wow that "reopen" has kicked off a mess, the WP:RGW activists are out in force there. And I'm also not at all surprised that you're again asking a misleading question trying to fish for support for your viewpoint. I think Snow Rise's statement is supported by the comments in this RFC: the community is indeed divided on whether expressing an abstract viewpoint should be seen as an attack on particular individuals, and this RFC is no exception. I wouldn't characterize it as "an accurate summarization of the consensus at this RfC" since the RFC is asking an entirely different question and a summarization should address that and other direct points people have been making here rather than trying to analyze sentiment on a related but not directly raised question. Anomie⚔ 13:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Whether it's an accurate assessment of this RFC is, almost, secondary to that, But merely having (or expressing) the abstract belief that a transwoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man is not considered by itself to be a WP:PA, WP:DISRUPTION, or other type of sanctionable offense, at this time, is blatantly wrong, contrary to the TOS, and not in step with how often editors rightly get blocked for obvious transphobic statements. I'm rather shocked about Snow Rise's statement, to be frank. Capeo (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, can you point us to somewhere, anywhere, that expressing this belief has been codified by the community as disruption or a PA? A policy, a consensus discussion in a centralized community space? Can you give a diff to a community sanction discussion where an editor was blocked merely for expressing "the abstract belief that a transwoman or transman is not a 'real' woman or man"?

  Because I've been following this issue for a while and I have seen no such conclusion by the community at large anywhere on this project, as yet, and not for lack of observing. You're quite correct that editors have been sanctioned for sharing transphobic views, but that broad description of conduct covers a lot of territory, including direct harassment and bigotry. But I'm unaware of so much as a single case where the community has endorsed the perspective that such an abstract belief, absent more direct harassment, disruption, or other violations of policy, makes a person unfit for this community or to contribute to the project.

  This RfC is the closest thing we have had to testing this proposition. Nominally it is about whether or not the policy should be updated to reflect the feedback that Clovermoss got in the original ANI thread--which uniformly said that she should not have been editing another community members user page, but that she was unlikely to face blow back for doing it once, in those circumstances. But I think it's quite clear that her deeper motivation for broaching this subject as she did was not affect any change to the specific procedural language of how to handle UPNOT violations, but rather to send up a flare in a highly public space to try to find support for her (understandable) belief that the specific content in the case that brought her to ANI should be regarded as "highly objectionable" by default. That is why a number of respondents have commented about the peculiar framing and their difficulty in knowing how to respond to the prompt.

  So regardless of what the ostensible question of this RfC is, and the manner in which respondents have had to channel their !votes as a consequence, this was clearly intended as a referendum on whether the very specific conduct of expressing the subjective belief that transmen and trasnwomen are not "real" men or women constitutes a sanctionable activity, even when it is not directed at specific individuals. And I feel most of the respondents have treated it accordingly. And what I see (with very mixed feelings, let me assure you), is what I have always seen in the last couple of years whenever this issue has come up in the case of an individual user's conduct: most community members feel that banning any expression of such an abstract belief is a bridge too far.

  And this is exactly what I warned Clovermoss to expect from perspectives at this time, and is one of the reasons I rather wish the matter had not been raised prematurely and in this hasty fashion, just because she didn't like being told at ANI (again, uniformly, and including feedback from major trans issues advocates on the project) that she does not have the right to unilaterally delete such expressions. I think her approach here is only going to harden perspectives further and actually set back the progress of policy in this area, if I am blunt. I know her heart was in the right place, and as she has disclosed, this is apparently a raw nerve for her right now, but honestly, this was an ill-calculated, ill-timed, ill-prepared, and ill-formulated approach.

  As for the fact that some are confused (or even "shocked") that consensus would be summarized thus, I feel what is very clearly happening here is that a lot of people are making the assumption that because they find this kind of opinion highly objectionable, that of course the community would find that a statement of such a belief is per se disruptive and makes the person sharing that view incompatible with contributing to this project. On one level, I sympathize with that impulse: I too find such views ill-informed and regressive.

  But putting aside the assessment of whether or not the community should adopt such a view, I've been following the on-project discussions around this issue for some years now, and as a purely descriptive matter, I can tell you that any time such a standard has been suggested (again, always before CM's proposal it was in the case of individual behavioural discussions), there has been significantly more opposition to such a straight-forward proposition than there has been support. And I believe this ratio is currently being replicated in this RfC.

  So Capeo, if you have counter-examples of people being sanctioned merely for expressing a subjective belief of skepticism about trans self-identity, I would be more than happy to incorporate them into my read of community feedback on this issue. But there's a big difference between you and I agreeing that a given statement of belief is backwards and ignorant and the community having completely proscribed it as a view incompatible with activity on this project, as a matter of policy. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (very minor quibble) This RFC is strangely worded, such that an answer in the affirmative actually opposes the RFC. I don’t think any editors have been confused by this, but it caught me off guard as a lurker. Mach61 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• No Change While I would like the section to be more detailed than it currently is, I know that would be difficult to accomplish and get consensus on. And considering some of the statements for change (ie removal) above includes editors arguing for allowing any sort of offensive content, I'm fine with keeping with status quo. Because I don't want such editors or anyone else to be pushing abusive statements on their user pages. Silverseren^C 01:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Ambivalent. On the one hand, WP:MALVOLIO. On the other hand, if something really is extremely offensive, go ahead and revert it. On the third hand, if you do that, you might get reverted. And on the fourth hand, a situation like that will probably end up being dealt with via administrator action. All of that was my roundabout way of saying that I don't think that there is any kind of language that can legislate this, and the best way to deal with a truly hurtful situation is to bring the editor who is at fault to the appropriate noticeboard. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Assuming that the extremely offensive content is the kind of stuff that's appropriate for a noticeboard in the first place. Some of the "extremely offensive" user page content that I've personally seen includes:

  • claiming that an editor is a child rapist,
  • a list of the sexual acts the poster wants to perpetrate on the editor,
  • fake offers to engage in sexual acts with the reader, and
  • a description of how the poster plans to torture and kill the editor.

  The work a few years back that makes it hard for vandals to edit other people's userpages was a good idea, but it doesn't solve everything, and it isn't retroactive. When these kinds of things come up, it's not necessarily a good idea to encourage everyone to read and discuss them. It's often a better idea to revert it and then e-mail a friendly admin or Wikipedia:Oversight to make it disappear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing, I think everyone would agree that it's not a good idea to amplify the sort of content you've mentioned. Posts soliciting sex or engaging in the vile and illegal subjects you've listed should certainly be removed first, and discussed with an administrator after the fact. The issue seems to be that some editors have, in good faith, taken "extremely offensive" to mean something much broader than what you've outlined.

  I think the consensus here so far is that

  • 1) there's no current need to change the language at WP:UPNOT.
  • 2) the label of "extremely offensive", while left to the discretion of editors, should be applied sparingly, and editors probably shouldn't be citing UPNOT as a license to remove passing remarks about major political and social issues of the day from the userpages of other editors.
  • 3) @Clovermoss acted in good faith here, and followed the letter of UPNOT, but slightly missed the mark in terms of the unwritten spirit behind the words "extremely offensive".

  Is that a fair summary of the consensus of the discussion as it stands currently? If anyone does not think so, please summarize the state of the discussion as you see it. Pecopteris (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps the difficulty is that what's "extremely" offensive (rather than "average-ly" offensive) is going to depend on the (sub)culture you're in. Or perhaps the difficulty is a sort of rhetorical inflation, so that "extremely" no longer carries a meaning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• No change - This seems in line with WP:CIVILITY and community norms (for example, the deletion of certain offensive user boxes). Having extremely offensive material on your user page does not contribute to building an encyclopedia. Quite the opposite. Nosferattus (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Probably needs a rewrite TBD - I think that what some of the people who don't see the problem may not understand is that saying a trans woman is not a "real" woman is only one step away from saying that she is not a "real person" and dehumanization is a slippery slope. However. The Streisand effect is also at work here. I had never heard of this movie. I sometimes look at userboxes, but not often and not in detail. I got rid if mine a few years ago. I would question the THEREness of someone who would go out of their way to proclaim that they like a dehumanizing movie (I guess that is what it is?) but probably only to the extent of avoiding them if possible. As the joke goes, it isn't exhibitionism if you have to stand on a ladder and use binoculars to see it. There is enough dysfunction and POV pushing that is actually interfering with the creation of content without attempting to regulate self-expression, and btw fwiw I say this as an editor who identifies as "they" by choice and not default. I would say the policy could likely use a rewrite, but I think that there are bigger issues on wikipedia let alone in the world than whether someone chooses to do the wikipedia equivalent of wearing a Trump hat Elinruby (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep and add clarification. I think it should stay, but the other editors here are correct that "extremely offensive" is poorly defined. I don't think the original userbox which led to this RfC (enjoying a film which itself expresses a very strong POV) falls under the scope of "extremely offensive", but I can't blame Clovermoss for thinking that it did. Obviously we cannot define every way that a statement could be extremely offensive, but we could add a sentence along the lines of Examples of extremely offensive statements include ethnic slurs, calls for violence, and sexualization of children. If I was named BDFL of Wikipedia, I'd get rid of all userboxes that express pro- or anti- opinions on political, social, religious, nationalistic or ideological issues since Wikipedia isn't about that. But since I do not have that power, as long as the current consensus is that such statements are allowed then we should have a narrowly-defined policy for when to unilaterally remove them. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  "Calls for violence" is broader than you might initially expect. What about, say, "Ukraine shouldn't surrender"? That's a call for violence in the sense that it's a call to continue a war. Loki (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  For that matter some above and in the ANI discussion have stated that they consider "transphobia" (under their own subjective definition, of course) to be equal to the "racist ideology" already used as an example in the guideline, so they'd probably feel the same about a comparison with "ethnic slurs". Anomie⚔ 00:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think commentary on geopolitical conflicts don't really fall under "calls for violence", though personally I don't think they really belong on Wikipedia either. My wording was just an example, I'm open to other phrasing. Immediate removal without discussion should be reserved only for cases where the content would be near-universally condemned, such as "X group should be executed". @Anomie: There are certainly transphobic things that would fall under the banner of "extreme". Any userbox endorsing violence against them or using language like that found in LGBT slang#Slurs 2 should be summarily removed (and probably brought to a noticeboard). I just don't think that if something could subjectively be considered transphobic, it automatically counts as extreme. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  I just don't think that if something could subjectively be considered transphobic, it automatically counts as extreme My point is that there seem to be people who disagree with you on that part. Anomie⚔ 19:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, keep. The general idea of this language is very good and I definitely don't want to get rid of it in spirit. I agree that it could maybe use some clarification, but I don't know what particular clarification would be appropriate (as I pointed out above, seemingly obvious clauses can be pretty fraught in practice) and I'm not entirely confident that it's even possible to word such a clarification well. Loki (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• In summary no change. This is a very open question, so this isn't an absolute comment on all potential changes, but to the question of whether to simply reopen the guideline I don't see great benefit. This is an inherently subjective topic, and the premise is helpful in spirit but simply impossible to nail down in any sort of specific way. en.wiki will not solve the question of acceptable speech which has dogged societies for time immemorial. Keeping vague in-spirit wording fits the en.wiki approach of a common law style individual judgment backed up by community discussion quite well. CMD (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2023 (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.

BLP noticeboard banner question

The talk page of a biography of a living person, Talk:Dominic Ng, contains a banner, {{BLP noticeboard}}, with a date. There is no discussion in the BLP noticeboard because the previous discussion was archived by an archival bot. The instructions for the banner say that it should be removed when the discussion at BLPN is resolved. The discussion was not resolved, but was archived without resolution. Should the instructions for removal be revised to say that the template can be removed when the discussion is resolved or archived? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Would it be helpful if we had some sort of "old afd" option in cases like this? Not for everything, but reasonably important ones. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think so. I would change the instructions to say "This template should be removed when the BLP noticeboard discussion is resolved or archived." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Amend to "...is resolved or archived by a uninvolved party." CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to change MOS:DASH to reflect consensus at Talk:SAG–AFTRA

Please see Requested move 20 July 2023, MOS talk page discussion and MOS:FAQ#Dashes for further background to this proposal.

I am proposing that the manual of style section MOS:DASH, specifically its sub-section MOS:ENBETWEEN, be updated to reflect the closure of the RM above and to provide further clarity for the guideline. The RM for SAG–AFTRA was closed 1½ months ago, with the consensus that an en-dash should not be used in the article's name, because the dash does not show a connection between the two entities of "SAG" and "AFTRA", as these are no longer current entities due to the merger between them.

However the MOS guideline is vague about whether merged entities should use hyphens or dashes, with the exemption for MOS:ENBETWEEN stating Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities. As the above RM showed consensus that single entities do include merged entities, where both previous entities are no longer in existance, this exemption should be changed to Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities, including mergers of two single entities to reflect the closure of the RM discussion.

