Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 166

< Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Philoserf in topic In defence of wikiprojects
Village pump (proposals) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). 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 · 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, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215

RfC participation invitation

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

? : Please participate in the RfC about change proposal for infobox for caucus results. Xenagoras (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Idea for new community workspace

Latest comment: 4 years ago58 comments18 people in discussion

Hi. I would like to create come kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

Your input would be very helpful, so I wanted to get your brief input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen. I see a few possible options for making this happen, so I would like to get your input and feedback on this. which of the options below would you prefer? also, please reply to the brief questions below.

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.--Sm8900 (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any figures that show whether the truly active editing is taking place at wikiProjects? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
excellent question. I am tagging Iridescent and SandyGeorgia, even though they disagree with me on this topic. they have some great data on this. I would like to provide as much data as can be feasible. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The data I have focuses at the FA level, and indicates the only WikiProject still producing top content is MILHIST. With a decades-old organizational history, MILHIST survives and thrives even with the decline in editorship.
See Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics#Jan 1, 2020
Sorting this chart by percentage growth reveals that all of the other top growth areas in Featured articles are the result of individual editors rather than WikiProject collaboration (eg Wehwalt's coins in Business, and Casliber's work in Biology), while looking at the bottom of the chart shows WikiProjects that have fallen into decline and no longer focus on collaborating to build content. In my experience, with the exception of MilHist, WikiProjects are not a happening thing anymore.
As an example of a once-thriving WikiProject, the Medicine Project used to have ongoing monthly article collaborations, top content was showcased on the project page, and the project saw regular growth in their featured content; the current picture is that the medicine project has not produced an FA since 2015, and is not maintaining the FAs they have on the books, which all need review. The medicine project's priorities are now externally (non-en.Wikipedia) oriented.
Other WikiProjects have faded into oblivion for other reasons, while still others seem to serve purposes other than developing high quality content. I'm sorry I can't offer a more rosy outlook. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Don't forget Women in Red Sandy, I mostly agree though. In my experience here I would avoid creating new WikiProjects as they have the tendency to fizzle out. Wikipedia:Town Hall I think would be perfect, simply a place to let people know what is going on in each project. I don't think you really need a WikiProject to maintain that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks, Dr. Blofeld!!
SandyGeorgia, I do appreciate your reply and your data. I do have to disagree somewhat. what about Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red? that seems to be an exception as well, since it is clearly highly active as well. is it possible that there might be other exceptions, perhaps? --Sm8900 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I just thought of something else. even if activity moves away from WikiProjects entirely, a page like Wikipedia: Town Hall could be a place for editors at any group page to figure out where they can help with various group efforts and tasks. so I am setting up that page, and linking to this initial proposal there. we can always redirect it to another page, if consensus emerges for some other resource. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
In terms of content produced, I have no data indicating any reason to change my analysis re Women in Red. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers.--Moxy 🍁 15:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Number of watchers gives a relative measure, but I'm not sure how representative that data is of participation. For example, the medicine project has about a dozen active participants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thanks for that link, Moxy! I think it does help to provide a fuller picture, with some useful data. I hear SandyGeorgia's point as well though. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Only 15 of the over 1,000 WikiProjects have more watchers than my talk page, so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Could run Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes again see whats going on.--Moxy 🍁 15:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Moxy: It has recently been run again. See here. There is however a problem as both cols are identical. If you can fix it and rerun it, the results might be even more useful.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest just put a new tab at the top of this page, "Projects". Either we accept that organized activity level indicates the death of Wikipedia, or we provide organized activity space in the hopes that organized activity might live. (There are editors who are inevitably not going to join, as they are not joiners, just like some are not interested in meet-ups, but having places for people to go for those who are joiners or discuss ideas even if they don't join seems it would be a sensible part, if sometimes feeble, of broadest engagement avenues (see eg., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities people still go there to talk)) The Projects tab should also be interpreted broadly as all events/places/writing processes for editors getting together). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker:, well said! quote: "Either we accept that organized activity level indicates the death of Wikipedia, or we provide organized activity space in the hopes that organized activity might live." I agree. --15:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Be easier to have inactive WikiProjects & related projects deleted. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
that would be easier??!! how do you define "easy"?   the proposal here is to create a new page or other resource, where people can simply post occasional comments on what's up, and what they've been doing. it's hard to get easier than that, isn't it? --Sm8900 (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The GOCE is still very active. (Only 320 articles left in the backlog!) I think the proposal would be a good idea however I also don't think it would be used that much... Puddleglum 2.0 17:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Puddleglum2.0, that's true, this would probably not get a huge amount of usage. however, once we get consensus to set this up, the next step would be to link to this actively from various places, eg active wikiprojects, wikiproject council, teahouse, village pump, etc, in case anyone can benefit from this. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's a current example of the death of a WikiProject. MeegsC is congratulating WPMED on the Medicine Project talk page, saying "This project is getting some nice airplay this morning in the UK, in a piece about the coronavirus articles in the UK version of WIRED."

But looking at the Coronavirus articles reveals that WPMED has barely engaged those topics. The top five articles mentioned by Wired in page views are:

  1. Coronavirus, page stats, where the top contributor is not a WPMED participant, the second-highest contributor is blocked for copyvio, and the third-highest contributor is virology doc User:Graham Beards, who does not list himself as a WP:MED participant. (I'll come back to that point.)
  2. 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, page stats, none of the top 10 editors are WP:MED project participants.
  3. 2019 novel coronavirus, page stats, none of the top 10 editors are WP:MED project participants.
  4. 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory, page stats, none of the top 10 editors are WP:MED project participants.
  5. Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, page stats, none of the top 10 editors are WP:MED project participants.

In conclusion, there is one medical editor who figures prominently in the content there (Graham Beards), who does not list himself as a WP:MED member. The Wired article correctly highlights Wikipedia's strong medical sourcing policies. That sourcing guideline was promoted to a guideline in September 2008, based on the work primarily of User:Colin, and also User:Graham Beards, User:Nbauman, User:Eubulides, User:Davidruben, User:MastCell, User:SandyGeorgia and User:Nmg20. Not one of those editors participates actively in the Medicine Project today. So, with the exception of Graham Beards and the strong sourcing policies put in place over a decade ago by editors who no longer actively participate in the Medicine Wikiproject, the Medicine Project has been mostly absent in this breaking medical situation. One can examine what MILHIST does right to encourage participation, and contrast that with the direction other WikiProjects have taken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't had any interaction with WP:MED but I just wanted to make an observation. As far as I am aware, it has never been mandatory to list yourself as a WikiProject member in order to participate in a WikiProject. If you are using listed membership for the basis of any assumptions about activity then you are going to reach a false conclusion. I'm not a listed member of a project but regularly seek advice or offer advice at project boards. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
As a medical editor, I suspect I know who the medical editors are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
correct. I agree 110% with SandyGeorgia, but if that's the case, then that's exactly why we need some group resource like Wikipedia:Town Hall. there is currently no user space where successful WikiProjects like WP:MILHIST are actively reaching out, discussing, and sharing their successful goals and methods with people at OTHER WikiProjects. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Wow. Here's the paragraph that caught my eye in the linked article (which I'm wondering if SandyGeorgia read). “The editing community often concentrates on breaking news events, [and therefore] that content rapidly develops. The recent outbreak of novel coronavirus has been no exception,” explains James Heilman, a Canadian emergency room physician and long-term Wikipedia editor that goes by the username Doc James and has been instrumental in ensuring the coronavirus articles’ reliability. Heilman is part of WikiProject Medicine, a small but extremely active group of Wikipedia editors focused on medical information. The coronavirus outbreak has kept the members of the group busy in recent weeks." It also mentions that the article contains information well beyond the medical (which may explain the "non-WP:MED" numbers. If this information is not correct, I guess y'all need to take it up with the WIRED staff. MeegsC (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, compared to looking at the actual data about who is editing those articles, that is an interesting statement, isn't it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: We have too many forums as is on wikipedia, and adding more will mean more places to check and undermine attempts at coordinating collaborative editing. We already have Wikipedia:Community portal, which I can see has a bulletin board down the page (amusingly there is no table of contents so one cannot link to it directly - tjhat needs to be fixed! Should have checked the source - it is at Wikipedia:Community bulletin board). Also Wikipedia:Dashboard though that is a bit off-topic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks, but this is not a new forum in the way that Village Pump, RFC, AfD, or CfD, etc, are. this will be a collaborative workspace. So there is no obligation on anyone to check this. Any WikiProjects who want to use it to share ideas and techniques, etc, will be welcome to do so. anyone who prefers to not use it is free to choose that as well. --Sm8900 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I do feel Casliber has a point. I utterly applaud Sm8900 for their boundless enthusiasm and wish to see and drive forward improvements across many spaces, though a do worry a little bit about this . Finding a balance between providing helpful resources, guidance, or an ideas sharing platform on the one hand, and potentially weakening and dissipating what limited participation there is already is a tricky thing to achieve. Personally, as a participant in two very quiet WikiProjects, I am keen to know how best to enliven and run them better. But isn't that what WP:WikiProject WikiProjects (i.e. this) should be used for? I'd gladly subscribe to a newsletter there to be kept up-to-date, or to seek help and advice when I need it, or to help others. But, I prefer to see clearly laid out proposals and some Aims and Objectives that I can consider. I see Wikipedia:Town Hall has now been created, though what its distinct and unique purpose will be, I am not at all clear. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

guys, Nick Moyes has a point. this is still an open proposal. remember, the original proposal includes a number of possible options, including setting up a new sub-page at WIkiProject Council, setting up a sub-page at my own user space, or setting up a sub-page at an umbrella-type WikiProject, one with a broad enough scope to encompass numerous relevant topical sub-areas, eg WikiProject History or elsewhere, or else possibly setting up an entirely new page, such as WP:Town Hall.
the real initial spark for this idea was when I became the new coordinator at WIkiProject History. I started digging around to try to find the latest information on which wikiprojects were most active, and found there was no existing forum or page to provide an overview of that data. I eventually found my way to Wikipedia: WikiProject Women in Red, thanks to helpful data rreceived in discussions with others, but I had never heard of that highly-active project, until that point. that got me thinking that maybe we could use a resource like this. presenting the proposal here, in this manner, is simply a way to get multiple insights into ways to approach this.
with that said, though, the actual core goal and purpose here is actually quite simple and clear. I am seeking to set up a page where editors could find useful information on which WikiProjects are most active, and what they are working on. In addition, interested members of active WIkiProjects could exchange information with each other, in regards to what activities are current for them, and which methods they find helpful. this includes WIkiProjects, but also any active lower-case projects, group efforts, or any concerted activity by multiple editors at all. we have forums that address specific issues eg, afd, rfc, etc; however, this would be a community forum where we exchange ideas, and information on current efforts, eg, which are most active, what they are working on, etc etc.
someone else in a prior comment on this thread suggested adding a tab for "projects" here at Village Pump. their comment captured an important point; we would benefit from some forum, in whatever form, that provides clear centralized updates on which projects are most active, i.e. we could also set this up as a sub-page at some existing resource. my goal was to propose this idea simply as an idea, which could take various forms.
I would like to develop the idea for a Town Hall page with several people who expressed support above, and with several other editors who expressed interest in this idea elsewhere, in discussions on various talk pages. so therefore, I see this idea moving ahead as a page, based on support by various editors recently. but I am also open to other ideas on ways to approach this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
and by the way, I am not seeking any obligatory or mandatory role for this proposed process, at all. So therefore, it has the same status as a user essay, or other similar resource; people are free to use it, to explore it, to delve into it, if they find it useful to do so. but there would be no obligation to utilize it. and of course, if there are other ways to approach this, then those are still viable to be explored as well.
the real test of this idea would be whether anyone actually uses it or not. I fully admit that, without hesitation, as that is pretty obvious for any community resource.
as you can see, I do have some support for this idea from some editors, above, but I am not saying this ideas is fully finalized already. I did set up Wikipedia:Town Hall, as a work-in-progress for those editors who seemed interested enough to express support above for this idea. I do hope to use it to explore this idea with those who are already interested in doing so. but it is still very much an open topic as to which approach would seem best to other folks here. I'm really glad to see this thread being active, to get views and ideas from multiple people on what they think of this idea, and how to approach it practically, if that is possible. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Casliber, Nick Moyes, Sm8900: I would put it slightly differently, there are too many pages to watchlist. How did I get here? It's because with a single watch I have all the pumps are on my watchlist, which is why I only think this is a good idea if it is added here as a tab, above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

One of the problems is that this town hall space will not make wikiprojects active. As it is there are two or maybe three active projects (MILHIST and WiR and ...???), so you're creating a page for..what? We also alreayd have Peer Review which is moribund. That could be worth highlighting or promoting? We've had various article collaborations, were you thinking of reviving something like those? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Active, depends on how you define active. As I noted in my first comment, people still go to some project pages to discuss, to me, that seems active. More direct to your question, I think that the occasional surfacing of whatever, dispute, idea, effort, contest is going on at editor collaboration forums is likely to lead to more engagement, or at least raise the possibility. (Eg. I might not be generally interested in trains, so would not begin to think to watchlist that project, but if someone there thinks there is an important issue discussion about approving reliable source which touch on history and notifies me than hey, I might be interested if I have time in looking at that, even participating. Just as I saw this and I commented. Or if someone has something to say about reviving Peer Review, I might be interested in that if I get notice, Cas Liber has something I should think about regarding Peer Review.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
guys, I support the idea proposed by User:Alanscottwalker, to create a new tab at Village Pump. that is probably better for now than my own ideas; below are some reasons.
  • for one thing it is a great way to announce ideas such as mine or anyone else's, seeking to build new spaces for group discussion processes.
  • what happens if a few WikiProject Coordinators had a group idea that they wanted to try, and had eight or nine folks onboard? would we tell them, "sorry, USer:Sm8900 already had that idea"? of course we wouldn't. there is room for multiple approaches for this. that's what WikiProjects are all about in the first place.
  • there is no guarantee that any idea of mine stated above will necessarily take off. They will take time to develop. creating a new tab here leaves the door open for any new ideas, efforts or groups who might come along later, and might have their own ideas for new forms of group efforts at Wikipedia.
  • By the way, I posted notices of my proposal at a few WikiProjects, to see if i could spark any interest and response. As you can see, I didn't get much response here. I can't build this idea unless it gets some real interest from others. so therefore, the idea for a new tab is much better, as it is more visible and will be more of an ongoing resource.
let me know what you think of Alanscottwalker's idea.
do we need to create a new section to formally propose that? or alternately, should I revise my own original statement of proposed ideas, above? anyway, I will simply watch the discussion here, and hope for consensus to emerge. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, less is more. Too many WikiProjects, too many this, too many that & you're making things more difficult, where you meant to make things easier. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

on the contrary , the entire discussion here is designed to make things easier. this discussion is intended as a positive process, where all ideas are welcome. there is no need to tell anyone here that they are "making things more difficult." I'd prefer it if we simply focus on discussing the topic at hand. I am open to all views on this. I appreciate the insights of everyone here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, a central place for editors to be. Of course we merge or archive previous attempts at this. But this is a great idea. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. We already have several community meeting places, including the Village Pump, Teahouse, Community portal and the WikiProject Council and we don't need another one. So far as projects are concerned, we should mostly just let them wither on the vine. Trying to delete them would be like the portal omnishambles.
The main thing that needs doing is to stop gnomes adding huge project banners to article talk pages when they don't actually speak for those projects or do any real work on the articles. For example, I recently created the article Edda Tasiemka. I did this on my own initiative for the Six millionth article milestone – an activity which was well-attended but which was not associated with a particular project, AFAIK. I was mildly annoyed when some gnomes added several project templates to the article's talk page: Biography, Germany, UK and Women. These all seemed too broad in scope so I replaced them all with a couple which actually addressed the topic: Journalism and Libraries. I considered Wikiproject Archive but found that this was some sort of meta-activity and not actually concerned with real-world archives. I then squished all the templates with a {{WPBS}} so that users of the talk page would not be distracted by them. Someone then added the biography project back but I'm ignoring it as it won't now do anything significant.
Andrew🐉(talk) 21:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: I would argue that the WikiProject Biography banner serves a useful purpose on all biography articles. As a bare minimum it flags up articles as being covered by WP:BLP, or not, and places them in suitable categories. The banners are also another route for other editors to find and update the article. Your article is barely more than an orphan at the moment with a link from only one other article. If you want to keep out the WikiProjects from your creation, it is likely to sit unheeded for years after the initial rush of DYK editors have passed through. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least as proposed. This is too conceptually nebulous and unclear to be of use, overlapping with better venues for it when there's a clearer scope. Have something article-specific in mind? Use the article talk page. Need more eyes on the matter? Ask a relevant WikiProject. If it's too ill-defined to fit on a talk page or WikiProject, the various village pumps and noticeboards are there for that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Also the idea that there are only ' two or maybe three active projects' is plainly ridiculous. Sure there's a bunch of defunct projects (mostly those with such narrow scope, that they really are much closer to taskforces), but that hardly means that most are that way. All the projects I'm a member of are pretty active. That's at least WP:PHYS, WP:JOURNALS, WP:ELEMENTS, WP:MED, WP:WPWIR, and I know for a fact that WP:CHEM, WP:VG, WP:WPMATH are pretty active as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@Headbomb: thanks very much for your great info. part of the reason for my proposal above is precisely to share info like the great data that you just mentioned. yes, we have existing noticeboards. but we have nowhere that serves as a place, a forum, or a repository, for current info, active updates, and ongoing active discussions, on activity and current projects like what you just mentioned. that is precisely what I would like to set up; statements like your are the reason that I wish to do so.
Also, please note, my initial proposal above specifically states that it would be fine if we could set this up as an active sub-page of an existing resource; i.e. this could be at WikiProjects Council, or an existing meta-WikiProject, etc. my point right now is that nothing that we currently have is fulfilling this purpose. so would you like to help put this in motion?
in your opinion, where would be a good place for this? and if you feel that this does already exist, could you please tell me which page or resource seems to fit this role? I am truly open to any guidance or input that you may have. i am very glad that you took the time to write. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


I recommend merging Wikipedia:Community bulletin board and Wikipedia:Town Hall

I think the overlap is enough that these two pages should be merged (i..e revitalising the former). I also think linking as a tab from Village Pump is an escellent idea. The noticeboard has not been very visible for decades. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks! however, I don't think merging Wikipedia:Town Hall will improve or revitalize any other page. right now, Wikipedia:Town Hall is still just an experiment. It hasn't really caught on at this point. if no one uses it, it won't have much impact if it is simply merged --Sm8900 (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I only meant for Wikipedia:Town Hall to be an experimental prototype, but it seems to have been somewhat misinterpreted. for the purposes of this discussion, I will simply maintain it as a draft in my own user space. that should remove any hint of jumping the gun unnecessarily. anyone who does have some interest in this page is welcome to visit my user page draft and to make comments there.
here is the link: User:Sm8900/Draft for town hall page. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • For the tab, we just need a one word tab title, I suggested "Projects", some might see that as too limiting but I think of it kind of indicates 'things being done by editors', I suppose "Community" could work, although it seems a bit more amorphous to me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Add tab to Village Pump for "Projects" topics

As per the comment immediately above, I am adding a separate section here for the great idea proposed above, to add a tab to Village Pump for projects. If editors could please express their support or other views here, that would be helpful.

Casliber, I agree with your comment above that favors the addition of a new tab to Village Pump. if you wish, feel free to comment in this section. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted (most of) your spam notices. This idea does not have support, and should not be presented as a thing that has such support, or that will (or should) happen. The 'town hall' is fully redundant with WP:COUNCIL and other noticeboards like WP:Community Portal or WP:Dashboard. Get consensus for your idea first before spamming projects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject History/History Town Hall. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Now we're at ANI. This is getting ridiculous. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I followed your request to make it a draft in my user space, then left a message on your talk page, to let you know that I had done so. I have replied to your note at WP:ANI. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The request was for you to stop spamming your half-baked proposal and to stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but you also requested that I present as a draft in user space. if you'd prefer not to communicate about that draft, that is totally fine. I appreciate your reply. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(←) WP:IDHT, WP:TE. Why, exactly, are you generating such a timesink? Miniapolis 18:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that we can safely close this now. I appreciate everyone's input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
is it okay for me to archive this section? I hope that's okay. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Let the bot archive it, so all observers of this forum will have the usual amount of time to stay up-to-date on discussion threads. isaacl (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Whether a particular WP:REDIRECT section agrees with actual practice

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see this discussion at WT:REDIRECT, about adding "not mentioned in the target article" to the list of (non-speedy) deletion criteria for redirects, since it has long been used as one at WP:RFD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please voice your opinions at Talk:AC/DC#Seeking page protection consensus. Regarding indef semi for Bon Scott, Angus Young, Malcolm Young pages. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Reclaiming the sitenotice process

Latest comment: 4 years ago67 comments30 people in discussion
NO ACTION
To propose a complete restructuring of how sitewide notices are handled (ie. changing who gets to approve banners and why), generally there is going to need to be more consensus than can be found here. Therefore, this is a no consensus close. The one thing that most users agreed on was there are too many banners shown to readers who can't opt-out to CentralNotices like editors can. Most participants preferred those to be less frequent but more targeted and engaging if possible.
@Seddon (WMF): please keep this discussion in mind for the future when proposing new banners. @Meta: The wider community might also consider setting apart campaigns from administrative announcements, so users can decide separately if they don't want to see "Wiki loves monuments" versus getting a reminder about Steward elections.
I think that's everything. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

The Wikimedia CentralNotice is disruptive, heavily overused, and has a negative impact on usability. The CentralNotice process on Meta routinely approves of campaigns that receive no support, in contravention of a prior (Meta-based) RfC establishing that notices must have consensus in advance. The guidelines restricting the use of the CentralNotice are ignored, as are the requirements for notifying local communities of CentralNotice proposals. With that in mind...

I propose that the process for approving English Wikipedia sitenotices, including those using the CentralNotice, be relocated to the English Wikipedia. Sitewide banners would require community consensus in advance of being run. Exceptions to this process would be made for fundraising, regular Wikimedia-wide elections (stewards, trustees), and technical messages. No other sitenotices not approved by local processes should run on this site.

Implementation: If there is consensus for this proposal, I fully expect the CentralNotice administrators on Meta to be willing to comply with editing CentralNotice campaigns to exclude this wiki when a banner has not been locally approved. On the off-chance that consensus is not followed, local interface administrators are able to hide unapproved banners via Mediawiki:Common.css as necessary.