In short, this would mean that merged organizations which use compounded names, such as SAG-AFTRA, should use hyphens (-) rather than dashes (–) within articles, leading to potentially more clarity and consistency in usage of hyphens/dashes in articles and names. Happily888 (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Happily888 Tentatively support, as long as there is a follow up agreement not to further contest the naming convention with a requested move while an article is featured on main page. That was incredibly disruptive and not worth whatever consensus was concluded in prior examples. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Shushugah: This discussion is probably not the right venue for this, your proposal would probably be better discussed (if you wished to start one) at WT:RM, the talk page for WP:RMEC. This would also have implications for the criterias WP:ITNBLURB, WP:DYKTAG and WP:POTD/G. Happily888 (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Shushugah I'd support a prohibition on anybody nominating anything for RM for any reason while it is featured on or linked from the main page (if there isn't one already, cf Wikipedia:Speedy keep criterion 6). Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that there isn't one yet already, with WP:CSK applying to XfD deletion nominations only. Happily888 (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. That actually needs to go to WP:MR, because the close was a super-vote, the result conflicts directly with long-standing guidelines, and it conflicts with literally hundreds of previous RM decisions. One outlying case, mired in the common-style fallacy does not magically undo all prior, consistent consensus about punctuation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"the [p|P]rophet Muhammad"

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" – involves MOS:HONORIFIC, MOS:DOCTCAPS, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICKING, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Automatically semi-protect Today's Featured Article

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.

---

Should WP:SEMI be amended to add something to the effect of "Today's Featured Article (TFA) is always semi-protected from the day before it is featured on the Main Page through the day after."? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Rationale: This is a change that's already been brought into effect on most days thanks to the valiant efforts of Courcelles, and one that is long overdue. While in the early days of Wikipedia people might not have known that it was something any old schmuck could edit, these days it's such a cultural mainstay that the benefits of letting our "parlor" be accessible and tweakable by all is far outweighed by the costs of letting vandals replace our most visible page with "poop shid fard xD". I understand that the FAC crowd can run into issues of stodgy Toryism and that can possibly motivate opposers, but the months-long "trial run" of Courcelles already semi-protecting TFAs a day in advance has caused no complaints and no major issues, and saved many headaches from vandal-reverters; those good-faith editors who are needed to mildly tweak articles that have already undergone rigorous review can wait until they become confirmed.

All in all, this is something that should have been done years ago and has already has local consensus at TFA. Hopefully the fire has gone out of this decades-long debate, but in any case I feel like it is high time to implement this change. (Also, any specific details like how long it should be protected outside of its Featured Day is fine; I don't want the best to be the enemy of the good here.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Some relevant links. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TFA Protector Bot 3, prior RFC for a trial, and some analysis of that trial. Courcelles (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per User:TFA Protector Bot/Semi-protection trial, as I discussed at WT:TFA. Some prominent examples there:
  • Yusuf I of Granada received four oversighted edits in four minutes before being semiprotected
  • Streets (song) received six revdelled edits in one minute before being semiprotected
  • Rachel Dyer (semiprotected for the second half of its TFA period) received three oversighted edits and 14 generic vandalism edits in its unprotected period
  • Between every not-automatically-semiprotected article in the experiment, there were thirty not-reverted-that-day edits by IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors, of which six were removing vandalism (this is a quick hand count, and the page isn't easily structured for one, so this might be off) -- meaning the net of "not directly caused by vandalism" IP edits productive enough not to be reverted the same day was below the number of pre-semi vandal edits in just these three articles
• I think the results of that experiment alone make a clear case for the benefit to the project and the relative lack of collateral damage. This is just treating edits by their raw 'outcomes' -- other specific complaints, such as the number of complaints in the WT:TFA thread about graphic sexual vandalism in particular, strengthen the case. Vaticidalprophet 21:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  In fact this recent me doing it manually started because hardcore porn stayed in a TFA for too long. Courcelles (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm supporting anyway, but two of your three examples fail to prove your point - if the vandal was willing to game autoconfirmed to post more oversightable/revdelable edits after manual semi-protection was applied and force the TFA to be ECP-ed then the outcome would not have been very different had the bot applied semi-protection, as you can see from the cases where the bot did semi-protect around the same time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support the rare useful edit we might get is not worth the cost of showing readers grossly vandalized articles. Courcelles (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. TFA's have always been suspect to vandalism and other nonsensical edits for as long as I have been editing, and semi-protecting for a few days will go a long way to clear up this issue. The Night Watch (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support as a sensible measure to protect the readers' experience. Schazjmd (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This has been long in the works, tracing back to the pending-changes trial two-and-a-half years ago at this point. The anti-vandalism benefits of semi-protection are clear, and I'll leave it to others to analyze those. But I want to focus in on the potential downside, which is that, as the "encyclopedia anyone can edit," we want to keep editing rights as open as possible to invite newcomers. As someone who focuses on newcomer aid, this is something I care about a lot. And I submit for consideration that a TFA is a terrible place for a newcomer to start editing. TFAs are high-quality, recently updated featured articles. By definition, they are considered essentially complete, and to the extent that they have flaws, they are generally things that only experienced editors can spot. So what is the newcomer experience editing them? It's the experience of changing something, and then getting rapidly reverted, because the thing didn't actually need changing, since it's a featured article. That's a bitey experience, no matter how polite the revert. So semi-protection is not just a boon for readers, who will encounter less vandalism, and for experienced editors, who will have less to patrol, but also for newcomers, who will be redirected toward friendlier waters to dip their toes into editing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Clearly sensible proposal. SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support. Abso-bad wording-lutely. Prevents LTAs and just random teenagers from vandalizing a very highly visible part of Wikipedia. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 22:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'm in favor of this, but let's not anybody fool ourselves - it won't decrease the total amount of vandalism, and maybe not even the number of times our readers see vandalism; it's going to make it harder for us to find and revert. Some of it'll spill over to pages linked from TFA; some to other pages linked from the main page; some of it to random pages where - if Cluebot or some pagewatcher doesn't happen to revert it - it might stick around for days or weeks. —Cryptic 22:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Most vandalism is opportunistic, not complex LTA subterfuge plots. (I remember in sixth-grade-equivalent, my class was reading an article and I kept seeing vandalism coming up on it, and reverting it manually/longhand from "aha! I read a page about this, I know how to fix this"; a patroller who could act faster was very confused to come across what looked like an IP self-reverting, because all the vandals in this case were my classmates.) I'm very familiar with two of the other big-four processes (DYK and OTD), and vandalism rates for them are consistently much, much lower than TFA vandalism stats. I don't think we'll see massive overspill in the same way that most bored kids looking at an article in class are vandalising it, and not going out of their way to vandalise the third article linked instead. Vaticidalprophet 22:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  In addition to this, the whole draw of people vandalizing the featured article, for people who are doing that, is the fact that it is extremely prominent and people are "forced" to see it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per above, as it seems that many TFAs already require semi-protection because of edits that need oversight, revdel, or rollback. There might be a possibility that the vandalism would just spread onto articles that are linked from the TFA blurb, but it is clear that semi-protecting the TFA would halt the worst of the damage. For example, on 23 Wall Street, it only took 14 minutes for someone to vandalize the infobox with a sexually explicit image (warning: NSFW). And somehow that edit is still fully visible in that article's revision history. Imagine how much worse it is for articles where the vandalism is so bad that it has to be RD'd or OS'd.
  I also agree with Sdkb that "a TFA is a terrible place for a newcomer to start editing". By definition, a TFA should showcase the very best work of Wikipedia, but we also encourage people to be bold, which sometimes creates a conflict. In my experience at least, newcomers' edits to TFAs often create errors even if they're editing in good faith, like this edit which created a run-on sentence that stayed for an hour. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. (EC) I help administer the main page and patrol WP:ERRORS. The issue of TFA vandalism has been brought up often enough at Errors as well as at WT:TFA that I'm all too aware for the need to be proactive in this area. Our most visible articles should simply not be available to vandals during the short period of being on the main page. Schwede66 00:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Quick comment: Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the RFC statement don't seem particularly neutral and brief to me, and it may be better to move those to a support !vote. WP:RFCNEUTRAL. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, largely per my thoughts here. "The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit" does not mean that all articles can and should be free for anyone to edit at all times. Recent FA promotions should ideally be in good enough shape that editing by brand new editors isn't need while its on the main page; most of the prose work I've seen done to TFAs on the main page is really just a net neutral at best and a net negative much of the time. If we're really going to say as an encyclopedia that the content writers matter, than we shouldn't be taking what is theoretically some of the best and hardest-worked content we have and blinding subject it to an open season for vandalism. Hog Farm _Talk 02:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, good point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support since admins have been doing this unofficially for some time, in response to lame vandalism, without the protection being a problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  How would you know if a semi-protection was a problem? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  If there were useful suggested edits showing up on the talk page, that would be an indication that semi-protection has a cost. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Has anyone actually done that analysis though? I didn't think to when I wrote the trial report, although I guess that there weren't that many edits obviously per talk page edit requests. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support I was skeptical of this early on, even as I was writing the trial report (which I apologize for dropping the ball on and never finishing). What finally convinced me was Sdkb's comment above, that editing the TFA would fail to provide a desirable or representative experience for new good-faith users, so all of the necessary effort separating wheat from chaff is wasted even from an idealistic perspective. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Support, prefer Pending Changes Protection Instead. I second the concerns that many of the above editors have raised, though I do think that it is worth considering the possibility of semi-protecting TFA could raise the possibility of contradicting how anyone can edit Wikipedia, even if technically creating an account and staying for 10 days makes it anybody. There is the potential that this could discourage new editors from joining. It's a potential false pretense which could discourage. I would suggest we look at pending changes protection instead to mitigate this concern, as still reasonable good faith edits could be made with reviewer approval, while still allowing new users to contribute constructively as per our mission. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Pending changes protection has been shown to not work well with heavily edited pages due to the amounts of edits that can accrue if the page is not constantly watched. I don't think pending changes would work well in a potentially high-volume situation like TFA and would probably end up causing several new problems while doing little to alleviate the current ones. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • PC was tried for this in 2021 after initial support in an RFC. But when it came time to evaluate, a bunch of people ignored the trial entirely and just opposed on principle (along the lines of Hog Farm's comment just above) with no supporting data. That RFC concluded that people would rather try semi-protection, which eventually happened, and now we're (finally) evaluating that trial here. Anomie⚔ 11:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, I'll be quick and brief for now since I need a bit of time to formally gather my thoughts. This is clearly needed and already technically done unofficially by admins. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 02:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support TFA has often suffered high amount disruption sometimes even through semi-protection, hopefully the disruption will be reduced thanks to semi-protection. Lightoil (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's a balancing act. Preemptively protecting pages is not something that should be taken lightly, but we should also not entertain routine vandalism of what is supposed to be "Wikipedia's best work". I would also agree with Sdkb that, save for a few cases, it is probably in the best interest of everyone involved that protection be applied. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 04:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support—appears slam-and-shut per User:TFA Protector Bot/Semi-protection trial. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - seems like a self-evidently good idea, which has already been implemented with good results. Community consensus for this course of action seems overwhelming and essentially unanimous. Pecopteris (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support As explained above, inviting new editors to tweak a polished TFA will not help those new editors. Also, it is not productive to feature a highly visible vandal magnet. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Can't really see a downside, as long as the unprotecting stays automatic as well. Lulfas (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Snow close as support. There's no realistic chance that this will fail, and rightly so.—S Marshall T/C 07:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Actually I believe this did fail in the past. Or maybe I'm thinking about something else. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 10:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  It seems it did often enough to get added to WP:PEREN. Good example of WP:CCC I guess, but IMO this should still run for longer than a few hours. Anomie⚔ 11:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  If no one objects or beats me to it, I'll probably snow close this after two days. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 18:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  While there's overwhelming support right now, given how controversial this has been in the past, I think a snow NAC from an involved editor isn't ideal. It's a very high-profile RfC -- there are plenty of uninvolved editors aware of it who could close. Vaticidalprophet 15:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Should have happened a long time ago. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support as proposer :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, leaving TFA open to general editing looks like a net negatove. Semi is much better than Pending Changes (which is just frustrating to everyone involved). —Kusma (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the local consensus on WT:TFA, and per the trial report. – SD0001 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support -- Very overdue. Off topic but along the same line, but it would also be nice to see the subjects of Google Doodles, semiprotected as a matter of course as well especially for those articles with BLP issues. -- Dolotta (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I would oppose protection based on Google Doodles. If the article is of mediocre quality, it could benefit from editing by new editors. —Kusma (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. While TFA is invariably supposed to showcase the highest-quality articles (and thus most likely doesn't need to be edited much by new/unregistered users), articles about the subjects of Google Doodles vary significantly in quality. I have seen many start- and C-class Google Doodle subjects, which can benefit from additional edits. On the other hand, there is an argument to be made that Google Doodles also attract vandalism, like on this start-class article. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support WP:SNOW TfAs have always recieved lots of vandalism and other nonsense and this will prevent said nonsense from occurring. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 15:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Prodraxis: A discussion about a major change like this, particularly when it's been discussed many times before with no consensus, should be allowed to run for at least one full week. WP:SNOW is for less consequential cases in which consensus is both clear and has no realistic prospect of changing. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• I am actually shocked to see myself type this, as an old hardliner, but begrudgingly Support doing this. At my core as a Wikipedian, it crushes me to take down a pillar of Wikipedia, and I don't do it lightly, but the data cited above is clear. I may be old and set in my ways, but I am also easily convinced to change if you do the leg work and put together a convincing argument backed by data. It's hard to argue with the data provided by @Vaticidalprophet:. It is a sad day for Wikipedia; but it has come nonetheless. --Jayron32 15:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the given data; I had an article on my watch list go to DYK and saw an uptick in edits; I can't imagine how much worse TFA gets. Doing this automatically will just remove the burden from admins of doing it manually every day. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support very long overdue, it's unfortunate that it has to come to this, but the downsides of having to deal with vandalism seriously outweigh any potential upsides. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Confirming that this refers to the article, not its talk page. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support – Typically I would say that protection shouldn't be preemptive, but there is enough history of vandalism to TFA to justify this. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - basically every IP edits on TFAs are vandalism. And as stated above, recent FAs have been so thoroughly scrutinised that there isn't much of value that random drive-by editors with little editing experience can add. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. SWinxy (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Helps anyone acting in good faith, including new editors whom might get bitten, per above arguments. —siroχo 21:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Okay, fine, I'll go ahead and be that guy (although don't let my one oppose stop an early close if it's merited). The rule about not protecting TFA was put in place for good and proper reasons, even as it has become more and more frequent for it to be ignored and TFA semi-protected anyway. If vandalism happens, just revert it. But let people's first experience with Wikipedia potentially include really changing it. The main compelling worry is Sdkb's above, that "letting people make a change just to troll them by probably reverting it, even if it was good faith," is an even worse on-boarding experience than a semi-protected article. But... what about the times where there's a genuine improvement? My understanding was that at least back in the day, articles usually exited a TFA stint better than they started it. Much of this will be from edits from logged-in users, of course, but some can be from anonymous IPs. If this means main-page watchers need to do some more reverts in order to let the good edits through - oh well, just do some extra reverts. A small price to pay for ensuring people get the (correct) idea that yes, you really can change Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think the idea is really important, though in the sort of way Sdkb does ("I tried to do X and was immediately reverted, you personally need to tell me why" is the overwhelming-constant flood you get from discussing Wikipedia absolutely anywhere, ever, and none of those people become happy editors). But it's not really what the stats bear out -- there are markedly more vandalism edits to the unprotected articles in the trial than there are not-reverted-the-same-day IP and unconfirmed edits. Even "reverted the same day" non-vandalism edits doesn't add that many more. There are other sections of the main page that don't attract nearly that much vandalism while still attracting views and edits. TFA is low-hanging fruit for impulse vandalism because it's the very first, so it gets more proportionately than its pageview share -- it's not rare for DYK or OTD to get views-per-hour overlapping with TFA range, but I see far less vandalism on high-viewed DYK/OTDs. Vaticidalprophet 22:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support—I find the case for semi-protecting articles on the main page to be persuasive. I wonder if we could also add a notice at the top of the edit window for semi'd main page articles explaining why editing is currently unavailable. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. (Unrelatedly: That perennial proposals page seems overly negative) casualdejekyll 23:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I understand the concern that's been raised in the past about this being a preventative action when we generally avoid using protection in that way, but I would argue that this is a unique case where though the specific article being vandalized changes from day to day, there is consistent vandalism of the TFA. The trial run has shown good results, edit requests continue to work, and realistically I find it unlikely that semiprotection on the TFA will harm the project or discourage potential new contributors. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral Oppose: Okay, I originally supported this with reservations, then I tacitly opposed it per SnowFire's argument, and now I'm sort of neutral. Read the page at WP:PERENNIAL, now I'm opposed again. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 01:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support if changes are needed they can be proposed on the talk page, as a featured item I would expect those who created it are watching it closely and can deal with genuine problems quickly. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Every time an article I have brought to FAC comes to TFA, there is a wave of vandalism unless someone protects it. Usually it is up for a few hours before the vandals prompt an admin to do so. Many editors oppose articles they have nominated being TFA for this reason. If it were just one article it subjected to this it would have been indefinitely protected years ago. The amount of time and effort that it will save for all concerned more than justifies protection, not to mention that the purpoe is to showcase our very best work, not how easily it is trashed by vandals. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Personally I never understood why this wasn't already a the standard, especially considering we do protect images through Commons. While I understand the argument about new editors, I think this is a pipe-dream with regards to TFA; the vast majority of non-semi editing on TFA articles is trolling, vandalism, etc. Good-faith new editors can still find articles to edit through ITN, DYK, and OTD (and in fact, these are more likely to be in need of improvement and are generally easier to edit than TFA). The trial demonstrably worked. Curbon7 (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Curbon7: AFAIK we only (fully) protect images that are on the main page directly. We don't protect images that are in other articles linked to from the main page, not even TFA. E.g. Commons:File:1998 - Tricolore (France) (4170715889).jpg still seems to be editable despite it being the second image in TFA 1998 FIFA World Cup final. We also fully protect the main page and all the templates that it uses, and this includes the TFA blurb, for the same reason we protect images on the main page. The temptation, even for confirmed editors to mess around with something appearing on a page seen by millions is considered too great. TFA is also fairly high visibility but not anywhere near as high as the main page, hence why this proposal is only for semi protection. And I'm fairly sure we still won't be automatically protecting images on TFA which aren't on the main page even if this passes for several reasons but especially that it's not going to cross well to commons (unlike with full protection where it's good enough). This has beans implications I guess. Edit: Just noticed the proposal below which further demonstrates my point although I didn't think of NFCC lead images when I wrote that which I agree per below do have even greater beans implications. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per proposal; overdue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. TFAs always has vandals and disruptive editors unless it was already protected. Just like Curbon above, I don't understand why this hasn't been done a long time ago. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reasons. I don't buy the argument that this will divert vandalism elsewhere. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support This would benefit the readers of Wikipedia while reducing the hassle that our volunteer community has to deal with. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support maybe the case for trading off security for openness was stronger when Wikipedia was more of an emerging website, but it doesn't make sense in 2023. – Teratix ₵ 04:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support: clear need for protection. This will take an unnecessary strain off of patrollers. Any disadvantages are clearly outweighed. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support Of the nearly 70 TFAs I have helped get to FA and nominated for TFA, I cannot remember a single occasion where the article was improved to any appreciable extent by an unconfirmed editor on the day and the day after it was TFA. It is almost always vandalised multiple times by IPs and unconfirmed editors, and many times it has been semi'ed rapidly after the new front page has been loaded due to relentless vandalism. The "potentially high quality contributors" can start a thread on the talk page. The trial has worked, let's lock it in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Support and WP:SNOW close for reasons mentioned above, the risks of keeping the pages unprotected are much higher than the benefits. Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose (though I know its snowing). "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" is sorta a key manta and protecting TFA works against that. I fully understand the persistent vandalism issue but I think that a needed solution is a way for yet-registered editors to be able to obviously contribute should be in place. If this means we should have a message to direct them to the talk page to provide feedback on the top of the TFA's article, so be it. --Masem (t) 13:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  We already have something like this in place with {{pp}}. IT's just that it's never seen because we always add the small parameter so it's not intrusive. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 14:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  It would be preferable to have a specialized template for TFA, not making it small and with language to both explain why one cannot edit the page directly (to avoid vandalism) and to use the talk page for suggestions. Masem (t) 14:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ah that is fair. Maybe a variation of the pp template could be made for such a purpose since it already fits quite well for the purpose. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 14:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  We already have an edit notice for people editing TFA; it would be much better to tweak that notice than to bother casual readers with the internal workings of Wikipedia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support basically per Peacemaker67. The most any of my TFA's ever "benefited" from IP or unconfirmed editing were the addition of benign punctuation. The tradeoff was vandalism and good faith shuffling and rewriting of text in ways to make it drift away from the sources (and specific editorial decisions which had consensus at FAn). What good is the principle if it is doing us no good? -Indy beetle (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support I'm sympathetic to the notion that this is an opportunity for readers to learn that editing is possible, but I think the potential harms far outweigh the benefit here. Sam Walton (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The edit histories of several of my FAs are now littered with a page or two of TFA-related garbage edits and reverts, including some very appalling image vandalism. It's simply a waste of editor time not to have the TFA semi-protected. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support – This always feels like a game: the TFA goes online and is okay for the first few hours, a ton of vandalism occurs and then the article is put on semi. No need to waste the valuable time of editors cleaning up TFAs time and time again, just start it on semi! Aza24 (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - and in the long term, I think Wikipedia needs to disallow anonymous editing entirely. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support this is an encyclopedia for readers, who would only see benefits from this (rather minor) proposal's enaction. Readers can be editors, hence the existence of maintenance templates, but most are not, so it isn't worth the possible vandalism to allow editors to "cut their teeth" on an already good article. Mach61 (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Request for close it has been a week, and there is overwhelming consensus that is unlikely to change. I'll ping @TFA Protector Bot and its handlers @Legoktm, The Earwig, and Enterprisey. I'll leave it up to the closer whether to also close the sub-RfC on the images. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Lock out trolls and vandals. This should have been policy long ago. Carrite (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Sub RfC: Upload protection of fair use infobox/lead images for TFA's