--Yair rand (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand: there are seldom "English Wikipedia" only CN's. To put this in better perspective can you give specific examples (link to the actual banner unless it was deleted), with dates, of the last three Central Notices that appeared for our readers/editors that would be impacted by this proposal? — xaosflux Talk 19:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: To clarify: I'm not talking specifically about English Wikipedia-only notices, I'm talking about all CentralNotices that would run on the English Wikipedia, regardless of their other targets. While the process here wouldn't influence whether any CN ran on any other project, it would decide whether it would run here. --Yair rand (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: oh sure, I meant that part as just a comment - same question though - can you list the last 3 notices, with dates, that did appear here in any way, that would be impacted by your proposal? — xaosflux Talk 21:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Impacted in the sense that they would have had to get approval on the English Wikipedia before running? I'm having difficulty reading the CentralNotice logs directly, but looking at the calendar entries and filtering out those that didn't run on ENWP... It looks like the three most recent were all (geographically) local events: There was a month-long photo contest in Spain ("Wiki Loves Folk", 11-01 to 11-30), a banner in Switzerland advertising a "Wikidata training and Hackathon" session (10-20 to 10-31), and a banner in the Czech Republic and Slovakia promoting a Wikiconference (10-14 to 10-29). Before those, we had a banner in Spain advertising a conference (10-01 to 10-17), and a banner across Northern and Western Europe from 08-26 to 09-08 bugging several hundred million people in order to try to get 17 volunteers to show up for a two-day hackathon. (Okay, that's five notices, but...) --Yair rand (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: OK, I started looking (and yes the CN interface is confusing - I try to stay out of it as much as possible!). I'm not sure all of these actually ran, but it does appear that ones that have have been set by both staff and volunteers. Staff side, most of these are managed by User:Seddon (WMF). I'll go message Joseph to see if he can comment on this thread here. — xaosflux Talk 13:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey all, I want to give a quick note. CentralNotice is a vital tool and it powers some of our biggest community led initiatives (Wiki Loves Monuments, Wikipedia Asian Month, Wiki Loves Earth). Originally it was mainly developed as a fundraising tool and it's currently the only real tool the movement has to engage with readers at scale. This is a role it has had placed upon it rather than one it was built for.
Prior to the current process being brought in, realistically there was no real process. You had to call in a favour from your best friend and there was limited transparency. It's a process that has evolved since I brought it in and I fully acknowledge it's by no means perfect. But what is being proposed, I don't think this is the long term solution. If every wiki did this it would be chaos and it would severely impact some of our biggest most successful programmes (Wiki Loves Monuments, Wikipedia Asian Month, Wiki Loves Earth). I think there are two things that need to happen:
  • Process: I fully acknowledge it needs to be tightened up and the guidelines become more like rules and we need to get better at enforcing them. We need to be clearer about what types of projects get what support. What is overuse etc.
  • Reduce reliance: We need to ensure that people need to use the less sledgehammery communication tools that already exist. Mailing lists, talk pages, social media, irc etc etc.
  • Technical improvements #1: Improvements to CN have been limited and mainly focused on fundraising but this is slowing changing. As it's usage has grown, the tool has had new features built in to reduce the impact on end users experience such as impression limiting. We should look at prioritising functions that allow us to focus the outreach usage on newer users, or allowing targeting of specific topics rather than sitewide notices being used for topics with a narrow focus.
  • Technical improvements #2: I really think we need a way for users to opt out, allow individual users to permanently opt out of some or almost all types of CN banner much like what you get with email preferences with a company.
There is room for improvement but CN definitely supports the creation of great content and we don't want to see that disrupted. Reduce the impact of CN, focusing its use, improving project leaders understanding of their responsibilities in using CentralNotice and get some improvements made to the system. I want to collect some data from across the movement on how people perceive CN and it's usage and what people want to see if it used for. If y'all willing to worth with me on this I think we can see some genuine improvements some in the short term and some in the long. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the update Seddon (WMF) - and I agree that it is time to discuss this issue more before thinking we are at any sort of impasse! Where do you think is the best place to coordinate this so that anyone who would like to join a working group for it may contribute? — xaosflux Talk 15:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted by this, I probably wouldn't be so in favour of it if the actual rules were being followed, but we seem to be getting a number of site notices with seriously marginal relevance. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
To clarify for any future closer, my preferred method is my comment below, asking for an ability to opt out of non-administrative sitenotices. A serious firming up of the rules is 2nd choice, this would be my 3rd choice. Nosebagbear (talk)
@Yair rand: Why exempt fundraising notices? There were a lot of comments/complaints on the Help Desk this year about fundraising (more than I recall for past years). I think the community should at least have a say in how the messages are worded, and the messages should include the Wikipedia e-mail address where users can send comments/complaints about fundraising. (ie: fundraising complaints go to donate wikimedia.org. and not to the Help Desk) RudolfRed (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: just from the banner alone the donate at email address is provided twice in our FAQ, our problems donating page on four occasions 3 4 56, twice in the donor privacy policy and a third via the WMF contact us page 10. That email address is also provided on the contact wikipedia page 11. While I'm definitely not opposed to providing that email address in more locations, sticking it in a banner would likely place the donor services teams under immense pressure and reduce how effectively we can respond to queries so I don't think that's a solution.
If there are ways you think I can help support the help desk in responding, triaging and referring issues that come in via the banners I am definitely happy to work with you on that. We have an ongoing the relationship with affiliates who get similar queries, the OTRS teams who forward issues to the donor services team as well as to me directly as well as feedback that comes in via social media.Seddon (WMF) (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
As far as why exclude fundraising? This goes back to the WMF owns these servers, and manages the process to solicit and collect money from donors to keep them running and this is one of their main tools for doing so. We have already made it very easy for editors to opt-out of seeing these, but getting reader donations is still considered important. — xaosflux Talk 15:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I very much support this. Wiki Loves Monuments, Wikimania Stockholm Call for Submissions etc are irrelevant to practically all readers and they should not be displayed so prominently on every single article. The fundraising efforts were unusually aggressive this year (judging by the amount of internet jokes made about it). I would further suggest either: 1) Only display these banners on the Main Page, 2) display any necessary banners at the bottom of articles. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This is your occasional friendly reminder that if you don't want to see banners, then you can go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and choose "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" and/or "Suppress display of CentralNotices". (Please remember if you set these, so that you don't embarrass yourself by complaining that you didn't see the announcements you hid. It has happened a time or two before.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Seddon (WMF) and WhatamIdoing: - as Seddon notes, it was an additional use-case placed on top of the adminstrative/fundraising side. Seddon, I'd be happy enough for it to just be tightened up if, like fundraising banners, I gained the ability to turn them down selectively. There are the occasional administrative ones I need to know about (site-wide elections, the Talk Page consultation), but I don't want the cost to be the need to see a large number of campaigns/projects that have relatively little relevance to me. Give them a tag that lets users opt-out, and I imagine the complaints will heavily dwindle. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I would support Nosebagbear's suggestion of opting in just to seeing key administrative central notices. (Put your hands up, those of you at the back, if you can't hear me!) Nick Moyes (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Tbh, I'm much more concerned about the endless spam sent out to the IPs. We have a pretty constant stream of notices. Over the next month, we're going to get a global notice for yet another photo contest (global, logged-in and IPs, all through February). The logged-in users are also going to see a month of Wikimania scholarship ads (02-10 to 03-09), a bunch of "Wikipedia day" banners throughout North America, a global notice promoting translating some human-rights related articles, a week-long notice from the Desktop Improvement team to show off their new prototype, and a lengthy notice for the steward elections. This is all on the heels of our extensive annual fundraiser which just finished. The normal appearance of the site for readers or editors should not be one with a banner on it. --Yair rand (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support proposal, and advocate for documentation The status quo is that the Wikimedia Community is the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable for a CentralNotice. Wikimedia Community decision making process has overriding power, and this is how things always have been, and this is the social contract on which basis the Wikimedia Foundation entered the conversation, and this is the environment of expectation. As conversation proceeds it should go forth from that norm.
That said - if anyone wanted to purchase advertising with the reach of the CentralNotice from another website, no media organization (Facebook, Google, etc) would sell this kind of media reach for less than billions of dollars. Any time there is a billion dollars of value up for grabs there will be conflict and insane behavior. I advocate for financial investment in Wikimedia community organization now which would make any future decisions about the CentralNotice meaningful. If the Wikimedia Foundation neglects to invest in infrastructure which empowers the Wikimedia Community in this conversation, then that lack of investment profoundly undermines any Wikimedia Foundation legitimacy in the decision making process of what to do with this most astounding of Wikimedia community controlled resources. There might come a time when the CentralNotice can manifest career-capping, infinite amounts of revenue forever so encouraging a Wikimedia-community based ethical conversation about conflicts of interest would be wise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support more banners, more often, with more Wikimedia community control I might be misunderstanding this proposal or what is proposed here. The Wikipedia community needs more banners with lower barriers to get them published and out. Wikimedia community groups, including Wikimedia chapters, WikiProjects, and other affiliate group models should be the authority in deciding when and how to use banners. Banners should generally come at the behest of organized community groups, because understanding when and how to use them requires long-term group planning with year over year documentation and lessons learned. I am in favor of empowering the English Wikipedia community to manage banners. The administration of that power should be mostly in the hands of community outreach groups which organize themselves, with less weight on unorganized ad hoc Wikipedia commentators who are not regular particpants in the broad discussion of banner policy and who are not stakeholders in the organization of Wikimedia outreach. I am a bit confused about this proposal because it raises lots of variables, like is it for or against banners, for or against meta, for or against random commentators in control, or for or against wiki community organization. I want more banners, less of the restrictions which happen from meta, less random commentary from people unaffiliated with banner campaigns, and more power to Wikimedia chapters and organizations which push for more banners. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    "The Wikipedia community needs more banners": Speak for yourself. I genuinely had to re-read that to be sure you were not being ironic. I am part of the Wikipedia community and one thing I absolutely do not need is more frikkin' banners rammed into my frikkin' eyes! That community "unaffiliated with banner campaigns," from which such despicable commentards as myself are drawn, is in fact the very user community which your banners are targeting! Diss us, ignore us, trample us at your peril. The advertising platform that anyone can edit is not what we are here to read. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Steelpillow: You have a strong reaction! Can you say something about how much advertising you experience on Wikipedia? I also fail to understand you. Here is what I would ask -
  1. How many days a year do you visit Wikipedia? (I guess 200 for you, based on your edit history)
  2. On how many of those days do remember seeing a banner ad? (I guess 30 for you, which would become ~3 if you have banners turned off in settings)
  3. On days when you see a banner ad, how many ads did you see? (I guess 1 for you)
Are these numbers right for you? When you say "no more banners", is zero banners the right number for you, or do you have a non-zero acceptable amount per year? From my view, Wikipedia already has so few as compared to any other major website, so I wonder what the tolerable number of banners is for you. What are you experiencing that you feel so strongly about this?
Also, are you speaking for yourself as a logged-in user who can turn off banners in settings, or about what you wish for users without an account, who cannot turn off banners?
I feel that we should (1) negotiate a certain number of banners per year then (2) put some of those in Wikimedia Fundraising and (3) put the rest in control of the Wikimedia community for outreach campaigns. Is there something about any of this which seems strange to you? Thanks for any feedback. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: I am very surprised to hear that your guess would be 15% of days on Wikipedia involve seeing a banner. My own impression of how often they're up is somewhere between "most of the time" and "always". (Showing banners 15% of days sounds quite reasonable to me.) I think we need some data, if there's such divergence in their perceived frequency. Re your three points, they make a lot of sense to me (although I'd expand "outreach" to also include some other necessary notices). --Yair rand (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I agree, a good outcome of this conversation would be the WMF fulfilling a request to provide metrics of when banners run and who sees them. The banner is a valuable resource and it is worth measuring and planned allocation. If you advance this conversation, then along with requesting metrics, I would appreciate you always imagining that some entity will control the allocation of the banners to various causes. When there is a power which the Wikipedia community does not organize to claim, then by default that entity which controls the resource will be the WMF, who will give decision making power to staff. The alternative, which I hope you will support in future conversations, is some stewardship by the Wikimedia community probably led by Wikimedia chapters since banners are for mostly outreach and chapters are the major representatives for outreach. If you have another vision for this then call it out, because banner power is among the most valuable resources the movement has to allocate and I want to keep the precedent of Wikimedia community control of it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: First, I think it quite offensive to anonymous readers that you should be thinking in terms of spamming them and making life easier for their logged-in colleagues such as your self and chums. Yes IP editors have to accept limitations but most every visitor who just comes to read the encyclopedia - which is after all what it is for - will not log in even if they have an account. This needs hammering out for everybody, before we give a dam' about the account holders' convenience. I visit pretty much every day, sometimes for extensive periods of research in IP mode. I log in only when editing. I have NoScript, with javascript disabled by default, and AdblockPlus with a miscellaneous collection of local blocks accumulated over the years. But some useful features require javascript so I often have it enabled here. Sites where unsolicited content nevertheless intrude create a negative "oh, they're that kind of self-focused soul, thinking not in terms of what the reader wants to see but what they want the reader to see." The absolute key thing is to understand banners as informative for the reader and not as a self-promotional tool per se. The last thing you want to do is to fatigue the user so they just go "not another feckin' ad banner" and never stop to read the message. I probably get more banners, things that slide in from the side and that kind of nonsense when I am in IP mode, but quantifying the difference is like counting how many dog turds I step in annually with my left or right foot, it's pointless. More personally, the most important thing for me is that there should be no animations of any kind - sliding, fading, scrolling, anything - in my peripheral vision. That is an accessibility issue, not as dangerous as flashing/strobes are to an epileptic, but equally unpleasant. My view is that a restrained use of banners (no big bright colourings either, maybe half a dozen short universal or UK-only campaigns a year) is OK, but only provided that there is adequate community governance in place to make sure that the look-at-my-dancing-monkey brigade are locked firmly out. That last is singularly what has not been happening, and we at en.wikipedia can lay it in place faster than WMF central can. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Steelpillow: Accessibility standards are great. Of course I agree that when there are banners, they should conform to some standard. The Wikipedia community should set that standard and model good behavior to the world.
I would agree with you to (1) have a negotiated number of banner days or campaigns and (2) negotiate the method of allocating them to project proposals. I think that currently we have no data on how often banners appear and how we give those banners to campaigns, and that you and I have different understandings of the basic facts. So far as I know, a typical viewer coming to Wikipedia most days only sees 6 campaigns a year, which is what you say you want and are not getting. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said, I don't count the campaigns or distinguish between one kind of distraction or another. I do think we understand each other better now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support, thank you Thjarkur for making a very valid point. Wikipedia should have an independent sitenotice process, where we can review Meta's controversial fundrasing techniques to align with our goals. >>BEANS X2t 18:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I would like to get more information from Seddon (WMF) with regards to it would severely impact some of our biggest most successful programmes. By what metric are they successful, and how much do the banners contribute to that, in concrete terms? (For example, number of edits made or number of sources added, but not simply number of people.) Also, are the extra banners known to attract new editors to Wikipedia, in these or other cases? I'll note that if there are good arguments for the value of these specific examples, the community is unlikely to object to continuing them.
As a separate point, I will generally agree with any attempt to add an extra layer of review to restrict the promotion of surveys with vague, meaningless, or misleading questions. I would also emphasize that while the proposed exceptions are fine, this does not make them exceptions to consensus; rather they are more like "pre-approvals" that can always be revoked (individually or entirely) in the future if necessary. (Similar to the current situation in which everything is pre-approved. Of course, that's not to say that I necessarily expect such a revocation to happen.) Sunrise (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support the community needing to opt in to the fundraiser banners. It should require at least a village pump RfC (advertised by WP:CENT) to include a fundraising banner, with the wording and linking also up for debate. I imagine if we change the banner then the WMF (particularly the legal team) will have to give final approval, but if we can't get agreement then the banner shouldn't go up. I understand the WMF will very much not want us to do this and it would be a tough fight to win, but their current fundraising strategy is intrusive, unhelpful to readers and biggest of all flat-out misleading—they already have more than enough money to stay afloat. If a person is donating then they need to be aware of where the money is going, and where it is not going (e.g. to run our servers). I am fairly sure that at least 90% of (one-off) donors do not understand where most donation money is spent.
    I understand fundraisers were excluded from the original RfC question, and I support the original proposal. My main concern is banners shown to non-logged-in readers. Spamming our editors is annoying but not a huge deal; what the (English-speaking) public see is a hugely important thing that en.wiki should be the deciders of. — Bilorv (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't want a process where volunteer editors reviewed and approved individual site notices. I would certainly approve of restrictions that manage how emphatic, how distracting, and how shrill, these messages can be. We want the WMF to be able to raise money and attract attention to good causes. However I believe that the site notices recently have become a little too effective at diverting visitors' attention to the WMF's priorities. We do have a mission to enable our visitors to inform and educate themselves in a self-directed way, and we're not achieving that while they're looking at ads.—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Wondering why so many of the above volunteers are not participating at meta making the world a better place by changing the process there instead of micromanaging it from here, and wondering if they think they will become active here in actually managing a changed process, for longer than a 3 month attention span until they jump to the next 'crisis'. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    @TheDJ: We did that. They didn't listen. Opposition to CentralNotice proposals at Meta doesn't do anything, and CN admins have said they're completely willing to put up CNs without consensus, contrary to the last global RfC on the topic, which concluded in favor of requiring advance consensus for banners. --Yair rand (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Wholeheartedly support. If someone wants a policy rationale beyond WP:Common sense, try WP:ENC and WP:NOT#SOCIAL. PS: 'there are seldom "English Wikipedia"-only CN's' – Yep. So we should end up with a lot fewer annoying CNs irrelevant to 95% of editors and 99.9% of readers. That's kinda the whole point, innit?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for now. I wholeheartedly agree that the central process is currently not fit for purpose. Too much spam, too much thoughtless ignoring of accessibility rules such as animations off by default. Central need to build a stronger and more democratic community before we can trust them to do it properly. Meantime, this is our baby and it is our responsibility to vet what they put forward before it goes live. Ultimately there is a case for central broadcasts to go over our heads, but that must be subject to proper control. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per proposal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This proposal does not make sense, it conflates sitenotice with centralnotice, and completely ignores the fact that most centralnotices are geographically-based community efforts, not global campaigns. We already have a process and a !vote on meta, because this affects multiple projects, and we already have the rule of posting pointers to the meta page on the Village Pump. The proposal would effectively be to give a carte blanche to WMF banners and a veto to community-based banners, which is not what we want.--Pharos (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Pharos: How would this give carte blanche to WMF banners? All WMF banners (outside particular exceptions listed) would require consensus as much as community-initiated proposals. --Yair rand (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    Also, the !vote process on Meta is, unfortunately, usually ignored by the CN admins these days, in contravention of the last global RfC on the topic. The behaviour isn't exactly legitimate, but it's what we have to work with atm. While your own CN activities have appropriately followed the community notification guidelines, many others, particularly the WMF-sourced proposals, have ignored the rules entirely. I hope we can get to a process that works for everyone, but to get there, we need to have some community control over the process to start with. I know this will make things much less convenient for anyone trying to organize a notice across multiple projects, but I think it's necessary. --Yair rand (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - certainly in regards to fundraising. The WMF needs some flexibility in fundraising that shouldn't be taken away by a few ideologues. I've never really been bothered by any banners on Wikipedia. They only take up a small amount of space on the page, and you can scroll down to get them out of sight. You can dismiss them individually. You can opt-out. And they don't seem to appear very often. Can we get some real data? e.g.:
  • How many different banners appear each year on all projects?
    • If they can be limited geographically, how many appear in London, Chicago, Sydney, and New Delhi each year?

This just doesn't look like a problem to me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: The proposal specifically exempts fundraising. Re data: Better than "how many different banners per year", I think more important would be, "At any given time, what are the odds there's a banner running?" --Yair rand (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Okay, I spent some time building a script to scrape the on-wiki logs (the CN-log API is useless here and omits most of the important data) to figure out how often banners are running. WIP, but it looks like on 220 of the 365 days in 2019, at least some people in the US saw a CentralNotice banner on the English Wikipedia. (At least 18 of those days, it was only a particular geographic region of the US.) I'll try to work on it a bit more to refine the data, and then generate some tables for other geographic areas and times. --Yair rand (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Pharos. Gamaliel (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Pharos and Smallbones. The ability to have a wide-ranging system for displaying banners is a critical tool for movement-wide awareness and communication. Since Wikipedia's heyday of peak participation in 2007, we have had major breakdowns in almost all our communications channels. The mailing list Wikimedia-L is a fraction of what it used to be, with folks new to the movement not even knowing it exists. The new Wikimedia Space bulletin boards are not picking up a lot of traction. IRC is a ghost town. We now have a smattering of Facebook groups, Telegram chats, Discord channels, Slack groups, et al. that try to piece together some overlapping set of community. CN is the only tool we have left that can effectively communicate across cultures, geographies and communities. Besides: logged in users have a way to hide these types of banners. Personally they have never bothered me either, and in fact have alerted me to projects, drives, conferences and things that keep me in touch with the movement zeitgeist. Optimize, refine, adjust and reform the current system, but don't splinter it off. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Pharos, Smallbones, and Fuzheado. This is even more critical to maintain considering there is no real alternative. While Wikimedia Space attempted to be a hub for events, the WMF needs to figure out how to better support Space and communities who could use it. Jackiekoerner (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Pharos, Smallbones, Fuzheado,Jackiekoerner. There should be ways for individual users to opt out. The communications of community projects depends on these tools that are part of movement resources similar to funds and volunteers. There should be a way around to make compromise or meeting half way around rather than taking it away entirely. Wikilover90 (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Idea one thing I'd really like to is a) opt out of specific types of banners, and b) when I opt out, that my account opts out on all devices, rather than have a cookie-based 'opting out'. Like for instance, Wiki Loves... whatever. Or photography-related stuff. Or GLAM stuff. I'm not really sure how easily the 'types' can be made, but I know annoyance would go significantly down if I didn't have to bypass those banners every time they popped up, and if I didn't have to bypass them on 3-4 devices every time one popped up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Headbomb: banners do support banner categories, in practice only "campaign" and "fundraising" are really used - we could propose some very broad ones at meta-wiki, it shouldn't be hard to adopt - but if there are many expect lots of errors. — xaosflux Talk 00:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Pharos, Blue Rasberry, and Fuzheado. It is pretty obvious that improvements to centralnotice and to its governing processes would be great, but they should be in the direction of more banners, more often, and more engaging. The centralnotice banners are one of the most powerful tools we have to reach communities that have been excluded as contributors to the Wikimedia Movement. It makes no sense in my mind to focus on spending millions of dollars and thousands of volunteer hours to get these communities engaged with the Wikimedia Movement and at the same time tighten the use of an asset that is the cheapest and most effective at actually getting these communities to contribute and engage. Chico Venancio (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    We are spamming billions of people. The readers don't care about the the WMF CEO's latest speech, or some "human interest" blog post, or a hackathon three hundred miles away. --Yair rand (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Yair rand: "billions"? Did you know that not all banners are shown to "readers"? For example a recent banner, "WikiForHumanRights_Declaration" is set to only show to "logged in users" and the default banner directions for logged out users is "Anonymous users (remember to uncheck unless necessary)". — xaosflux Talk 19:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: Very many banners are shown to readers. In my experience, people are much less careful about banners that are shown only to readers and not at all to logged-in users (such as the blog post spam I mentioned above). As I mentioned earlier, I'm much more concerned about the endless spam sent out to the IPs. (IIRC, the other two banners I was referring to were also shown to IPs.) --Yair rand (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Yair rand: would you please cite one of the specific banners (from meta:Special:CentralNoticeBanners) you are referring to? — xaosflux Talk 19:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: Blog1819_Punjabi_Wikisource_1 I already linked above. WikiTechstorm2019 was shown to everyone (including IPs) across most of Europe, with the aim of recruiting ~17 people to participate in a hackathon. (No idea whether it succeeded in that.) I haven't found a link to the banner which advertised the Executive Director's speech at Wikimania, sorry. --Yair rand (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Yair rand: those 2 seem OK - in looking at them, WikiTechstorm2019 appears to have only been shown to logged in users, however most unusually Blog1819_Punjabi_Wikisource_1 appears to have been shown to ONLY anonymous users and was configured by Ed Erhart (WMF), seems to have been the only banner they ever made - wonder if it was set up in error? — xaosflux Talk 20:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: WikiTechstorm2019 was shown to IPs. It only looks like it wasn't because the settings were changed just before the end of the campaign (at 31 August 2019 20:17, according to the logs). Blog1819_Punjabi_Wikisource_1 probably wasn't a mistake, given that it was listed that way in the original proposal as well. --Yair rand (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Yair rand: Beyond the obvious lack of awareness of how CentralNotice campaigns work, I find your description of a blog post about the exact kind of work we should be prioritizing as an <<"human interest" blog post>> quite telling, and a little offensive. What I am reading from your proposal and your responses is that you do not care the Wikimedia Movement has not reached several areas of the globe and that a lot of knowledge is not included in our projects as long as your screen is free of these pesky banners. Chico Venancio (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Chicocvenancio: Um. I'm quite aware of how CentralNotice campaigns work. I've probably been the single most active volunteer in the process over the past few years, despite not being a CN-admin. And my screen can be permanently free from all banners at the click of a button, which most people can't do. I'm going to politely refrain from commenting on the rest of your post. --Yair rand (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    Yair rand Than why are you citing a campaign aimed at Indian readers, made by WMF comms, for a project everyone should be in complete agreement as an example of SPAM being sent to "billions"? Chico Venancio (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Chicocvenancio: Because readers actually come to Wikipedia to read the articles. These notices are unsolicited messages sent out to very large numbers of people. That's literally the definition of spam. (I am aware that the India-targeted campaign did not, alone, reach billions of people. I was referring to the larger pattern of CentralNotice misuse.) --Yair rand (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Yair rand: it is advertisement for our own movement, I don't see how it would be SPAM. Why would it be ok for us to advertise for fundraising and not for getting more volunteers? How is WMF funds more important than volunteer time and energy? Chico Venancio (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree to open to more campaigns but I would invite to consider that there is the possibility to have an impression diet and other limitations and to consider that long campaigns or worldwide campaigns are not efficient. SO let's consider to limit massive and invasive campaigns to give more space to well targeted, more geotargeted campaigns. --Ilario (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per what the others have said, I think it's a bad precedence to allow notice discussions on local wikis.. It would lead to a big waste of time and a ridiculous level of bureaucracy, when other wikis also make the same demands. It just doesn't make sense. But I do agree that the process on meta should be more transparent. But then again, the bulk of that responsibility rests on the communities, to increase their engagement on the notice request page.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Jamie Tubers, the community should engage more on meta which is an open wiki. Also I dont agree with geotargeting : we do need more engagement on diversity topics and these campaigns are useful for these. Nattes à chat (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Jamie Tubers and Nattes à chat: CentralNotice campaigns don't always even have a proposal page to engage on, and when there is, engagement is often ignored. There isn't anywhere to go. --Yair rand (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This seems obvious to me. If there is not consensus to show a banner, it should not be shown. Most of the opposing users are arguing, in essence, that CentralNotice is an important tool, which is entirely irrelevant given that no one is proposing completely disabling it. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Question: At least half of the oppose !votes above seem to have been made during a single ~24-hour period (4 February), before which the discussion was nearly unanimous in support. Was it advertised at a new location? At the time, it had already been on WP:CENT for two weeks, so I would have thought that there weren't any additional venues to be notified. Sunrise (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2020 (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.