We've had issues where vandals will modify the infobox/lead image of an article. These images are usually fully protected, but when they're fair use, because they aren't usually shown on the main page, they're usually left unprotected. We've had issues where these images are changed by vandals, such as recently with The Playboy, where the infobox image was changed to an image of Goatse (see Talk:The_Playboy#goatse_as_cover_image) As such, I propose the automatic full protection full upload protection of lead/infobox images for featured article when they are on the front pages, regardless of whether they are shown on the main page or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• ? Wouldn't upload protection be more important there? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am fine with either full or upload protection, but I assume full protection includes upload protection? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hemiauchenia, these are apples and oranges. The following actions can be protected: "edit", "move", "upload". The following protection levels exist for each one: "semi", "extended-confirmed", "template editor" and "full". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, not common enough attack, don't protect pre-emptively. Just WP:RBI. —Kusma (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support upload protection again, requires more tech savvy than simply editing the text, but possibly goes into "might as well" territory. All bets are off with full protection, though– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. SWinxy (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• support - still unsure about the above proposal but this seems obvious. Nobody's being introduced to editing by replacing the tfa image. It's rare but it makes sense as a precaution given how damaging such a swap can be. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support for similar reasons to my support !vote above (and the above proposal). In addition, while there are quite clearly constructive reasons that new and unregistered editors might edit a page, constructive cases for uploading a new version of the TFA's lead image strike me as exceedingly rare (honestly, probably nonexistent). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning support per above for three reasons 1) this has proven to be a method of attack in the past and due to mediawiki caching lag has proven to be a trickier one to clean up after 2) our non-free content guidelines are by nature opaque enough that this isn't really something newer users should be messing with anyway and 3) TFA are generally vetted enough that between either a recent FAC or the TFA rerun selection process the stuff we're running up there should theoretically be in good enough shape that major changes to the lead image would need discussion, not unilateral change, anyways. Yes, there's some poorer older FAs but between greater awareness in the TFA scheduling process and the work of WP:URFA/2020, the issues with unmaintained or low-quality FAs from '06 or '07 appearing at TFA is much less likely than it was even two years ago. Hog Farm _Talk 04:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Sick of the pornographic images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Common sense. Curbon7 (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support for pretty much the same reasons as everyone else. Also support move and/or upload protection as necessary. TFAs should not be so much of a chore that they require editors to watch them 24/7 while on the Main Page. SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I think there's a lot more downside here than in the main proposal. The main proposal would affect only nonconfirmed users, but nonconfirmed users already cannot upload local files (per WP:AUTOCONFIRM). Instead, it would affect confirmed non-admin editors, since per WP:UPLOAD-P upload-protected pages can only have new versions uploaded by admins. I can easily envision a scenario in which an experienced editor like myself might want to upload a new version of an image of TFA (for instance, to crop out a border included in the file, or to improve the contrast) and be prevented from doing so by this. I'll leave it to others to weigh the costs vs. benefits in light of this, but the !votes above that treat it as an obvious corollary to the main proposal do not seem to reflect an understanding that it is actually quite different. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above; would also be possible to consider carrying over to Wikidata since some templates autopopulate from it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kusma. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Even if it is uncommon, any single instance of it is bad enough that we should mitigate the possibility at the outset. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  We generally don't pre-emptively protect pages. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 23:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Consensus can change. I think Wikipedia has a lot of things that are set in stone because "a few editors 15+ years ago said it should be this way, so it is". casualdejekyll 22:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Not enough evidence that this is a persistent problem that requires pre-emptive protection from all non-admin editors. Largely in agreement with Sdkb that file protection would prevent more beneficial edits than disruptive edits. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I'm indifferent on this one. I feel that it would help, but at the same time I don't think its that much of a problem to require protection since its harder to change the image than it is to vandalize the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 01:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Not really convinced by Sdkb's point here, opportunities for legitimate improvements in this scenario are vastly outnumbered and outweighed by opportunities for mischief. – Teratix ₵ 04:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  One important consideration is whether this would actually make things harder for LTAs (who, per the point about autoconfirmation above, seem to be the main target). If so, that's persuasive. If e.g. uploading a new file is just as easy/disruptive as overwriting an existing one, then we're blocking good-faith improvements while not actually solving the vandalism problem. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Another thought: How about extended-confirmed protection? That would provide a major deterrent against vandalism without restricting only to admins, which seems excessive. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support the risk is not worth it, the prevention is easy, and the chance that a real edit will be negated is unlikely. Fair enough to me – Aza24 (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2023 (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.