Improving ANI Requirement

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion
NO ACTION
This is not going nowhere. See WP:SNOW. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

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

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

I an here propose a improvement to this requirement that i thought of.

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents New Proposal -> Users who start a ANI about an editor is now required to leave a ANI notice with a link to that ANI discussion on editor`s talk page within 24 hours of the started ANI report. Otherwise, the ANI report would be dismissed and cant be reported again for 3 days. Regice2020 (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments below to Support or Oppose

  • Pointless you are already required to give a notice. That's what the big red box before the "Click here to start a new discussion" is all about. We are also not a bureaucracy, dismissing any report because of someone overlooking paperwork is nonsense, and the prohibition of refilling something for 3 days because someone didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's is equally nonsensical. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a point. ANI is sorta like a strong reporting user feature for user to use. Once they get blocked. Its going be very difficult to appeal.Regice2020 (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
By pointless, I'm referring to this RFC. You are proposing to require something which is already required. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Regice2020, the editors mentioned are supposed to be notified at the time of posting. Failing that, the editor is notified as soon as someone notices that that hasn't been done. 24 hours makes no sense in this regard. What, are we gonna keep discussing a user without notifying them just coz the 24 hour deadline isn't crossed? The rest of your proposal has got problems as well. The only merit I see is in making the notice contain a direct link to the section of the discussion cos I think that's not always done and ANI is a pain of a page to skim through. That said, that can't become a rule, just a polite recommendation. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • What problem are you trying to solve here? Is the current system failing in some way? Can you provide an example of a real situation when the current system failed where this new system would have succeeded? – Teratix ₵ 09:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    ^^^^ This is really all that needs to be said. We don't create rules and procedures to fix problems that are merely possible or hypothetical. Even three or four cases out of hundreds wouldn't be enough, and we have yet to see one. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Currently, if the reporting editor doesn't notify, someone else does while pointing out to the reporter that they should have done so. Minor overhead. Under this requirement, someone has to watch the clock, close the report with prejudice after the 24-hours-without-notification point, and keep an eye out to ensure that the report isn't reopened until 3 days have passed. Major overhead. And it's highly unlikely that the change would ensure that fewer editors would fail to notify. It doesn't happen that often as it is, and it's those editors who seldom read AN/I who fail to notify and since they don't hang out there, they won't "learn" from others' mistakes. AN/I discussions just don't happen without someone making sure the reported editor has been notified. Schazjmd (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Can someone please close this as an obviously ill-thought out proposal? The current instructions mean that any editor who is the subject of an ANI report must be informed (and that would be in far less than 24 hours: more like 24 minutes or even 24 seconds) and the 3-day limitation on bringing up an issue that fails this procedural hoop is simply absurd: if the report is about an urgent incident then we shouldn't wait before dealing with it just because the originator didn't follow the instructions properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think this is necessary. but I thought of an interesting idea. Similar to how GA process notifies nominees and reviewers. Should a similar template be created that once filled out it notifies the parties in question?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The effort one goes through to enact this proposal each time someone doesn't leave a talkpage notice would be better spent leaving talkpage notices. If the person who brought someone to ANI forgot to notify them, and you notice this, just do it yourself. Problem solved. --Jayron32 15:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Reply Yes, that can happen, but it better for the person reporting to notify. If you want get someone blocked or topic ban then YOU have do something correctly too. I mean when a user uses ANI to report someone ...they can get blocked or banned. ANI is very powerful reporting system. I do not recall ANI process expansion is never a option? Regice2020 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Option B

The ANI starting process need improvements. Users who start a ANI about an editor is now required to leave a ANI notice with a direct link to that ANI discussion on editor`s talk page right away. The Admin must check ANI starter before starting a review. Otherwise, the report maybe on hold and achieved at some point by the bot, Regice2020 (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Once again you are making the assumption that the process needs improvement without providing evidence. Can you point to any ANI report that would have been handled better if this change was made? It seems to me that, as stated above, either the person making a report follows instructions and informs the target editor or, if not, someone else does this for them. Have there been any recent ANI reports where the target has not been informed? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2020 (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.

"All articles needing additional references"

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The following 200 pages are in this category, out of approximately 378,105 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more). (Number as of this proposal, 00:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

That number of articles would seem to be overwhelming, with human effort unlikely to reduce it, especially since it gets higher with new tags. Here are some suggestions:

1. Create a bot to work on that huge category, looking at articles tagged before a certain date, say before 2010, and checking how many references were valid on the date cetain, and how many are valid during the check, and then delete the tag if the number of valid citations has increased enough. Determining that number might be tricky to establish, so perhaps some sampling bot would be needed. I suspect that there are many older articles which would qualify for deletion, even with a increase of 20 to qualify for deletion.

2. Create a category a lot smaller than 378,000, say only 3000, with some way to select good candidates for human effort, perhaps large older articles with only a few inline references.

3. Run a contest for that smaller number for any user who signs up for it.

4. We know who created the article and when the tag was applied. A bot could be created to send a message to the tagger user, or the creator of the article and maybe only send messages to volunteers, not everybody found to have created or tagged a references needed article.

What do others say? The previous proposal shows some interest in this situation--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Those are only the articles actually tagged as needing more references. It is possible that 5 million would be a more representative number. Another way of looking at it is that only GA and FA or equivalent and maybe B-class have been adequately checked, and that was when they were promoted. It also depends on whose evaluation for need is applied. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
You are right, there is likely to be far than 378 thousand articles that could be tagged as needing more references. Your idea of starting with FA or GA articles is a good one. My basic concept was find articles with sufficient references but tagged long ago to be done first, and your idea to start with FA and GA articles is would help. I am going to look at those two categories by manual means. I wll post some findings here.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Dthomsen8 I've seen editors add the template when there are only a few sentences lacking a citation and everything else is cited. To me, it should only be used in the worst cases, since as Peter says nearly every article needs additional citations by default. As such a bot that can determine proportion ie. number of citations vs. number of sentences, could better determine when to both add and remove the tag. These tags are emotive in the community, any bot work would need to be balanced with both adds and deletes. I ran a bot that added about 10,000 {{Unreferenced}} which you would think would be uncontroversial but it took months of RFC and BRFA (two of them) to finally get approval, it was a big effort. The software was also not easy simply determining when an article has a ref or not, or should even have a ref or not, turns out to be complex in the details due to endless edge case exceptions. -- GreenC 16:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is running in March, sign up if you can help, there's nearly $500 work of book prizes available so if anybody needs books for other topics might help you out! I propose we run these for different areas and topics to reduce our huge amount of stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Connecting Wikipedia articles to reliable sources through new template

Latest comment: 4 years ago25 comments15 people in discussion

Summary

In case if it's TL;DR, otherwise please start at the Background section.

I would like to propose a new template. The main purpose of this template is to collect and show links which lead to articles/chapters in reliable sources that have additional textual information (not only data or images) on the subject, like encyclopedias, biographical dictionaries, GLAM sites, academic projects, etc. Similar to Template:Authority control or Template:Taxonbar but with content that expands on the topic and provides further reading. Example:


Background

There are many great online, freely accessible reference works, encyclopedias, biographies, virtual exhibitions which are unknown for most people or maybe even completely forgotten after a few years (academia has a problem with communication?). This also means they are not channeled in to Wikipedia (some general examples are Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology absent from the Anthropology article, The First Amendment Encyclopedia missing from the First Amendment article, Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development missing from related articles). Even if used, they easily get lost among references or a longer list of external links.

At the same time, more and more of these sites are connected to Wikidata, the ID each article in the source added to the corresponding Wikidata item.

You can check the ones that already have their own Wikidata property ([1]), the ones that are being matched to Wikidata items but don’t have their property yet ([2]), and a growing list of sites to be included in Wikidata ([3]).

Idea

To make these sites visible in Wikipedia, I would like to propose a new template. The main purpose of this template is to collect and show links which lead to articles/chapters in reliable sources that have additional textual information (not only data or images) on the subject, like encyclopedias, biographical dictionaries, GLAM sites, academic projects, etc. Similar to Template:Authority control or Template:Taxonbar but with content that expands on the topic and provides further reading.

Goals, advantages

  • promote the use, presence and knowledge of reliable sources
  • encourage further reading
  • add depth to article stubs, help finding sources for expanding them
  • make Wikidata more visible
  • possibly facilitate authors of the external sites to recognise/contribute to Wikipedia
  • help smaller language Wikipedias to gather content/make their wikis more visible

There are similar templates on other Wikis, these are the ones I know of:

An important feature of the template would be its multilinguality. This means two things. First, that it is meant to be used in any language Wikipedias, using the same central list of sources and automatically ordering the IDs to show the local language ones first. Second, in the case of multi-language sites, it could handle multiple formatters and use the one in the local language, perhaps also offer the other languages in a bracket.

I think by having the template prefer open-access sources would not only prioritise for the readers articles they can actually read but would promote open access in general. On the other hand, as this would exclude paywalled sites like Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, probably best if they are still included but in a separate category or just shown with a lock icon next to them.

Visuals

Visually it would be similar to authority control but rather as a sidebar, located on the side of the external links section or below the main infobox of the article. Another option is to still have it as a navbox, and include it in the beginning of the external links section like Template:Medical_resources (for example in Influenza. It should be distinct from the authority control navbox so it wouldn’t go unnoticed to the reader. Still, it shouldn’t take too much space so it wouldn’t get too distracting. It could also help in taking some weight off authority control as sites in this template should not have to be included there, making it clear what purpose each one serves. It would be important that the template shows the full name of the sites instead of abbreviations (so Historische Lexikon der Schweiz instead of HLS) even if this takes more space because readers are not necessarily familiar with the short names and they would know what they are clicking on (w:fr:Modèle:Dictionnaires is this way). Also, abbreviations don’t always work with multilingual sites as they have the title translated with a different short name. Plus, search engines would show the article with the template if someone looks up encyclopedias. If the list would be too long, taking up too much space, it could be that only the local language part is expanded and the others are in a collapsed section.

Technical background

The template would use external IDs from Wikidata. By this, it would be easily expandable and translatable to other languages. Wikidata and the template would be expanding together automatically as a new ID added to an item would also show up in the template. If the URL of the ID changes (and is updated in Wikidata) the ID would automatically be changed in the template too.

In order not to get entangled with some inconsistency/lack in the tagging and titling of these sources in Wikidata, the sites referenced by the template would not be automatically generated from Wikidata but rather come from a centralised list which would be maintained and expanded by the community on consensus about what is a good enough source to be included.

From Wikidata, the template would gather the following: the ID (from property statements in the items), the formatter URL (from property), the language(s) and the title(s) of the site (from the qualifiers of the formatter URL and _not_ from statements in the property’s subject item as those are often non-existent or lack information).

To further minimise the risk of having IDs that lead to the wrong article or are just offline, the template could have a simple report button which would automatically generate a note to check the IDs for the specific item.

Examples



Obviously these are handcrafted, including some sites that don't have a Wikidata property yet and not using multi-language formatters but it shows the potential of the template.

Tasks, things needed

In Wikipedia:

  • Editors who comment on the idea, help to make it better, thinking about how to make it easily translatable and available for all wikis.
  • Template editors who would like to do the coding. The best would be to contact and work together with the creators of the three similar templates, build on those of possible - I’d be happy to help in coordinating this.
  • Creating bots that could help spreading the template in articles.
  • Writing documentation for the template with info on how to use the template in articles, what are the rules for expanding the list of sources.

In Wikidata:

  • Tagging the external ID properties’ formatter URLs with qualifiers for title and language, adding missing formatters for multi-language sites.
  • Submitting property proposals for sources that don’t have it.
  • Matching items in Mix'n'match.
  • Expanding the meta list.

As I lack coding skills, these are just what I came up with and there are probably a lot more to consider.

Possible issues

  • link to encyclopedia already in article's external links
  • making sure the template's list only includes quality sites
  • how can the database of sites be maintained centrally if it is used by many language wikis (how do they communicate?)
  • multiple ID values under a property in an item

Participants

Please put your name here if you would like to help creating the template. I'll make a separate project page if we have enough people.

Discussion

Let me know what you think. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC) (Please contribute @Nomen ad hoc:, @Thierry Caro:, @Epìdosis:, @Magnus Manske:, @Strakhov:, @Eru:, @Lofhi:, @Gerwoman:, @Trade:, @Trivialist:, @Jean-Frédéric:, @Bargioni:, @Rotpunkt:, @Bultro:, @Sakretsu:, @Horcrux:, @Jheald:, @Charles Matthews:, @Simon Villeneuve:, @99of9:, @Spinster:, @Malore:, @Pigsonthewing:, @Vesihiisi:, @Doc James:, @RexxS:, @Galobtter:, @MSGJ:)

Holy wall of text. You could cut that down by 75% easily. As far as I can tell, the idea has merit, but getting to the part where we see what it is you're proposing is an adventure in reading an advocacy piece, more than telling us what you're proposing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
So, who decides what sources get spammed to what pages? Because that is what this proposal amounts to, spamming of a bunch of sources, many of which don't seem to be reliable, just because they are free. Oppose - we are not an advertising service.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
As it says in the proposal, my idea would be that it is based on consensus which sources are added. Please explain which ones are not reliable and how is linking to mostly academic sites advertising or spamming. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I can sort of see making sure that we have categories on en.wiki of the type "Reference works that cover TOPIC" (where TOPIC should be broad topic areas: World War I, but not the Western Front of World War I; physical chemistry but not states of matter. etc. We could then make sure these categories are highlighted at Portals, and could use a template that is presented like {{Commons category}} to direct readers to this list of possible resources. That doesn't necessarily mean they will find content about the specific topic in each reference listed but this would be a list they could start if our articles do not specifically identify any to begin with. --Masem (t) 15:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ugh; this would be a wreck for medical content, as (allegedly) we keep our content more up to date, and often those kinds of sources are (theoretically) well behind the more recent journal sources we use. In the articles I edit, the kinds of sources we would link to generally are grossly outdated and inaccurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I think medical content would no be included as it is already in Template:Medical resources. Though many of the medical articles on these sites show when they were last updated by a professional. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the kind of navigation template clutter that burdens so many articles distracting from the core text, making photos and text alignment jumbled, or filling the bottom of articles with more random stuff. Studies have shown few people click through to external links, like less than 5 percent per page view click through to any external link anywhere in the article. That includes the highly relevant citation links, much less these random general links. The upsides of this template are not balanced by the downsides IMO. These kinds of links are better organized in a Bibliography article where users can decide which are the best online sources and can organize them while not being limited to a few dozen sources. -- GreenC 16:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be about just the placement - where would it be the best? Also, maybe I misunderstood, but there is a contradiction between distracting from core text and no one clicking through them. Also, maybe only some people would use it but that's still a start for a good thing. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
If the template was in the talk page, which exists to discuss existing or new sources. I could support that. Also need to deal with link rot and archive URLs.. every URL dies in time 7 years is average lifespan of a URL, they will likely change URL formats as they move servers, change platforms, new owners etc.. -- GreenC 16:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support (though suggest collapsing the box by default to avoid annoying readers with visual spam). In the area in which I tend to edit (historical biographies etc.) the material is fairly stable and sources tend not to go out-of-date. At the moment Wikidata holds keys into reliable sources, but these are not surfaced to Wikipedia. Dsp13 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
There are appropriate places on Wikipedia to surface reliable sources. But at the bottom of mainspace articles in a collapsed template is not surfacing it is burying. It is also clutter, as I noted in my Oppose !vote very few will click though on these links. An example of how to do it right: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It includes justification as to why a source is reliable, a scale of reliability (score A+ to F-). This page is widely used and appreciated. -- GreenC 20:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedians not knowing about these sources does not make them not reliable - please check the actual links. Again, if the problem is with the placement - I'm happy with having it in a more visible place but then the discussion should rather be constructive about how to make it more visible rather than opposing the whole idea. Also, in shorter or stub articles they would be even more visible and needed. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources are about non-academic sources as those are generally agreed upon in Wikipedia as reliable. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The reason why we usually don't include encyclopedias in a Further reading or External links sections is that, well... we are an encyclopedia. People come to this site to read encyclopedic articles, not to get links to other encyclopedias. WP:ELNO§1 says: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Of course many of these provide additional information to the article. Being an encyclopedia does not mean other encyclopedias contain the same information (especially the thematic ones). Also, IMDB does not contain any extra information to a wiki article, still it's everywhere. And any other kind of external link could include information that could be included in a later version of the wiki article. I think these things should be more flexible and Wikipedia can also be a gateway to other quality sources - it is not a competition. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it's not a competition, but we need to be sure that in each case the link is helpful. In some cases a link to a specific site will be helpful, but in others it will not, for example if the linked source provides content that has been superceded by more recent content that is in the Wikipedia article. We should not be providing blanket assurance that any particular external resource is reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Phil Bridger. Interesting thematic encyclopedias can already be linked on a case by case basis under current policy. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because although I appreciate the thought that went into it and the detail of the exposition, it is largely duplicative. For many of the most important PD sources (EB1911, Catholic, DNB being those I'm most familiar with) editors have already put in the work, in the early 2000's, to identify them in the relevant WP articles. We already have too many competing styles, including inline attributions or simple cites, footnotes in References/Further Reading/External links (to the individual editor's taste), and sidebar posters (which are basically the same as the citation templates minus volume and page information). Citations and inline citations' related footnotes usually link to the PD source of interest, more for purposes of verifiability, but the Further Reading usage is also found in many cases. In other words, addressing Adam Harangozó's point: there are many, many articles that do already include an external encyclopedic source in Further reading; that ship has sailed. Yes, in principle we could import the entire article but sometimes there is archaic or POV, but still interesting, material that doesn't belong in WP proper.
I suggest the better project would be to create templates like (to choose the example I'm familar with) {{Cite EB1911}} and posters like {{EB1911 poster}} and encourage their use instead. If we're going to spend effort on WP's relationship with PD sources, it should be on identifying specific attributable text more precisely; a general reference to a verbatim copy of a PD source doesn't cut it any more. David Brooks (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think you misunderstood, the proposal is not about public domain sources but mostly new encyclopedias.
(previous comment was by User:Adam Harangozó)... Yes, I did misunderstand that part. But I still have a problem with the inconsistency with the (several) existing ways of referring to encyclopedic sources. Especially if an article ends up with both an old-style reference (PD or not) and a new-style one. David Brooks (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Finnusertop's rationale. WP:ELNO is well-crafted to ensure minimal duplication, as it should be. We don't want to start competing with Google in an attempt to link to every quality source on a topic on the web. Wikipedia at its core is a tertiary source, since it's a collection of mostly secondary sources. Collecting tertiary sources would turn us into a quaternary source, and those aren't a thing for a reason. Sdkb (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose- this strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. Reyk YO! 07:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't like the 'other languages' sections much, given we're the English wiki. However, I suppose an argument could be made that, since English is the biggest wiki, if any language should have such a section it's this one. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. So it's External Links, but we're moving them into a template because I-don't-know-why. And it's going to be powered by wikidata.... but wikidata is a problem so we'll use some unclear and complicated method to define the list and then power that with wikidata. I'm not a fan of wikidata in general, but this sounds like an exceptionally messy way to promote wikidata for the sake of wikidata. Alsee (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC) P.S. After studying it more I have a better understanding of the intent. While it makes more sense, I still don't want to try to spam auto-generated and externally defined External Links. Alsee (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC of interest

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An ongoing discussion of interest to watchers of this page is happening here. [It's about RFA watchlist notices] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

CentralNotice banner for WikiGap 2020 Russia

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear colleagues, please comment on CentralNotice banner proposal for WikiGap 2020 Russia article contest. (8 March - 8 May, all IPs from Russia, WPs only, 1 banner impression per week). Thank you. JukoFF (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sticky section headers for mobile

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

On mobile it's a real pain to have to scroll for ages when you want to close a section of the page and read another. If the section header (<h2>) stayed at the top of the screen while you scrolled it would make mobile reading a lot better. Thoughts?  Nixinova   T   C   05:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nixinova: I see what you're saying, but that's be a real PITA on small screens. If your mobile browser supports Javascript there is a script that may work for you - it's a button to automatically scroll to the top. -- a lad insane (channel two) 21:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Would it? I think phones are big enough now that having a header stay in place would not be much of an issue.  Nixinova   T   C   21:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nixinova: I'm sorry for responding so late! I speak only from my perspective - I use a very small phone, small enough that such a sticky would be annoying, but I know I'm in a small minority. I'd be completely onboard with you idea so long as there was a toggle somewhere! -- a lad insane (channel two) 08:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree! One of many UI changes that could be made to make mobile better, but especially important since it affects readers rather than editors (most of whom are on computers). Sdkb (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Namespace selection in logs

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T185854

Hello!

I think it would be good if you can search for deletions ONLY in a particular namespace, for example File or Draft. Special:Log is unable to do this now however it works perfect at Special:Contributions. Thanks!Jonteemil (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: that would be best done via a software enhancement, and I think there is a request open that meets your needs: phab:T185854. You may comment on that task and follow it for updates. — xaosflux Talk 18:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

G8 for talk pages with no corresponding subject page: time factor?

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion

When an editor wishes to first make a talk page, prior to the actual article, why doesn't WP:CSD#G8 have a time factor?

The case of "user subpages when the user has not created a user page" is on the list of tolerated exceptions- more than just tolerated, it is part of what is called "any page that is useful to Wikipedia."