Redirects involving BLP privacy issues

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but are any editors aware if there’s a policy on how to deal with redirects that are possible WP:BLPPRIVACY issues in and of themselves? For example, a redirect from a non-notable name/leaked name of a subject to that subject’s article.

Normally, redirects are deleted by consensus at RfD (excluding speedy deletions). However, I just randomly came across an (archived) situation where a leaked name was a redirect and was taken to RfD — arguably, publicising the leaked name on-wiki more than would have otherwise been the case. (It could also be argued that even mentioning the name of the redirect on-wiki in such a case may be an - albeit good faith and inadvertent - breach of BLPPRIVACY, which applies anywhere on Wikipedia.)

By my reading of BLPPRIVACY, the best course of action when discovering such a redirect would be to contact Oversight to allow them to assess the situation, and to take action to suppress it if/when needed (If you see personal information ... in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, ... contact the oversight team). However, I worry that written information/guidelines/policy on how WP:BLPPRIVACY interacts with redirects may be lacking, and potentially leading to situations such as the one I stumbled upon (and if there’s one such case, I’d suggest that there may well be more).

(Of course, it’s more than possible that there is such a policy already, and I’ve just missed it. Sorry if that’s the case.)

All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 21:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

If you see something that you think is or might be oversightable then always contact the Oversight team, explaining why you think that if it isn't obvious to someone who doesn't know the context. It is significantly preferable to contact us about something that doesn't need suppressing than to not contact us about something that does. If it does not require suppression or revision deletion we will let you know, and you can then proceed with normal processes as appropriate.

Speedy deletion criteria G3 or G10 will sometimes apply. In terms of redirects specifically though there is no specific policy that I am aware of. However the very long-standing precedent at RfD is that redirects to pages that don't mention the redirect term are rarely useful and are usually deleted when nominated. A name that has no apparent connection to a biography, such as a name that bears no apparent relation to any names mentioned in the article, will very nearly always be deleted (Wikipedia:RFD#DELETE points 2, 3, 5 and/or 8 will often apply). Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Contact an oversighter and we can suppres-delete it if it is warranted. Oversight policy is broad enough to deal with stuff like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If the Oversight team decides against one or more of the redirects, and it's not G3 or G10, feel free to take example from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 3#Yaron Cohen and courtesy-blank the redirect pages. Animal lover |666| 19:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I assume this pertains to "leaked" names that don't appear in reliable sources and were just dug out of a darknet site or background-check provider or something? If the name is already in found in various non-paywalled RS, then it's already public knowledge and thus not a WP concern (other than as it might run into our position to trans/enby deadnaming). E.g., I know that the author Louise Candlish (maiden and professional name) is very cagey about the surname of her non-celeb husband and daughter, and I've never seen it disclosed in a reliable source. If someone were to dig it up from somewhere (government marriage records, a "snooping" site, etc.) and inject it into her article here, I can see that being something that could be revision-deleted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That is one scenario, the dead names of trans people is another one. Regardless of the scenario though, if a name cannot be verified in reliable sources as relating to the subject of a biography (or someone else clearly mentioned there, e.g. a spouse) then it has no place in that biography. Names that do not appear in a biography should not exist as redirects (with a few exceptions, such as common alternative forms (e.g. Will/William), plausible misspellings/misrememberings (e.g. Diane/Dianne/Diana) and redirects to mentions in different articles). In cases where this is a BLP violation then revision deletion or suppression are appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"if a name cannot be verified in reliable sources ... then it has no place in that biography" is true, but wouldn't seem to amount to a revdel/OS rationale, which is what this seem to be about. E.g., I could get high and go vandalize the Sylvester Stallone article to say that his birth name was "Yojimbo Z. Doodah", but that would not be worth doing anything about other than a revert (and maybe a short block). It seems to be that there has to be both a credible claim that the name is legit, and a credible claim that there is an unusual privacy reason to suppress it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: In answer to your question: the situation I referenced was one where what seemed to be a leaked full name of an (otherwise pseudonymous) YouTuber had been turned into a redirect (and as far as I can remember, this name wasn’t in any RS). However, that’s definitely not the only situation in which a redirect could have BLP privacy implications. As mentioned, deadnaming is another (in fact, it was the combination of the RfD discussion about Template:R from deadname and coming across this archived situation that prompted me to post at VPP). Apologies if I’ve misunderstood your question. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 18:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

See reply to Thruduulf above; to do more than revert, wouldn't we need some evidence of an elevated privacy concern, as well as an indication that the claimed name was credible? I didn't mention intentionally anonymous/pseudonymous subjects above, but that seems like another reasonable class. E.g. the author of Christ the Vampire goes by "J. G. Icarius" (a reference to J. G. Ballard and a pagan mythological figure), has not to my knowledge ever come forward with their legal name or otherwise had it revealed in RS, and has a reasonable expectation of not having that name revealed here because they'd probably be subject to harassment by militant religious extremists. But, for example, it is known from many, many RS that Winona Ryder was born Winona Horowitz, and Ice Cube was born O'Shea Jackson, and these names being public seems to be no palpable problem for either of them, so there's no obligation on WP's part to suppress those names.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, not all unverifiable names need revdel or suppression, and credibility/plausibility is one factor we take into account when decided what action is required. I've never heard of the author SMcCandlish references (although google results seem to spell their last name "Eccarius"), but a claim their real name was "Randall McCarthy" would be more likely to be revdelled or suppressed than if the name was claimed to be "Rudolph Reindeer" for example. Ultimately its a judgement call and we as the oversight team discuss things internally if we aren't certain, but as suppression is completely reversible (but memories, etc aren't) we might suppress first and then downgrade that to revision deletion or even restore it if that is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocking IPs per request of school administration?

I've started a thread at WT:BP#Blocking IPs per request of school administration? which may be of interest to reader of this page. RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to restrict RM discussions while plastered on Main per incident of Talk:SAG–AFTRA

This would copy Wikipedia:Speedy keep criterion 6) inside WP:RMNOT for restricting move discussion for articles that are listed/rendered on WP:ITN, WP:DYK, FA, GA, FL and other main page mentions. If there's a common sense move to make, someone can boldly do it. But once there is a disputed discussion, like there was at SAG-AFTRA, it should pause or at least not have banner templates displayed. The harm of scaring away our readers and disrupting community energy in an high stakes situation is not worth the purported benefit of a move. Our readers are too important for us, to scare them away with niche internal discussions. Feel free to boldly edit this proposal if need be. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

How is it scaring away our readers? —Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If it's your first time visiting a talk page and you find a 4,000 word discussion about - vs –, the difference if which is not obvious on face of it, that you need to clarify what they are by name? Why would anyone be bold enough to make bigger edits if the visually tiniest edits provoke such a large discussion from wikilawyers? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

While I do believe that routine maintenance templates in articles themselves are not generally useful to readers, I think that if someone visits a talk page, they're now a potential editor as well as a reader, which makes it even more important to be transparent about our processes. Has there been a demonstrated pattern of editors scared away by these things? I'm fully in support of creating more soft landings for future editors, but I don't think this is the right approach. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not referring to talk page discussions, but move discussion notices that are featured on the Article space, e.g User:RMCD bot/subject notice. Others here disagree with me and think it's a good thing if article readers discover the internal processes and potentially get involved and the example I mentioned isn’t the norm, which is prolly true ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Got it; thanks for clarifying! Then yes, for me this falls more into my general view that many of these banners aren't useful for most of our readers in the first place, whether they're on front page articles or not. My personal perspective is that we should restrict such banners to those which would help readers to understand if there are core content issues, like if the article covers a rapidly-changing event or suffers from a lack of citations. So I'm less interested in preventing RM discussions and more interesting in being more conscious of what we display to readers in general. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, alerting readers to the fact Wikipedia is a community-written encyclopedia with transparent discussion processes they can view and even take part in is a benefit, not a drawback. – Teratix ₵ 15:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree unreservedly. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad law. Obviously a debate about dashes versus hyphens is better not exposed to the world. But we might want to allow people to see a debate whether it should be "2023 Bay Area earthquake" or "2023 San Francisco earthquake" or "2023 Northern California earthquake", and we shouldn't hold that discussion on WP:ERRORS, but follow normal process, even if the earthquake needs to be linked from ITN. —Kusma (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If it's a bold move, it's a bold move, but once it's a discussion, what's the harm in waiting till it's off mainpage? It clearly doesn't expedite the process, only adds more attention/traffic and not because people are specifically interested in move discussions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Waiting until a major news item is out of the news to even start discussing how it should be titled doesn't strike me as a sensible policy. —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is nothing magically special about front-page content, and moving a page will leave behind a redirect, so there is no possibility of breaking anything.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Eh, if a similar situation occurs where the RM banner seems unusually detrimental to the typical reader's experience, someone could boldly add {{If IP|| and }} around the RM banner (and inside the noinclude tags) so that it will not show for people who are not logged in. SilverLocust 💬 06:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussions should absolutely not be hidden from ip users - either show them to everybody or nobody. Additionally there is a poor correlation between "people who are not logged in" and "people who will be put off by internal disputes" - some (maybe many) experienced editors only log in when required, some (maybe many) who are logged in are not experienced editors. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The typical reader is not logged in. The typical person who is logged in also edits. I don't actually think an RM would be particularly detrimental to the typical reader's experience, but if it is, then the solution is not to close the discussion. SilverLocust 💬 22:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, concern for transparency with internal discussions is fundamentally at odds with the idea that those discussions should not take place until fewer people are looking. In any event, the actual chance that any particular unregistered user will join the discussion is very small. The SAG-AFTRA RM had one IP comment and the Elizabeth II had none. SilverLocust 💬 23:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. If the title is so wrong that it needs discussing now, but not so wrong that it isn't uncontroversial, then take it to WP:ERRORS. In every other case, wait until it's off the main page in a couple of days. This is exactly the reason CSK point 6 exists - the main page is our most reader-facing environment where we showcase good work not internal disputes. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm fine with waiting for DYK or TFA items that are off the page within a day. For ITN, you have no idea how long an item will be in the news, and holding the move discussion for Charles III in a non-archived place like WP:ERRORS instead of the talk page would have been Just Wrong (and of course, would have overwhelmed ERRORS). —Kusma (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't suggesting holding the move discussion at WP:ERRORS (that would be wrong in multiple ways) but reporting the matter to WP:ERRORS to remove the item from the main page so that the truly urgent issue can be dealt with. Whether the article about the king of the UK should be at Charles III or Charles III of the United Kingdom is exactly the sort of issue that can wait until it is off the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  People tend to disagree on what is Truly Urgent. I think linking an article with a move discussion from the Main Page is preferable to having a move war over such articles. As an aside, the question whether a truly popular article is linked from the Main Page should be secondary here; what about other articles with 100k+ daily views like Jawan (film)? —Kusma (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: I agree with Teratix. We should be showing our processes, not hiding banners like something shameful. It feels like stuffing the Bad Things into the downstairs closet because the houseguests are coming. Let's make our processes less opaque to readers, not the other way around. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support for TFA, oppose for others - TFA is supposed to show our best articles, so any major discussion here should only be done for urgent situations. Other articles are understood to be "under construction", so a major discussion is less problematic (especially ITN, where the articles are frequently new). Animal lover |666| 19:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support. I thought this was always the rule and always has been and have repeatedly speedy kept RMs for this reason. There's a reason WP:SK#6 is there, and there is absolutely no reason why that shouldn't apply to RMs. If you have an issue with SK6, take it up there, but as long as SK6 is policy, it should apply to RMs. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 19:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  TFA only is a fine compromise, I guess. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 19:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  If we're going to make carve-outs depending on where it's linked from the main page, I'm inclined to say to forbid RMs for anything except ITN. ITN blurbs usually stay up for days, sometimes weeks; everything else rotates daily. —Cryptic 19:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Mu The move request and discussion feels like a WP:LAME, but what the front page reader is going to see is nada, outside of the move request banner, which itself is not a problematic orange banner for quality issues. --Masem (t) 19:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Category views

Categorization is critically important for reasons of searchability, analysis, management, visualization, redundancy, and user experience - among others.

Currently, the utility of categories is largely diminished by the superset approach which overcategorizes to the point that categories can't be used in a productive manner for domain specific tasks.

While it's very important to maintain the free speech and democracy of Wikipedia, there is a way to add a layer of quality control without undermining that: Category views, though only as second class citizens.

A category view would be another set of wiki pages / tables that can be managed alongside categories. They would provide a hierarchy that allows for semi-protected subcat/page inclusion. This would allow experts in a field to leverage the content of wikipedia.

Category views would not allow for the creation of new categories, only their connections. Folks creating category views would need to work with the community to ensure that the categories they care about are well named and being productively used. Creating new categories for the purpose of category views would be frowned upon and would be subject to immediate reversal.

In order to not disrupt the democracy of wikipedia, category views would be separate pages unto themselves and wouldn't be shown on article pages. category view pages would be largely separate. categorylinks would not be altered/impacted by this effort in any way. It would be an entirely separate table.