I propose that a 48 or even 72 hour window of time be added to the "useful to wikipedia" criteria for CSD#G8 for talk/no article (yet). Pi314m (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems like more trouble than it's worth. Why are people creating talk pages that aren't "useful to Wikipedia" and that don't have a corresponding article page? ST47 (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Not really sure as I have never seen it happen, but maybe they want to discuss the topic with someone before creating the article? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
In that case, they should head for the teahouse, an appropriate wikiproject, or other discussion forum - orphaned talk pages have near-zero visibility. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Question - I am a bit confused... are we talking about:
1) ARTICLE talk pages with no corresponding article... 2) User talk pages, where the user has not yet registered... or 3) sandbox pages in userspace?
All three should be handled a bit differently. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I interpreted it as the first one based on the title of the thread. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Better solution - make it more explicit that the Ignore all rules policy applies everywhere including CSD. If it's in the best interest of Wikipedia NOT to nominate a CSD-eligible page, don't nominate it or wait until it IS in the project's interest to nominate it. For some G8 pages, may mean waiting the 48-72 hours Pi314m suggests. For other G8-eligible pages, clearly no wait is needed. As an administrator, if it's in the best interest to NOT honor a deletion request or to WAIT before honoring it, decline the request or leave it alone for a day or three as your good judgment suggest. Bottom line: I don't think we need to hard-code in an time factor. Editors and administrators should use common sense in tagging and deleting. If this isn't happening, we should encourage it in general terms across all CSD criteria, not focus on G8. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • If there is a useful orphaned talk page, just tag it with {{G8-exempt}}. -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that such examples would be very rare, but when they do occur I would expect any deleting admin to be open to restoring such a page, and then it can be tagged as Tavix said. For such a rare case I don't think there's any need to build in a timer, because nearly all such orphaned talk pages will be eligible for deletion immediately. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you can explain your reasoning for your proposed change? I presume it is related to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Talk:Peter de Jager? isaacl (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    If that's the case then I don't see what purpose the talk page served before the article was created. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on the future of Wikipedia:In the news

Latest comment: 4 years ago101 comments57 people in discussion
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 RfC is being closed early per WP:SNOW. The proposal is clearly unsuccessful—the community rejects the view that the "in the news" (ITN) section of the Main Page should be "shut down, marked as historical, and replaced". Those who opposed its removal argued that it serves a legitimate encyclopedic interest by showcasing high-quality articles about high-attention contemporary topics. While several editors pointed out issues with the current process of maintaining the section, the community disagrees that removing the section is the solution to those issues. There was an attempt to expand the scope of the RfC to discuss alternative solutions; however, that side-discussion is being drowned out. If there is still interest in those alternative approaches, it should be discussed in a new thread. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

On the talk page for WP:ITN, and most especially on User talk:Jimbo Wales, multiple editors and administrators expressed their disapproval of the ITN project and its placement on the Main Page. There are multiple facets of disagreement with ITN's system, but the main central issues are as follows:

  • Confusion regarding its purpose: This section is called "in the news". The issue therein is that by Wikipedia policy, and the established internal policy of the most regular ITN contributors, is specifically not to run a news ticker. Unfortunately, this has resulted in a level of subjectivity regarding which Wikipedia articles that happen to be "in the news" are significant enough to be posted to the Main Page. A rough consensus exists, but it is more or less determined by whichever editors are present in the discussion. This subjectivity calls into the question the name of the aforementioned project. Name changes have been proposed multiple times, but none have stuck.
  • Other sources exist: Portal:Current events and Wikinews are cited as sites for staying ahead of breaking news, whether they be in Wikipedia article format or not. Beyond that, the argument is that there are simply other news sites available to seek this information if people desire it, and Wikipedia is not expected to be an up-to-date source of current events.
  • Better options exist: WP:ITN is currently featured prominently at the top of the Main Page, which some people feel is not appropriate. Other options for its slot include WP:FP or a proposed "recently updated" section.
  • Main Page exists to serve its readers and not its editors: The central purpose of WP:ITN often-cited is that it draws the attention of editors to articles based on or containing current events, which conflicts with the aforementioned argument.

I am not saying one way or another whether the above arguments are valid or invalid, or what rebuttals exist for each of them, but those are the central arguments that were purported on Jimbo Wales' talk page for why WP:ITN should be marked historical. So far, there has not been a lot of participation on this subject outside of the regulars of ITN and the "talk page stalkers" on Jimbo's page. That is what this RFC aims to solve. Should Wikipedia:In The News be shut down, marked as historical, and replaced on the Wikipedia:Main Page?--WaltCip (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Addendum (27/2/2020) - Or, if there is no consensus to delete WP:ITN, what other steps should be taken to improve or refine the process?--WaltCip (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – ITN's purpose is not to "draw the attention of editors". That should be done at WP:ITN/Candidates (EDIT also at WP:CEN). ITN's purpose to draw readers' attention to articles about topics that are significantly in the news and have been improved to a quality worthy of highlighting on the Main Page. Not every news story qualifies in both these criteria, which is why it is rejected. ITN has also contributed to the improvement of countless BLPs that have, until the person's death, been plagued with sourcing issues. (See Slate article about ITN.) I for one have created articles like Mavis Pusey about notable people that have gone unnoticed and "Under-the-Radar" as The New York Times put it. ITN is doing great work to improve our encyclopedia. What people still seem to not understand is that ITN is not a news service. It is a WikiProject like any other. The goal of the project and the measure by which it or any other WikiProject should be judged is whether or not it causes articles to be improved and helps to "make a great encyclopedia" (see first paragraph of Wikipedia:In the news). Yes, we should lower our notability criteria for inclusionblurbs but I absolutely oppose lowering our quality standards or removing ITN altogether. My nominations are sometimes rejected. Tough. That is life. But that does not give me the right to go complaining to Jimbo as some (not OP of this RfC) have done. ITN is not perfect but it is a great WikiProject that has made immense contributions to our encyclopedia. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose shutting down ITN at this time. Project is active and well used. Project scope is well defined at the WP:ITN guideline pages, though of course we should always be willing to discuss and change its scope and guidelines as needed. I don't see the value in shutting down an active and well used project. --Jayron32 18:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    How about retaining it as is but putting it on its own page with a simple link from the main page? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nearly all the problems identified above stem from a lack of participation and nominations to ITN outside a roughly small set of editors. As one of those editors, we want more participation, we want more stories, but we need those stories to be suggested and those articles to be in decent shape, which tends to be a stumbling block for many newcomers otherwise. If we had double the participation and nominations, I bet most of the problems listed above would not be seen as problems any more. --Masem (t) 18:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would focus the attention on fixing the lack of participation problem here and on other areas of Wikipedia. I agree with the others here that there is no value added by shutting this down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I feel that the ITN section does serve a highly useful purpose. As per the other prior comments above, it does have its own policies, procedures and parameters; if these need to be refined somewhat, that can be done through discussion. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I have deliberately not read the previous discussions about this, and rarely visit the main page, so I come to this as an experienced Wikipedia editor, but rather cold on the topic itself. My memory is that the original idea of this section was to highlight Wikipedia articles about people or things that are currently in the news, rather than articles about the news events themselves. If this is still the focus of the section then I see no problem with it, but I dislike the tendency for Wikipedia to be treated as a breaking news service, with articles being created about events that have received only news coverage, rather than the proper secondary coverage that we should base articles on. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Completely laughable proposal. Abyssal (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The fact that people misunderstand ITN does not mean much because everything is misunderstood by someone. It might be better to shut down User talk:Jimbo Wales instead. Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I would take a great deal of delight in that being implemented.--WaltCip (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    😂 Atsme Talk 📧 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It documents our articles that are in the news and are therefore of likely to be of interest to our readers, not the news per se. This is a bad argument and should be a WP:SNOW close. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is a valuable part of this project and encourages the creation and improvement of many articles. 331dot (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ITN is far from perfect - IMO the biggest problem is a lack of quality article updates for stories which would otherwise be posted. But shutting it down is completely over the top and unjustified. If anyone has constructive ideas on how to improve things, they should be discussed at WT:ITN, not User talk:Jimbo Wales. Modest Genius talk 12:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Nah, UT:JW is a good honeypot for crazy. It serves a valuable purpose keeping a good volume of crap off of useful parts of Wikipedia. --Jayron32 12:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Jayron32, " UT:JW is a good honeypot for crazy" most accurate description of it that I have seen in a while. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I did specify 'constructive' proposals... Modest Genius talk 15:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ITN is a silly place with no clear purpose. Half the editors want to promote "good" articles (with the result that the main page is a quality-curated [aka. censored] version of the encyclopedia, which in turn means I refuse to click on any bolded link on the main page), while the other half are more interested in "significance". Consensus between the two camps is practically impossible. One just has to look at how often WP:NOTNEWS is cited in ITN, or (WP:MINIMUMDEATHS). The entire project is extremely arbitrary because significance is inherently arbitrary, and quality is no better [4]. It would still make sense if we just embraced subjectivity and operated by a pure vote count ala RFA, but we don't. Further:
    1. One can't just ignore ITN and let those who're interested get on with it, because (funnily enough) nearly all the problems identified above stem from a lack of participation (Masem, above).
    2. It encourages the creation and improvement of many articles. Not true. Most nominations are by people other than their creators/updaters. Besides, even if this were the case, then ITN effectively becomes a bribe for people to update articles, and I find that silly.
    3. Project is active and well-used. So it is, but it's also lost people who've become disillusioned with it (so much for "lack of participation"). Check how many people didn't like ITN in this previous discussion ([5]) and how many of these people even come to this one. I'm pretty confident more people who are familiar with ITN's processes disapprove of it than approve it, but there never is consensus to change, so the status quo gets kept.
    4. It documents our articles that are in the news and are therefore of likely to be of interest to our readers - anyone who believes this can try nominating articles they see in the news to ITN themselves. You are going to be opposed by the people who think only "good" articles can be promoted. Example: 2020 Australian Open was certainly in the news (it's even ITNR), but it wasn't featured. You need more than "are in the news" and "likely to be of interest to our readers".
    5. Do we even want to mention the word "bias"? This is another thing one can easily search the archives for, e.g. [6]. Is it even possible to untangle ITN from systemic bias? With significance inherently arbitrary, quality also arbitrary, and whatever is "in the news" dependent on where the reader is physically located, I doubt it (and that's before getting into the fact that some articles, e.g. an election in some obscure nation, will be less developed because we have fewer editors from those nations).
    tl; dr: what ITN really is is a place where a bunch of people (the ITN editorial board) argue about which articles are worth featuring on the main page. This group of people is completely vulnerable to systemic bias and has mostly arbitrary standards. They can decide X is worth posting today, but change their minds tomorrow. The main page is better off without it.
    Banedon (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Several of your points are exaggerations, and stem from common misunderstanding of the purpose and methods of ITN.
    Most regulars of ITN are judging both the significance of the item and the quality of the article, and it is typically only newcomers to ITN that see only the significance, unaware about quality. If anything, TRM is probably the most stickler on quality but TRM is also very vocal when significance is not there as well, so no, we don't have half the editors ignoring significance and/or quality.
    Article quality is a requirement that comes from any Main Page featured link regardless of what section (ITN, DYK, etc.)- it has to showcase quality work on WP, so that's a non-negotiable and suggesting any attempt to remove it is a non-starter. And significance and quality are two separate factors, they are not tradeoffs as you suggest. We decide if something is significant or not, and separately if it is of quality or not. Quality for an ITN item is not hard, we're not asking for GA level here, but we are asking for appropriate sourcing especially for BLP and those RD-related ones, reasonable length, and not just a splash of tables with minimal prose. And plenty of editors will jump in if it is an item they can help with. We're a volunteer project, we can't force anyone to do anything. But I personally try to offer my hand if I see something relatively close or a rather significant story if I have time, I just can't do that nor necessarily have the interest for all ITN posted ones. But I known plenty of the other regulars dig in to help where appropriate.
    Most other points are all related to the fact that ITN is not a news ticker. We are not going to be a mirror of the same headlines one would see at CNN or the like, which is the most common misconception in all those points you have listed. WP is not supposed to be a newspaper in the first place, and while we cover very current events we shouldn't be covering the minutae of broader events - for example, you could write volumes to summarize every day of the Trump impeachment proceedings for the four-some months it took. But that's not how an encyclopedic works, we're looking at the long-term highlights; ultimately at the end of the day, there should certainly be a decent article on the impeachment but that's "a" single article, not pages and pages. That aspect translates to ITN in that we're looking at big picture stories, events that are the keystone points in major long-running stories rather that be a news ticker that cycle numerous but often insignificant events within that longer story that have no impact. (That link about the bias is more specific that we announced that Trump won the presidency which was the more keystone event of the election cycle over the inaugeration, that was not bias). If you want to see more of a newspaper approach, Wikinews is exactly that project, and that's over that way. ITN is a reflection of how WP is meant to cover current events, not how the media covers news. --Masem (t) 01:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Masem:
    1. any attempt to remove [quality criterion] is a non-starter - possibly to you, not necessarily for everyone else, e.g. [7], [8].
    2. Quality for an ITN item is not hard - I've repeatedly pointed out that it's extremely rare for people to oppose a nomination because of omissions in the text. By far the most common reason for opposes based on quality is unreferenced text, which implies that to get the article posted all one has to do is to delete the unreferenced text. One can even restore the text after the article is no longer on the main page (I'm sure this happened once in an OTD article, but I can't find it anymore). Here's another (tongue-firmly-in-cheek) way to stop articles from getting posted [9]. I call both these fixes silly, not sure if others do.
    3. significance and quality are two separate factors, they are not tradeoffs as you suggest - this statement is contradicted by ITN policy. To quote from WP:ITN, "a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article. Conversely, an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commenters that it is deserving of inclusion". Examples in practice: [10], [11]
    4. I personally try to offer my hand if I see something relatively close or a rather significant story if I have time - good for you. Back in the day I used to nominate articles to see if anyone was interested in improving it, vaguely remember being called out for nominating bad articles, and stopped doing it.
    5. Most other points are all related to the fact that ITN is not a news ticker - so you say. Others don't agree. Here's an example of a proposal to do something which would, as you write in the first comment to the thread, "[make us] become a news ticker". Note the OP was not the only person in favor of the change. There're several more such proposals in the archives who say the same thing, indicating more people who think that way.
    I stand by my assessment that we as a whole do not agree on what the purpose of ITN is (e.g. [12], [13]), cannot agree about whether ITN is biased (e.g. [14], [15]) and how the ITN editorial board has arbitrary standards. The main page is better off without it.
    Banedon (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I would consider the diffs you point out in the first point as sarcasm, not serious. Regardless, as long as ITN is a Main Page component, our hands are tied on quality. That said: I fully agree that we should not be remove essential article content that not sourced just to get an ITN just because it is hard to get all the sources, or playing games by removing content to get the ITN and then putting it back. If that activity is actually discovered to be happening, that would start a possible trip to ANI if the editors don't stop abusing it.
    On the criteria you quote, I have always read that as to the extent of the update, not so much its sourcing quality, and that is particularly true for science topics. The maintain may give high level details, and we put to ITN based on those, and then more expert editors come in, find the academic sources and expand out the update. That is the intent of that statement, and that reflects the basics of what we want ITN to do. It does not mean "sub-par" in terms of "partially sources", and if you feel that could be mis-read, then we need to fix that. --Masem (t) 05:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I don't have anything more to say that I haven't said already, so I won't be responding any further (especially since this thread's already huge). Banedon (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Masem: why do you way "our hands are tied on quality"? That's not in any way a god-given rule, or an overarching sitewide policy, it's just something that has been decided upon by consensus and precedent, and could be changed if there was a desire to do so. The flipside of the "showcasing quality content" argument is a desire to engage more potential new editors, something which is easier to do if they click through to an article and observe that it's a bag of garbage ripe for improvement. Check out this suggestion at TFA, to drop a substandard FA article on to the main page every now and again. And, as we all know, POTD articles are almost routinely crap. I'm not saying we necessarily should relax the quality standard, but equally there is no justification for rejecting it out of hand.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    The Main Page is meant to feature what is representative of our best work. A "substandard FA" is still tons better than 99% of more articles. The POTD is only looking at the picture, not the article behind it, and judging that quality. For ITN, we're looking to make sure that the article is in a good place to start other editors to add to, in a "monkey see monkey do" approach - that everything is appropriately sourced (particularly for a BLP or RD), it is long enough and reasonably comprehensive but by no means complete, and there's the update of why it is in the news there. These are not hard, but where most ITNCs fail (when significance is otherwise deemed okay) is on sourcing and 90% of those cases are related to creative people's -ologies sections which editors historically have not cited appropriately. That's an historical failure we've had with BLPs in this area for a long time. --Masem (t) 15:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    PS: It's ironic how some editors below (Guettarda, GreenC, Goldenshimmer, oulfis) say "ITN is how I hear about news" while others are vehemently against the idea that ITN is a news ticker. So in spite of all the efforts to make ITN not a news ticker, others are treating it as a news ticker, and it is useful to them precisely because it's a news ticker. Really?! ITN makes no sense. We're better off removing it. Banedon (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
    PPS: this isn't criticism of the editors mentioned above, but rather that we cannot agree on what ITN is for. Banedon (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Banedon: I didn't intend my comment to mean "that's how I get the news". Rather, I value it as what it is - a curated set of links that point me to more details about a story (or give me a heads-up to something I missed). Guettarda (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
    Re the addendum: if ITN is not removed, then I would say something like take the BBC news feed as the "source material", and the ITN editorial board can worry about which articles to link to each news item on BBC. Banedon (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content