A very useful feature, perhaps offline, would be merging capability. This would allow for individuals to work together, perhaps as editorial boards, to merge their efforts.

An alternative to this would be user pages and currently existing pagelinks with specific nomenclature. Third class citizens, for sure, but it'd be nice to get approval / permission to start doing this. The downside of this approach is that it would likely involve the creation of new categories (the user pages themselves), which is an effort which would be lost to the community.

This might be an outside of wikipedia/wikimedia effort, but I think it'd suffer greatly if not aligned and controlled by wikipedia. Wikiqrdl (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the proposal, nor what the issue is exactly. What does Currently, the utility of categories is largely diminished by the superset approach which overcategorizes to the point that categories can't be used in a productive manner for domain specific tasks mean exactly? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski Just walk the tree/graph of category views from any starting point to any reasonable depth, and you end up traversing almost all of wikipedia. If I were, say, a biologist and I wanted to export and create a zim of all the biology pages on Wikipedia - how would I do that? Wikiqrdl (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wikiqrdl: What is a zim? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Probably ZIM (file format). And the obvious answer to the question is "Ask for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing It was a rhetorical question. The answer is you can't, as there is no useful categorization that would give you all the pages / subcats a biologist would be interested in. Wikiqrdl (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd assume that the answer to "What pages would a biologist be interested in?" would have significant overlap with the answer to "What pages is WP:WikiProject Biology interested in?", so I'd probably start with Category:WikiProject Biology articles.

If you wanted to do this more seriously (i.e., get all the articles for a subject, rather than complaining about the category structure), then I'd suggest looking at the systems used by WP:1.0, because "all the pages a biologist would be interested in" includes pages that aren't about biology, but which are linked in a significant number of biology-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes you can. Go to Export pages and write Biology, under "Add pages from category". Then export the file. You may be also interest in Wikipedia:Database download. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you dumb-down your proposal a little bit? What does "merging capability" mean? What is a "category view"? And so on. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow Take scholarpedia, for example. An admirable effort, if poorly executed along many different dimensions, it's lack of democracy probably being the worst. However, there is a way to integrate efforts like scholarpedia into wikipedia by creating category views. Credible experts can maintain these as well as provide expert guidance on the categories linked to from their views. Experts will recognize each others efforts and see them as equally credible and will want to merge their category views, becoming a board of two or more to control that view. Certain pages will get accepted in their views, some will not. Again - these views will be entirely outside the normal flow of things so as not to disrupt the democracy of wikipedia. Wikiqrdl (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I am so confused. You still haven't explained what a category view is. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

A category view is the same as the categorylinks table, except under semi-protected control and outside the normal flow of wikipedia. As mentioned, it wouldn't allow for the creation of new categories, only the links between the categories to subcats, pages, files, and others as appropriate. Wikiqrdl (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wikiqrdl: I have a sinking feeling we're operating in different universes. Or you're using ChatGPT. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

No, not using chatgpt. Start here, click on links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contents/Categories

eg-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contents/Categories -->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Biology -->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Botany -->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Plants-->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_with_plants Wikiqrdl (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I expect most or all of the people responding here are aware that categories have subcategories within them. What is not clear is what you are asking to do about that. Your request is in some sort of technojargon that is not the common language around here. If you were to say "hey, wouldn't it be nice if we were to have one page that could show you a list of all the articles that were in the Botany category, even if they are buried in a sub-subcategory" (which I'm not assuming is what you're asking for, but is here as an example of clearer communication) then we could address it. But your suggestion is full of nomenclature that may (or may not) mean something to you, but no one reading it has been able to figure out what you're suggesting. Perhaps it would be best if you mocked up a dummy page of what a "category view" would look like, and linked to that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler I mean, proper categorization is 'technojargon'? Wikiqrdl (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you really think 'coats of arms with plants' subcat belongs under biology -> botany? I am failing to see how this is confusing. Wikiqrdl (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

As for terminology, I'm just referencing the wikipedia tables. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Database_layout Wikiqrdl (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

So your complaint is that "coats of arms with plants" is under "biology -> botany"? Because there has been no bloody way of telling that from the blather you've put forth, much less what you believe we should do about that. Do not expect people in a "policy" discussion area to be deep into the database programming aspect of this site; yes, that material would qualify as technojargon in this context. Look around you at the responses your post has generated; does anyone appear to know what it is you want?? You are not communicating clearly in this context. I cannot picture what end result you want.

And since you asked, while I am not in love with the category system here, I am fine with "coats of arms with plants" being a subcategory of "Coats of arms by charge", "Plants and humans" and "Plants in art", all of which seem fitting. And I expect top-level categories to be very loose in their definition and broad in their inclusion.

Again, I suggest if you want people here to understand what you're talking about (not that I'm convinced you've found the right place -- perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) would be more fitting), mock up a version of what you want to see. I do not seem to be alone in your posts not generating a mental picture of what you want. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you looking for a tool like meta:PetScan? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You might be able to automate this, but I think it would be better for Human Beings to do the job. For Categorization to be useful, you really want an expert in the domain to break things down in a way that's useful for practioners. It's like a taxonomy in biology. Wikiqrdl (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Worse, it's like a taxonomy where termites are a type of tree, because Termites is in Wood decomposition is in Wood is in Trees. Some of our subcategories are is-a relationships, but many are not. Certes (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Certes Yeah, though tbf, there are so many people with different needs / requirements / understanding that it's not surprising that categories have become overloaded. Wikiqrdl (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Wikiqrdl: your only edits on Wikipedia are proposing this topic; would you like to give any more context as to what you mean by it? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  @John M Wolfson My general recommendation for anyone interested in this topic is to download the categorylinks table and traverse it from root nodes. You'll quickly see what I mean. It's almost like categorization on wikipeia is largely non-existent. There are some pages which do a very admirable effort of fixing this, like the portals, but they don't provide the hierarchical control that you'd want to productively span a specific domain. Perhaps portals can be enhanced for this purpose, however. Wikiqrdl (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Wikiqrdl: I still don't fully understand what you're talking about, but the historical trend on Wikipedia has been to move away from over-hierarchization and directories; subpages were turned off in the mainspace in 2002, and portals have been on their way out for a while, even being removed (or at least demoted, I don't recall) from the Main Page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure what you mean by 'subpages' were turned off. They are directly accessible by the UI. Eg - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contents/Categories -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Calculus -> subpages. Wikiqrdl (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Wikiqrdl:I said in the mainspace; i.e., the fact that A/B testing is its own page and not a subpage of A, and the fact that all pages with "/" in them and not any colons (so no "Wikipedia:" or "Wikipedia talk:") are their own pages and not subpages. I'll AGF and assume that you had simply skipped over those words when you read my comment (I've done the same a few times), but if you had not – or, worse still, still don't know what I mean – you should edit more to Wikipedia (your only edits are still to this topic) before you make such radical proposals as these. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not radical at all, it's just commonsense. Fortunately, it's already happening in terms of portals. Here's a fantastic example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biology Wikiqrdl (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Not everyone feels that portals are on their way out. The RfC linked above concluded that There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time. The list of portals is still linked from the Main Page, though less prominently than before. Certes (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @CertesPortals are great! They should be enhanced to do more though, not just top level but the entire categorization of their topics. Wikiqrdl (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, if I'm the first person to guess that this proposal was written by artificial intelligence, and it turns out I'm right, do I win anything? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I thought that too. Did you think it before 13.33 UTC? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

OP hasn't edited since ten minutes after proposing this, yet made a couple of minor tweak edits in those ten minutes. 🤔 – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

One particularly useful feature a category view would provide would allow for editors to be alerted whenever a page underneath their view gets edited. This would not be a primary purpose of a view, but more of a natural result of its existence. I recognize similar things like this already exist, but the point is to surface that view that the editor is trying to maintain as it would be useful to others. Escalation paths could be integrated into a category view assuming a board exists to manage it, to allow for division of labor aligned with expertise and responsibilities. Wikiqrdl (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wikiqrdl: As far as I can tell, you still haven't explained what a "category view" is, nor what a "Category links table" is. Here's a (possibly crazy) idea, since everyone here seems to have some degree of difficulty understanding you: explain what you are proposing using only the following words:

• category
• subcategory
• user
• reader
• wikidata
• connect
• read
• article
• page
• sort
• propose
• to, and, with, a, etc.

Worth a try, at least. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37: Thinker78 (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite. Wikiqrdl - How does your proposal differ from WikiData? And also how does this differ from the internet phenomenon of "tagging"? - jc37 22:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the more I look into this, I realize that this is what portals is trying to be. Just needs to more support. Wikiqrdl (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that portals are trying to be what most of the World Wide Web was before search engines became popular. They are certainly not trying to be a database. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, though we already have that with the categorylinks table. I think portals are attempting to overlay a specific purpose built view over a subsection of wikipedia, which is what I'm getting at here. My example: Imagine you are a STEM educator at a university and want to curate a high quality and relevant list of all STEM related wikipedia pages and their organization on wikipedia. @WhatamIdoing Wikiqrdl (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

That might be an imaginative story, but it's not what actually happened. There is not a single page in the entire Portal: namespace that exists because an educator at a university wanted to curate any list of all Wikipedia articles in their subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the intention of wikidata is to allow editors to come up with domain specific categorization of an area of knowledge on Wikipedia. Rather it's about providing a system for managing data across sites and linking them.

It's possible you might be able to repurpose WikiData for the problem of overcategorization on Wikipedia, but I don't immediately see how.

As for tags, yes, it's sort of like that but I don't think you'd include the tags on the pages themselves and the tags would need to be properly nested.

I think the best example on wikipedia right now are the 'portals', though they need to be enhanced to fully categorize their fields of interest. Wikiqrdl (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata is structured data. This includes saying things like: This is a living organism – subtype plant – subtype vascular plant – subtype flowering plant – subtype dicot – and so forth.

Wikidata is all about having everything properly nested down a predictable tree. If your idea of fun is talking about whether something is an instance of X vs a subtype of X, then it's definitely a place you should check out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I asked them, they said no, "Wikidata itself is not organized into categories or tags. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)"

They don't technically use Help:Categories or Tag (metadata), but they do organize information in fine detail according to pre-planned, organized schemas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

They did point me to wiki projects, which is parent to the portals. This looks like what I'm looking for, but the problem is they don't seem that organization in terms of databases. Wikiqrdl (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. A WikiProject is not a "parent to the portals". If you find that portals exist for the same subjects that groups want to work on, it is largely coincidental, and the existence of the group is not causative. Portals were largely created in 2005–2006 by individuals who wanted to run for WP:RFA and needed a "content contribution" that went beyond vandal fighting, not by groups working to improve content for a subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Fair point, however people necessarily organize themselves hierarchically by specialization when grappling with a grandly scoped problem with a knowledge base covering the full range of human knowledge, and that organization would be a useful category view. Wikiqrdl (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Someone on the technical pump page pointed me to this - the wikiprojects tag the talk pages. So, I can get all the wikiproject science pages that way. Will try this and see how well it goes. Wikiqrdl (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If you're technically skilled, then the mw:ORES topics might be handy. However, it's unclear how much longer that will be supported. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

#Til that this is accessible through search. See Help:Searching#articletopic:. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject Foo members

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject Foo members. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: TFA fair use lead image protection

Which level of Upload-protection should be applied to Wikipedia-hosted images that appear in the lead section of an article appearing as Today's Featured Article from the day before it appears on the Main Page through the day after?

• Option 1: No change (which defaults to the normal requirement that image uploaders be autoconfirmed)
• Option 2: Extended-confirmed protection (500 edits/30 days)
• Option 3: Full-protection (only administrators)

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)^{Clarified per below 14:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)}

Background (TFA images)

Commons-hosted TFA lead images normally appear on the Main Page and are thereby subject to cascading full protection, but Wikipedia-hosted images are not, and have previously generally remained unprotected. In a sidebar at the recent RfC on article semi-protection, editors raised the issue that these have been subject to vandalism and may warrant heightened protection. There was some possible confusion about the current situation and available options, however, so after discussion with the closer, this RfC seeks to clarify consensus about how we should deal with these images. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Survey (TFA images)

Option 2 as per Sdkb, it seems like a happy medium between preventing vandalism while not locking out most well-meaning editors. I suspect most editors experienced enough to do image alterations are going to be extended-confirmed already. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 per Sdkb and SilverTiger2. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 2. I cannot conceive of really any instances where a very new editor would need to upload a replacement image in a currently featured article, and if on some exceptionally rare occasion that would be needed, they can still suggest it on the talk page (which for a TFA will generally be quite heavily watched). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 3. I'm having a hard time coming up with any situation where one would need to change a photo that that is so urgent it can't wait until after the article is on the main page, yet not urgent enough to have been fixed before that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff, I don't think the situation would ever be "urgent". But I'm also pretty sure my example of cropping out an unneeded border is something I've done for a TFA sometime in the past, not just a hypothetical. Yes, it's always possible to wait or to make an edit request, but those are barriers that might make someone decide not to bother or cause them to forget. That's not a huge effect, sure, but when ECP would eliminate 99% of the vandalism risk, it's being weighed against a very small downside. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb I was thinking more things like "wait, this image is a copyvio, and somehow no one realized this until the photo hit the front page." (I guess in this unlikely hypothetical situation someone reached out.) But even then, I don't see how option 3 would prevent something that needs to be changed from getting changed. Something like a border isn't a need-to-change. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 I am surprised to learn that Commons images are protected, as there have been incidents in the past when they have been deleted or replaced with pornographic images. It is hard to think of a reason why an image must be replaced while the article is at TFA unless it has been vandalised. Otherwise it always wait another day. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

c:User:KrinkleBot protects images that are displayed on the Main Page and Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow (and two other pages to support POTD and ITN). Those make the image displayed on the Main Page itself protected, and usually that's also the lead image in the article. Sometimes, though, a crop is uploaded or an alternate image is chosen that fits better in the Template:TFA box, and I expect instances like that are when you saw the image displayed in the article vandalized. —Cryptic 01:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 as first choice, but Option 3 is acceptable. I think it's reasonably possible that someone might want to provide a replacement image (maybe slightly better centering or something) and that doing so would be an actual improvement, at the article's highest-ever profile, so I lean toward option 2. I think at least option 2 is necessary, because of the high "attractive nuisance" quality of front-page-featured content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 as the featured article and its images have already undergone close scrutiny. Discussion prior to changes would be a good idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 Fears about items locked-down are overblown. This sort of temporary protection is needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 2. There is always a tradeoff between deterring vandalism and trying to open the door to good-faith contributions. Even restricting to admins will never get us to 100% protection, and LTAs will always seek the most attractive nuisance opportunity available. The question then becomes, how many edits/tenure do we need to require to make it an unattractive option for LTAs? Is it 10 edits/4 days? Clearly not, which is why we're having this discussion. Is it 10,000 edits/2 years (the rough floor for admin consideration)? I'd argue that that's clearly overkill — I would trust that a user with 8,000 edits/a year's tenure who is trying to edit an image on an FTA article is far more likely to be contributing in good faith than to be an LTA throwing away the dozens of hours of work it took to reach that point in order to commit a momentary act of vandalism that'll be quickly reverted. So where is the happy medium? 500/30 seems about right. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 ECP protection is a good level. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 seems sufficient, it's significant enough of a hurdle that drive by vandals (and even determined trolls) are unlikely to surpass it, and it still allows experienced editors to edit when needed. --Jayron32 12:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 by SMcCandlish's reasoning. HenryMP02 (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 per Sdkb and SMcCandlish. Hog Farm _Talk 01:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Option 2. Note that option 3 places extra burden on our often overtaxed administrators. Even if it rarely happens, there's the administrative/cognitive burden of it being a possible thing that may be needed. —siroχo 03:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 Seems like the most reasonable way forward. Pecopteris (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 Protection is definitely needed, but full protection seems like overkill. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (TFA images)

Pings to participants in the sidebar and the closer: @Hemiauchenia, Xaosflux, ToBeFree, Kusma, John M Wolfson, SWinxy, Chris troutman, Rhododendrites, Dylnuge, Hog Farm, Hawkeye7, Curbon7, SilverTiger12, Gnomingstuff, Edward-Woodrow, XOR'easter, Casualdejekyll, Freedom4U, Blaze Wolf, Teratix, and CaptainEek: {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm personally still unsure about how to !vote here, although I'm leaning toward option 2. I would find it helpful to hear from vandalism experts who can comment more on whether we've seen a pattern of abuse here beyond just the Playboy incident and if it seems to be just LTAs or also others. I'd also find it helpful to hear more about the relative ease and disruptiveness of uploading new versions of a file vs. just uploading and inserting a new file (e.g. the caching problem). From my current understanding, extended-confirmed protection seems like a happy medium. It's what we use to protect lots of other sensitive/highish-profile things by imposing enough of a barrier that almost all LTAs find it easier to go disrupt something else (a marginal win for us to the extent that their next-best option is lower-visibility). At the same time, it would allow experienced non-admin editors to directly make simple changes to photos, such as cropping out borders or fixing contrast issues. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not an expert on this particular type of vandalism but my understanding is it has been going on in some form since the early 2000s (when shock images like goatse were more common on the Internet in general). Gnomingstuff (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think there is some confusion about protection, again. For example, todays FA img includes File:Lost in Translation poster.jpg. A file may have 3 different types of protection: EDIT, MOVE, UPLOAD. Each of these may have the same or different levels of protection. EDIT only deals with the file's description, which would be minimally visible to readers. MOVE could be a problem as it it could break the file, UPLOAD would allow replacing the image with another one (without having to edit the article). — xaosflux ^Talk 01:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  So the real matter for discussion is what is the type of disruption that you want to deal with, and are willing to trade off protection vs the ability for someone to improve a file. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Upload protection is the main one and implied by the options as that's the one which has actually been an issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, I think what we're !voting on above is upload-protection, although I'd be fine seeing move-protection raised to match it (moving also requires autoconfirmation for any file currently). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Right, I don't understand "Option 3" in this survey. Upload protection is not a binary of "administrators only" or no protection, it can be applied to different levels, so you could have, for example, ECP-only-upload protection if you wanted. Legoktm (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: I came here to say the same things as Xaosflux and Legoktm, only to find that they had already said them. To clarify, there are three types of protection - edit, move and upload (a fourth type, create protection, is available on non-existent pages in place of the other three); and English Wikipedia provides five levels of protection - Allow all users, Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access, Require extended confirmed access, Require template editor access and Require administrator access; and for any given page, each of the four prot types may be set independently to any of the five prot levels. The RfC also comes in "blind", it lacks context - although this is covered in the Background subsection, remember that it won't appear in the RfC listings unless mentioned before the first timestamp. So I think that it would be best if you clarified the RfC statement; I suggest four amendments:

  1. Add an introductory phrase like Following the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Automatically semi-protect Today's Featured Article, which level of protection ...
  2. Amend Which level of protection should be applied ... to read Which level of Upload-protection should be applied ...
  3. Amend option 1 to remove the text to upload images, this now being redundant to the preceding question
  4. Amend option 3 to read Full protection (administrators only)

  Option 2 can be left alone. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  The purpose of the background section is to provide context, so I think that's where context should go, but if you feel the background section is sufficiently neutral, feel free to remove the initial signature so that it gets transcluded as well (hopefully we can trust people to read more than just the transcluded bit before !voting, though). Happy to make the other changes. The confusion there is partially stemming from Wikipedia:Protection policy, where "upload protection" is listed alongside things like "extended-confirmed protection," and also begins Upload-protected files, or more technically, fully upload-protected files, cannot be replaced with new versions except by an administrator, thus blurring the difference between types and levels. I'd urge some reorganization of that page so that the current "Types of protection" level-2 heading is split into "Types of protection" and "Levels of protection" to make the distinction clear. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm still indifferent. I have no real opinion on this. I see both the positives and negatives of this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 02:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Use of Subpages for Temporary Storage

There are a few MFDs in progress that raise an issue about the use of subpages. The originator has what appears to be data on future hurricanes, that is either intended for use as test data, or is alternate history. They have been nominated for deletion. The originator, User:Sria-72, says:

This was never intended to be an article in any way, and it is just a page for me to paste stuff for me to keep track off.

So is the use of subpages for temporary storage permitted, or is this web hosting? Also, if this is test data, where and how can test data be kept without violating Wikipedia guidelines?

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

If the pages are in the user's subpage, and the purpose is to assist with productive work on the encyclopaedia in any way (including test data) then they're always going to be acceptable. If this is the purpose but the pages are elsewhere, then they should be moved to userspace (or WikiProject space if it's a collaborative thing). If the purpose is something else but they are an established editor then we allow a bit of leeway for stuff in userspace as long as it isn't excessive, a copyvio, attacking someone, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

We're talking about userspace subpages, so that's governed by WP:UPYES and WP:UPNOT (and I think falls under the latter). I think a more precise way to frame the issue is that it's about relevance to Wikipedia, not strictly "temporary storage". DFlhb (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

If someone is an active contributor, they're WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. At that point, who cares what kind of experimentation they do in their userspace? That's what we want people to use userspace for -- experimenting, poking, organizing, demoing, playing with style/markup, engaging in goofy social stuff, etc. Nobody will ever come across it except for those looking for makework. Most of us who have been around a while have some manner of silliness buried on a userpage somewhere. What's the point in deleting it? Perhaps more importantly, what's the point in creating a formalized discussion to sap community time to determine whether or not to delete it? The only problem is when people use Wikipedia with no intention of actually contributing constructively. That happens more than you'd think with alternate history and hypothetical reality shows, and in those cases there's no reason to retain them (although it's possible a block + blank is simply more appropriate). In other words, if they're WP:HERE, find something better to do than policing silly stuff in their userspace; if they're WP:NOTHERE, blank, block, delete, or whatever. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• I collegially disagree with Rhododendrites in that I think some highly active contributors aren't here to build an encyclopaedia at all. There can be times when it's right to take a hard look at someone's userspace. But those times are exceptions, and MFDing a page in someone else's userspace is an extraordinarily intrusive thing to do that's rarely justified except when dealing with disruptive editors. In the cases we're considering here, I feel that the userspace police would be well advised to find something more productive to do.—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make, but if it helps to clarify, you can interpret the first part of my statement as simply "If someone is WP:HERE...". In the case that started this, the user has more than a hundred mainspace edits. That shows they're not just here for userspace nonsense. Granted, they have more userspace edits than mainspace edits, so there's an argument for it being a borderline case, but per WP:AGF we should be giving the benefit of the doubt in borderline cases, especially when the "harm" is so, so, so trivial. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

    I would add that "rarely justified except when dealing with disruptive editors" isn't really it, because the content itself can be disruptive aside from any direct activity/behavior of the user, and WP:NOT policy applies regardless of disruptive effects anyway. That said, I agree with "If ... the purpose is to assist with productive work on the encyclopaedia in any way (including test data) then they're always going to be acceptable", aside from my caveat above about content that is disruptive by its own nature. The reason we have a userspace in the first place is for "storing data" that is directly pertinent to our encyclopedic work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that constructive use of one's user space should be encouraged. Keeping wikitext markup as writing aids in user space is a legitimate approach. Care should be taken that the wikitext is formatted in a way to clarify that it is not a Wikipedia article, with disclaimers as necessary. I'm experiencing déjà vu; maybe I've written this already in another discussion, but have forgotten where. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• Generally speaking, as long as someone is substantially participating outside of userspace, and the userspace material is not in and of itself disruptive or inappropriate (BLP violations, copyvios, promotion, harassment/antagonism of other editors, etc.), I think people should be given very wide latitude as to what they do in their own userspace. The purposes of userspace could be brainstorming, fooling around with markup to see what happens, recording some things you might one day find useful, writing draft edits, or anything of that nature. Obviously, that, like anything, could be taken to an extreme where it would be disruptive, but that bar should be set very high. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• Leave them alone agreed with Rhododentrites and Seraphimblade. Egregious content should be reported, but generally we should leave editors alone if they’re WP:HERE. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• I more or less agree with the other opinions above that state we should be leaving userspace subpages alone. One really has to go out of their way to find them, particularly if they were not newly created or have been sitting around for a long time. I do not believe that's necessarily applicable to the specific discussions that Robert McClenon referenced in the original post, but it would be nice if we could rein in future userspace MfDs and limit only to those highly egregious cases which indicate the users are definitely and unmistakably WP:NOTHERE. Personally, I agree that people play very fast and loose with WP:UPNOT with an unspoken degree of latitude given to active contributors, most likely because those are "victimless crimes" unlike long-time content creators engaging in (and getting away with) rank incivility. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• My thoughts are along the same lines as Rhododendrites, Seraphimblade, and WaltClipper. If an editor is here to build an encyclopedia, and with the exceptions Seraphimblade describes, I agree that people should be given very wide latitude as to what they do in their own userspace — in other words, leave them alone per Shushugah. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 08:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• All the user's subpages that I checked appear to be plausible temporary storage for material that may be relevant to building the encyclopedia, and I did not see any obvious reason to delete any of them. None of them looked anything like approaching web hosting or any other violation of user page guidelines. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD needs to be taken seriously

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.

---

According to MOS:LEAD, the general rule of thumb is "four well composed paragraphs" in the lead of an article. Unfortunately I have come across too many examples where it is not followed at all. I'm not talking about certain big articles (like countries, wars) that have five or even six paragraphs (sometimes it's hard to avoid), but I'm talking about shorter articles that would have several short paragraphs in the lead, and often things that shouldn't be in the lead.

I don't have an example off the top of my head but I do remember an article about a software I read recently. The first paragraph was alright but the second and third had so much detail like 'version 2.4 was released in 2015 followed by...', things that really should be in a History section below for example - and even worse, extra one sentence paragraphs that get added about a very small or trivial detail that absolutely shouldn't belong in a lead.

Since MOS:LEAD has not been policed, we've come to the point where a ton of articles have this really bad formatting. It's especially more important now in the mobile age to get this right because the first paragraph must be fit for mobile view, where it appears first and above an infobox. The worst examples I came across were articles (that were not 'big' topics) that had as many as 7 lead paragraphs, and which most of them were one or two lines. It looks very un-professional.

Thus we should make more effort to stamp this out - beginners of Wikipedia see this and therefore follow the trend. So it's up to us to enforce the MOS:LEAD rule and make article leads look professional. Don't let the quality of Wikipedia article drop! Sparatys (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not treat the MOS as a set of absolute rules that must be followed at all times. That is not what the MOS is, it is writing advice in almost all cases, including this one. Lots of uneccesary disruption and arguing in the past stemmed from people trying to treat the MOS as the law of the land. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's forget about this rule for a minute then and think about the quality and professional writing style. Too many articles perform shockingly bad in that regard as a result of one-line paragraphs et al. --Sparatys (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

1. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. (...) You can find this text on the top of the page you have linked.
2. All Wikipedia-editors are volunteers, they do not get paid for their work. You can not demand professional work from non-paid non-professionals.

The Banner talk 20:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe 'professional' wasn't the correct term to use. I'm not a professional at most topics I write about, but I do know how to lead an article that looks well, e.g. without messy one-line paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparatys (talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no actual rule against one-sentence paragraphs, except when school children are being taught how to write a paragraph that contains both a topic sentence and details that relate to it. I think smashing unrelated sentences together in one long, rambling paragraph is messy writing, even if it's more visually pleasing on some screens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think one of the big problems is what should be 8 paragraphs jamed into 4 paragraphs that is a result of this rule of thumb. Moxy- 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, so you'd likely do more good cleaning up the articles you're familiar with than talking about what other people ought to do. That said, I think that MOSLEAD's suggestion about paragraphs is missing the point. Adding or subtracting a line break to make the same sentences be "four" or "five" paragraphs isn't as helpful as writing a decent summary. We talked last year about changing it to a suggested word count. It would probably still be a better approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to create a new speedy deletion criteria for redirect that linking to the page itself

WP:SELFRED states that "Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found". However, this rule, in sporting event articles atleast from my experience, doesn't stop user from creating these redirects. At the ongoing 2022 Asian Games (postponed to 2023 due to the pandemic), these redirects are linked from that page and can be found here by the format [Sport/Country] at the 2022 Asian Games. For lack of better speedy deletion criteria, I have tried to tag these kind of redirects with CSD G8 in 2018 Asian Games articles, then some users replied to my talk page (here and here), which they basically said that these redirects are "valid" and I should go to WP:RFD. I have asked this at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_72#Speedy_deletion_for_circular_redirect_(WP:SELFRED) with example of 2014 Asian Para Games redirects Pages that link to "2014 Asian Para Games" - Wikipedia, but nothing changes. WP:REDLINK basically states that red link encourage article creation and discourage to "kill" red links by redirect.

Should a new speedy deletion criteria regarding these redirects be created? Hddty (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the problem in this case is with the links, not the redirects. – Joe (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly this. The redirects are harmless in themselves and possibly even useful. The issue here is that the links in the article should not be there. Remove the links and the problem is solved without deleting the redirect for no reason. oknazevad (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

In WP:SELFRED: linking to a title that redirects to a section or anchor within the article [..] is acceptable, so in your case, it might have been better to change the redirect target to section #Sports. And also, In addition to readability benefits, when such redirects are marked with {{R with possibilities}}, they have the potential to become independent articles in the future. I don't see a point in deleting these redirects if there's no harm in them existing. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at WT:CSD, where you should provide evidence that many of these redirects routinely get deleted at WP:RFD. —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

As Kusma notes, this discussion is in the wrong place. However before you start a discussion in the right place (WT:CSD) read WP:NEWCSD first and explain how your proposal will meet all four of the requirements there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

A-class review discussion at WT:ASSESS

I've started a discussion on A-class reviews at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#A-class review follow-up. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "rearrangement of text" from definition of minor edit.

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.

---

It is currently suggested on Help:Minor_edit to mark rearrangement of text without modification of the content as a minor edit. I am suggesting removing this, because content prominence management is more controversial than ever before with only the lede showing up by default on mobile browsing and the desire of interested editors to control prominence of contents. The location of text within article can often be a highly contentious dispute even if the meaning doesn't change and I am suggesting no longer recommending rearrangement of text as minor. Graywalls (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - per Graywalls' statement, the location of text can be significant. Also not that the "rearrangement of text" is only mentioned in the "rule of thumb" last paragraph, but not mentioned in the preceding descriptive text. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Assuming you're referring to the last paragraph of the lead, the issue is that the rule of thumb mentioned there isn't restricted – as it should be – to non-contentious edits. Suggest adding "non-contentious" to the opening words, so that the sentence reads A good rule of thumb is that non-contentious edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content should be flagged as minor edits. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  The original phrase "rearrangement of text without modification of the content" seems self-contradictory, as one cannot "rearrange" something without modifying it. The original wording is nonsensical. I presume what was intended, was "rearrangement of text without modification of the meaning". Mathglot (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think it is intended to mean "without changing any non-space characters". But, regardless, the whole page is so unclear it's not surprising that editors disagree about how to use the feature. I Oppose the proposal as written and also any broadening the scope of minor edits to "without modification of the meaning". But I Support a collaborative effort to re-write the page entirely. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Based on subsequent arguments, I've changed my view to "throw it all away", and I've voted for that separately below. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support — There are quite a few edit wars over the placement of text. A particularly prevalent example is when text is moved in and out of the lead section. Zero^talk 09:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. In addition to my proposal above, it would help a lot if it were to be stated clearly somewhere on the page that moving text between the lead and the body of an article, in either direction, never counts as a minor edit. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't have to involve movement between body and lede to be major. There are multiple ways within the body to move things around so flattering items are placed prominently while unflattering things are buried in the haystack. An example of reputation management edit by a suspected public relations editor is changing the arbitration break, such as changing from 2010-2020, 2020 to current: to 2010-2015, 2015-current in order to make unflattering things go away from the latest history section. Graywalls (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as per MichaelMaggs's concerns. While there are certainly contentious movings of text, an awful lot of what I see is things like fixing the order of a alphabetized or date-based list, where small errors are common and the minor status is appropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Apparently having information in the second section of the lead instead of the first sentence can be equivalent to covering for rapistsTalk:Roman Polanski: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia and protecting convicted child molesters/rapistsTalk:Roman Polanski: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, so it is clearly not minor. There can be an exception for rearranging alphabetically, by date, or similar neutral criteria. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: I would not be opposed to getting rid of the entire minor edit system as proposed by others. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The purpose of minor edits is to mark changes that have negligible chance of creating controversy. While rearranging text might be controversial in some cases, in many cases, it's indeed a minor edit. Moving content into or out of the lead probably shouldn't be minor, but moving a clearly misplaced paragraph between sections is a textbook minor edit. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I have seen huge edit wars over “minor” edits. Thus, there are times when I think we should scrap the entire system of classifying edits as major or minor. It isn’t serving it’s intended purpose.

Then I remember how many times I have seen bad faith editors attempt to “hide” major changes by marking them as minor, and I realize that the marking is useful in a way NOT intended - it tells me that I need to pay EXTRA attention to any edit so marked. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Took the words right out of my mouth. The only time in practice that "minor" edits can be ignored is when they are performed by the small fraction of long-standing editors one has learned to never play this type of game. Zero^talk 05:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, editors who are working professional in the capacity of client marketing communications and prominence management are excellent gamers of system. Graywalls (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support If editors are "fixing the order of a alphabetized or date-based list, where small errors are common", then sure, mark those edits as minor; but the 'good rule of thumb' sentence shouldn't state so plainly that "rearrangement of text without modification of the content should be flagged as minor edits" (emphasis mine), since possible WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT violations will be marked as "minor". Per WP:NPOV: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including ... prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements.... Some1 (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (but support potential rewrite) First of all, if the major/minor distinction is important, then the mobile platform should support it. Second, when I rehab bad machine translation, word order is a big part of what I am fixing. Usually this is within the same sentence mind you, but I think there aren't enough use cases in the proposal, and it *is* "rearranging text". Third, I too have seen SEO-like efforts to get certain things in the lede, and support specifically excluding moves into and out of the lede from being called minor. Those are not minor edits. If it comes to rearranging sentence order or paragraph order, at best this is a rewrite for organization and probably not minor either, but that's discussable, I guess. Really though, if the mobile platform doesn't need it why does anyone else? Especially as it's so often abused. Elinruby (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If in doubt, it should always be a non-minor edit. Not being able to flag as minor is not an issue like those who edit for PR purposes that intentionally utilize minor edits to evade scrutiny and reduce the attention their edits get. We're increasing seeing things like name drops, office locations, as well as awards/accolades/honors in lede, because these are often things article subject wants to highlight and be part of the first impression. Graywalls (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand the problem and when I saw it, it was a determined attempt to insert into the lede a claim being actively touted by Russian propaganda outlets, so yes, I understand that SEO is often at work with these. My suggestion however is still to rewrite the wording, but in a different way rather than making a blanket prohibition.

As far as the mobile platform goes, I also get it that the stereotype of mobile users is not good and may in some cases be justified. I just...see so much drama over this on the dramah boards that I can't help but ask why the 'minor edit" distinction is needed. Of course you and I know that it avoids wasting editor time, but that's not a priority on en-wikipedia, is it? But don't let my cynicism hijack your thread. I think the wording should change, just not the way you are proposing. Are you specifically interested in the lede moves, or can you enunciate another situation where this is a problem? Elinruby (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose but I think Mathglot got it right to suggest, "rearrangement of text without modification of the meaning". When I read the text in question, I see it as rearranging within the same sentence, like moving, "spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text" to "formatting changes, rearrangement of text, or spelling corrections". I would mark that as minor. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  So you'd support it with re-write? Graywalls (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  If I'm reading the room right, you correctly identified a problem and it seems like changing "content" to "meaning" in the sentence is a no-brainer that addresses most of the issue. Removing "rearrangement" is split. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support I had always taken "without modification of the content" to mean changes to white space. Would oppose an expansion to "meaning". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, but alter the text to "rearrangement of text without modification of the meaning" to repair the nonsense. Even though I would probably only mark it "minor" when done within the same sentence and had considered recommending inserting "...in the same sentence", on reflection I think that's too restrictive, and it would be better to leave it out and let such things be decided by consensus on a case by case basis, as long as it's clear that the slightest change to meaning means it is not minor. Mathglot (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Throw the whole system away It's my experience that this topic always causes more heat than light. There are some examples above about how minor edits may draw even more scrutiny, and I remember this entertaining ANI thread where someone got yelled at for marking page moves as minor, when it turns out that MediaWiki always marks page moves as minor. And Twinkle automatically marks revision restorations rollbacks are marked as minor, which is probably one of the least minor edits one can make. Ironically, I just did a bunch of copyediting on an article yesterday and the only edit that I did mark minor was rearrangement of text, so idk. If people still really think this is valuable, then in my imaginary techno-utopia, a bot would perform semantic analysis on each edit and do the marking for us. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've long since stopped marking anything I do as minor. I know it's just one click on the checkbox, but even that minimal amount of effort doesn't seem justified by the pointlessness of bothering. RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  There was a discussion about getting rid of "minor" last March/April, but reactions were mixed. Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Twinkle doesn't mark my restore edits as minor, and my configuration shouldn't be anything special. See here. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're right; I meant the default rollback functionality that rollbackers have, which I erroneously conflated with Twinkle's simulation of such. It's documented on the rollback page that these actions are all marked as minor; example here. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Throw whole system away. I've brought this idea up before at Idea lab. There is a sizeable fraction of editors when asked who are ready to scrap the whole idea of a minor edits and that's very promising because as I explained in the thread, it is a software design mistake. Unfortunately, removal of features in a community project faces an uphill battle because there's something like "feature inertia" where once a feature exists it's hard to remove it without upsetting some people. But overall I think the editors in favor of keeping the minor edit feature made pretty weak arguments why. Since the idea that the minor edit box should be removed is still novel idea and not often brought up, I think the concept needs to be seeded around more before any action is likely to occur; otherwise, it's too shocking a change and there'd be many people opposing by knee-jerk opposes or very hollow "I use it" arguments. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Jason Quinn, on the assumption that getting rid of it isn't possible, would you be interested in a system that restricts is availability to more experienced editors? Alternatively, we could request a config change so that minor edits aren't hidden by default. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Even if it's limited to experienced editors, it needs to be a revokable privilege for them as well. But just doing away with it may be better. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, edits marked as hide from scrutinyminor should not be hidden by default. —Kusma (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: No. I don't think it should be restricted to experienced users. The problem with the minor edit checkbox is fundamental: It's just an ill-defined semantically-relative concept. Even when well-used "correctly" by an experienced editor, the edits they mark as minor my not be viewed as such by others. The minor edit checkbox is mostly the illusion of a feature and does very little useful. This idea of limiting its availability would make it less prevalent on the project and perhaps slightly increase its value when used but not solve any of the core issues it has. If anything I fear such a change would just prevent its eventual removal. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  The main use seems to be hiding simple reversions from watchlists. (I have that setting disabled, so I still see them.) There seem to be some people who appreciate this, but it might be possible to hide the button for manual reversions and still allow it for bots or Twinkle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support – Even moves within paragraphs establish context that wasn't there before, and such edits can stand to be scrutinized by other editors, even though I'm usually making such moves in articles that have real coherency problems and don't provoke POV disputes with such edits. My edits are limited to being marked as minor when they are bot-assisted, such as with JWB, which seems to be a convenient use for the tag. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the definition of "minor edit" should be made to conform to reality: A "minor edit" is one where the "minor edit" checkbox has been ticked. I don't think this is a useful feature, but we should not waste any time on it. —Kusma (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Throw whole system away. The cognitive load costs of the system outweighs the minor benefits (pun not intended). It's really only marginally useful when filtering the contributions of a non-bot editor you already trust who also happens to make a lot of minor edits, which does happen but is very rare. I agree with some of the discussion above making the ability to mark edits as minor a grantable and revocable privelege. —siroχo 09:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Throw the whole system away The minor edit thing has always been pointless, and a pointless source of drama, for all of Wikipedia's history. It's only purpose is to give people a reason to attack people who don't follow arcane and pointless rules about its use. If it didn't exist, nothing bad would happen except that people would stop having a reason to complain about its misuse. --Jayron32 11:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Throw whole system away Per above. I also don't agree with the idea that the minor edit system isn't harmless—its use is often the source of pointless debate, it's used as a way for disruptive editors to escape scrutiny, and is a constant source of confusion for new editors. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Throw whole system away Minor edits are too often used to try to conceal changes that prove controversial. Agree with Jayron32 and Freedom4U.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Throw whole system away. Minor edits as a concept have passed their usefulness. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Throw whole system away. I commented above, but I might as well do the bolded-bulleted thing to make it official. I've also started a thread at WP:VPT#Deprecating minor edits?. RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Throw whole system away. I initially suggested a revision to the text, but based on later arguments (now supported by five admins), I agree it's best to get rid of the whole thing. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: The title of this section is Proposal to remove "rearrangement of text" from definition of minor edit. If full deprecation is to be proposed, that probably needs to be set up as a proper RFC with a better title, and with pings to the editors who contributed to the March/April discussion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Throw whole system away. It is so common for those not editing in good faith to mark an edit as minor when it is not, that most edits need to be looked at if they are from an unfamiliar editor. Also, many honest mistakes are made in classifying edits as regular or minor. The few times it can be useful do not justify the overhead of the system. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Throw the whole system away. If I've ever used this feature myself, it hasn't been for a very long time. It doesn't impact the likelihood of me taking a closer look one whit, either.~TPW 14:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 48#Completely remove the idea of a "minor edit" Edits marked m are frequently not. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Minor edits are used by bots to suppress pings in talk page edits, and of course that functionality shouldn't be removed. (This was brought up at the VPT thread, but bears mentioning here.) — Qwerfjkltalk 21:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  There's a bot flag that should be used for that purpose. RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, I was mistaken. As a bot op I should really remember this stuff. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  @RoySmith: There's no check in the code allowing the bot flag to suppress the page edit notifications, there's only the check for minor edits and the nominornewtalk user right. Anomie⚔ 23:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• I support attaching weights to the feature and throwing it in the ocean, but really this should be being addressed with a full, dedicated RfC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose But listen, guys, you can't propose a major change that affects hundreds of thousands of users in a non-RfC that has not been advertised anywhere. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  People can propose anything they want anywhere. It will need to go through a proper RfC to be enacted, but that doesn't mean people can't talk about it here. RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Is there more that needs to be done before such an RFC? If not, then why not have one? Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Once the RfC is opened, please advertise this in as many places as possible. The vast majority of editors don't have the Village pumps on their watchlists, or even Centralized discussion and whatnot. Doing away with minor edits — a terrible idea, but I'll save it for the RfC — is a huge change (akin to the Vector 2022 catastrophe) that literally affects almost everyone who edits Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Given that it would necessitate (small) software (setting?) changes it might be a good idea to check in with the people at MediaWiki (or whoever is responsible for which features to use on a particular wiki). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Random person no 362478479, see WP:VPT#Deprecating minor edits? RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• While I get that some people don't find it useful, others do. An RFC to enable editors to opt out of the minor edit button process would likely succeed. If we had that then those who see no benefit in it could opt out, and those of us who make lots of minor edits could continue to do so without some people knowing whether they were flagged as minor or not. ϢereSpielChequers 19:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment It is true that "throw it away" discussion is more general than the title of this topic so it isn't appropriate for any action being taken on minor edits outside the scope of the "rearrangement of text" issue. "Throw it all away" is also a change that requires deep thought and consideration by the devs. The reason the discussion widened is because this topic itself is the kind of discussion created by the confusing nature of what a "minor" edit is. In that sense, the OP's discussion could be viewed as evidence that minor edits have a deeper issue going on. But several things should be pointed out: the arguments against minor edit aren't a purely English wiki problem, it applies to all languages. So ideally no English language only patch-up is made. This deserves a very wide discussion. Applying CSS tweaks and stuff on a single wiki isn't not solving the problem but sweeping it under the rug. Clearly, a much bigger discussion should be had. I'm also reading some of the technical comments being made at VPT and those comments are also very valuable. I think what this thread is on course to establish is that A) there is very strong sentiment against "minor" edits, B) the arguments in favor of keeping minor edits are fairly weak, and C) a serious RFC on removing "minor edits" is justifiable and should be viewed seriously by more than just the English wiki community (eg by other languages, devs and WMF). Jason Quinn (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  As an ex-dev, removing a check box is not something that "requires deep thought and consideration by the devs"; in fact, it's the kind of easy learning task one might give to a new dev to learn the wmf environment. Maybe you meant, "requires deep thought by the business unit", but I would disagree with that, too. As far as, "the arguments against minor edit aren't a purely English wiki problem", yes, they are. Or at least, any decision to remove/restrict/alter them at en-wiki is purely an en-wiki issue; we have our rules, other Wikipedias have their rules (other than a common ToU). When one foreign Wikipedia decided to ban all edits from IP users, that was a decision made by consensus there, and implemented by the devs; it didn't affect en-wiki, or anybody else. What we do here at en-wiki about minor edits need not, should not, and I daresay will not affect any other wiki. Mathglot (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Deprecating_minor_edits? for the technical aspects. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• The minor edit flag is a courtesy feature. If someone is misusing it, call them out. If you're not interested in it, ignore it. We've had it for 22 years and if it wasn't useful, it would have been removed long before. The energy on display in this discussion (and several nearly identical ones before it) from the detractors would be better spent on lobbying the developers to add a preference for not seeing the minor edit marker.  — Scott • talk 00:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  ↑↑ This. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Calling people out on it -- the policing of minor edits -- consumes some reasonable amount of effort, whether it is teaching newbies about what a minor edit is or trying to turn someone over for the abuse of the system. I have yet to see any assertion of an actual usefulness here that is larger than the effort this drains. The idea that we would have gotten rid of something in place is a bit utopian at heart, and doesn't reflect that it takes building up a certain energy to get rid of it. If gotten rid of, people would still be able to type MINOR EDIT in their edit comment if they thought that was important to announce. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  "A bit utopian at heart" is the original spirit of this entire project! Minor edits were invented for the WikiWikiWeb, which I used to edit before Wikipedia existed. At the time (really sounding like Grandpa Simpson here) edit summaries and diffs didn't exist, so it was a useful way of telling your colleagues that the edit you'd just made wasn't something which would require much effort to assess. It was a small community that operated on a lot of trust. That flag got picked up when the UseModWiki engine was developed, which also implemented edit summaries, and then both of those were carried over into MediaWiki. At that point, the flag became very much like you describe, a way of saying "MINOR EDIT" but without having to type it every time. The effort of "policing" it, though, shouldn't be any more than the effort of reviewing any other edit in the course of your activity. Every edit gets reviewed, either immediately by a bot or filter, or eventually by a person. It's a person's job to decide whether an editor was truthful in their summary. We've all seen people write "fix typo" but actually add bad content, or similar. That's a problem which requires intervention. If anything, the minor edit flag gives people who are going to do that a way to make their bad behavior even more obvious. When you consider the flag as just a shortcut for typing some extra words in the summary, the apparent extra effort of reviewing it evaporates. I spend a lot of time looking through article histories for things - being able to scroll past a lot of minor edits and find significant changes is useful. When you look at it that way, the minor edit flag is a little helper for the people who come after you, much like an edit summary is in general.  — Scott • talk 10:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  I also edited WikiWikiWeb back in the day, and they thought that camel case was a great idea. And ironically, that project became a hub for a software management philosophy where suggestions like "well it's been around for decades so let's just keep it" would fall short. This discussion is about how the flag is used now. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• If you think the ability to mark an edit as minor is harmful or even just useless, then you think it means more than it does. It doesn't, of course, mean that the edit itself was indeed minor. You can choose to trust that an edit marked minor was actually minor or not, the same as you may or may not trust an edit summary that says "Fixed typo". What you can be sure of, though, is that its author asserted that it was minor. And that piece of information is still useful regardless of whether you know whether the content of the edit was indeed minor; for example, when compiling a list of authors for attribution. (In particular, whether the minor flag was asserted is one of the few pieces of information the WMF makes publicly, if inconveniently, available for deleted edits.) I'll certainly grant, though, that there's excellent reason to disable the option to hide minor edits from watchlists and recent changes as being fundamentally misleading. —Cryptic 03:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  If many of us recognize that many people think it means something other than what it means, and it's this up-front feature presented to every editor on every desktop edit, I feel that's indicative of a problem. —siroχo 10:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  It is useful to know if an editor cannot or will not appropriately use minor. Misunderstanding such a simple thing is an indication that further investigation is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Right, if you guys want to get rid of edit "indicators", you should start with the canned edit summaries in the mobile app that newbies abuse all the time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Right; if you provide convenience features, there's always going to be someone who uses them wrongly. That's unfortunately just a fact of life for some reason. Sometimes you just have to go knock on your neighbor's door and ask them to stop putting regular trash into the recycling bin. That's better than taking away the recycling bin entirely because it's being misused.  — Scott • talk 10:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Drop the whole "minor edit" system It's purpose is to say "no need to review this edit" but nobody can trust that an editor making a problematic or controversial edit would not also misidentify it as a minor edit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• I have no strong opinion on the particulars here but the text that started off this RFC was originally added in this edit in 2003. I'm only mentioning this because I noted it in a tangent relating to this ANI discussion. Graham87 (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
• TNT "minor edits" and salt the earth. Once upon a time, it was useful. Now that Wikipedia is older and the clay has hardened, the system is of marginal benefit at best, and subject to abuse at worst. More often than not, it's the worst. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support, this is one of those things which should be common sense but as they say common sense isn't common and this now often provides cover to rogues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Drop tyranny of the "minor[ity] edit" system..if I wanted to be WP:POINTY I would refactor the comments here and mark them as minor, but I am not a jerk. Routine edits are welcome/fine, but the risk of major changes being cloaked is too high. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral about text rearrangement, but do not remove the minor edit facility completely. Editors like me noticed this RfC about text rearrangement start, skimmed it and decided that it could safely be ignored. You can't now repurpose this RfC behind our backs to approve (or reject) the much more devastating change of removing the minor edit facility entirely. Certes (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Note Formal close request at WP:CR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Seconding what Certes wrote. I'd ignored this as I don't care either way about the original question. I use mark as minor a great deal, as a lot of my edits are very minor copy edits that don't require oversight. I assume it saves other editors time not having to bother reviewing my changes. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this completely, and with Scott's analogy to misused recycling bins above. What benefit does the project get from edits like changes to hatnote italicisation, typo correction or disambiguation being marked as equally significant to major content changes? Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: none, but the issue is you can't trust a user's own designation of how significant their edit is or not. People will disagree, and then start user talk or AN discussions over it. Or worse, people will actually trust that "minor" means minor, and hide these changes from a watchlist, etc. More sophisticated editors will realise minor means little, so they'll keep them on their watchlist, at which point it's not too helpful. Ultimately, see evil bit.

  The best way to assert the significance of an edit is via the edit summary. In your examples, the edit summary clearly conveys the significance of the edit. (aside, I would argue in some cases a "typo correction" can be controversial.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  The "minor" flag is a claim about the nature of the edit. If it appears on a contribution from an editor I trust, I ignore the edit because I can be confident that there will be no problem there for me to deal with. It's almost part of the edit summary (ES); I treat it just as if they'd used an ES such as "typo". I admit that the "minor" flag has less value when used by unknown editors or known vandals, but that's also true of the ES (one can fill a BLP with libel and call it a typo) and I hope no one is planning to abolish the ES. Certes (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Within the context of minor edits I could go both ways on the original question, but looking at the broader issue being raised, if some of the best uses of the minor edit system are to evaluate newer users and honeypot vandals, then perhaps it's not a useful system to keep around. Would support a config change to deemphasise the tag or anything similar. CMD (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• Throw the whole system away per Siroxo. In addition, too often I see new editors being confused over the "minor edit" system and the system is only helpful with regards to skipping edits by the small fraction of long-standing editors. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 13:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Throw the whole system away What determines major or minor? What punishment comes from labeling minor ones as major (and vice versa)? Additionally, deleting categories or adding infoboxes may seem minor in the number difference in the page (character count). I am not sure what even counts as major or minor. The whole thing is just an arbitrary thing that confuses newer editors like me.

17:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC) SlopeInterceptor (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2023 (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.