Article quality is a requirement that comes from any Main Page featured link

How then do you justify links to low quality articles such as Hanau? Downsize43 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The general practice is to apply the quality standard only to bolded links. Hanau is not bolded.—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Consider the following quotes from the above:
  • ITN's purpose to draw readers' attention to articles about topics that are significantly in the news and have been improved to a quality worthy of highlighting on the Main Page.
  • My memory is that the original idea of this section was to highlight Wikipedia articles about people or things that are currently in the news, rather than articles about the news events themselves.

IMHO the first describes how most ITN’s are now, with a quickly written and constantly changing article about an event, with little about the wider environment in which it occurred. For example: Shootings occurred in Hanau ...

The second would result in a less newsy and more encyclopediac article, such as: Hanau was the location of shootings ... Downsize43 (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose - as a reader I see real value in ITN. As an editor I value a lot of other things (DYK, TFA), but as a reader ITN is the best part of the main page. Guettarda (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment by OP - We're at the 21-hour mark, and I wonder if at this point, the current tally can be considered a consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN is the main reason I go. To find a link a breaking story (like the Corono virus, a hurricane etc..). And to learn what else is happening in the world that some random wikipedians think is important enough. Curated current news is not Wikipedia's purpose, but for this exception it works surprisingly well. Ignore All Rules. -- GreenC 15:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Would you not find ITN equally useful if it was on a separate page with a link from the main page? There are plenty of parts of Wikipedia that some people find to be extremely appealing, but that doesn't mean they have to be on an already overly-cluttered main page. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The main page is a bit of a mess, and it could be significantly improved, but probably the way to improve it is to integrate 'in the news' within a more unified display of content, not to remove 'in the news'. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ITN has become quite stale and unproductive. Most other sections of the main page list several new items each day but ITN tends to repeat the same items day after day, even when they are no longer in the news. For example, on Feb 26 there was one nomination – 2020 CD3 – but this was shot down at ITN/C as being "trivial". Because this new item has not been accepted, ITN continues to show the oldest item – Hanau shootings – which is now over a week old. So, the effect is that ITN has four blurbs for eight days – one every two days. This is too much attention on too few stories and so some reform is needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    So it sounds like you want ITN to be refined rather than delete outright. For future reference/posterity, what sort of changes are you looking to see? A relaxation of the "notability" criteria that we use to judge stories, I'd assume?--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    On rather obvious answer is to make no changes at all, but simply to put what we have on the front page now on a subpage with a simple link from the front page. Any changes [past that could be decided by those who participate in ITN. They could decide to change nothing, or they could decide to make use of the sudden lifting of space constraints. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    In addition, if you don't like what is posted, you need to be participating. We can only consider what is nominated, and only post what there is consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    That's a rather strange argument. You appear to be implying that someone like me who opposes the entire idea of Wikipedia being a source of late-breaking news instead of an encyclopedia needs to participate in deciding what late-breakking news to include in order to have a valid opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    An issue we have to explain far too many times is that ITN is not a news ticker, we are not going to repeat verbatim what the media is reporting. This will often lead to periods of lack of stories that have any encyclopedic value. For example, over the last few days, the media's focus has been dominated by the coronavirus for good reason, but they have a disproportionate coverage of it (they are far more panicked than medical experts are at this point). ITN has that covered by the ongoing, ready to post a blurb on a major change like an upgrade to a pandemic. Take that out of the news, there's not much left that was really news that we could cover that would be otherwise biased: we are not going to cover the individual US presidential debates, and we try to avoid unfortunate cases of domestic crimes like the workplace shooting at the Coors factory yesterday. You take out these types of stories and there's not much that I see bubbling up on most news sources main pages that are ITN usable. I had suggested the mini-moon story, knowing it was an edge case for ITN but at least that's something that has some encyclopedic value for a global audience. This is sometimes how the news happens. Sometimes we'll get a flood of numerous different headlines all being appropriate for ITN. We can't make news happen or the like; we're not like DYN where there is effectively an infinite pool (for all purposes) of items to pull and we just have to manage that flow. -- Masem (t) 14:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    ITN is currently highlighting the death of a former president (of Egypt) while ignoring two current leaders who are meeting in India. It covers a domestic shooting in Germany while ignoring a shooting in the US. Riots in India are covered while riots in Greece are ignored. There's plenty of news but the ITN selection is quite arbitrary and partial. And because the process is driven by a who-shouts-loudest forum, items tend to suffer attrition from opinionated objections and this discourages people from making nominations. This manual process needs to be cleared away and a fresh start made on a more automatic, objective and productive basis. For example, the Wikipedia app doesn't show readers ITN. Instead it shows them the top-read articles. This is quite objective and sensible as, by definition, it shows the topics which are currently of most interest to our readership. This naturally correlates well with what's in the news but also throws up some interesting oddities. For example, mouth assessment and The Eyes of Darkness are getting exceptionally high readership currently. That's probably associated with the virus scare but they provide different angles and insights from the usual media. So, we can try the app's approach and see how it works out. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support turning ITN into a separate page with a simple link from the main page for the reasons listed at the top of this RfC. Oppose any attempt to shut down this RfC early. I just heard about it and some people are on vacation, in the hospital, etc. Let it run the full 30 days. Oppose the ongoing WP:BLUDGEONING behavior where anyone who dares to oppose gets bombarded with multiple objections but those who support do not.
    We all knew before this was posted what the result would be. Here is why, and it has nothing to do with whether ITN on the front page is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. Near where I live we had a proposal to make changes to a major highway. On the side of keeping the traffic flowing were thousands and thousands of users of the road, none of whom showed up at the city council meetings about the plan. On the side of a plan to reduce 4 lanes to 2, convert the existing lanes to parking spaces, drop the speed limit from 40mph to 25 and place stop signs every 50-100 feet were a grand total of 15 shop owners who showed up at every meeting and gave generously to political campaigns. 1% who are vocal proponents who are heavily invested in an idea always win over 99% who would oppose the idea if asked but see it as a minor problem that has a minor negative effect on new readers. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I agree that your analogy is applicable here. It's usually those who don't (or rarely) participate in ITN that call for its elimination, or people who participate and don't get their way, and those who actually do participate should get a voice. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    Why should those of us who think that this should be an encyclopedia aid not a news ticker be denied a voice? Just because we refuse to participate in something that we believe to be a determent to the encyclopedia and to the readers? Not-serious-counter-proposal: Only those who are not heavily invested in the current ITN system should get a voice. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not saying anyone should be denied a voice, (we're here, after all) but people who participate should not get less of a voice. ITN aids readers, not deters. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think we know for sure what the result of this RFC is going to be. That's why I didn't outright say earlier it should be closed as WP:SNOW, because I wasn't sure if we had yet received the input of a reasonable cross-section of the community. I'm more than happy to let this run the full 30 days. Is this RFC something that needs to be posted on WP:CENT?--WaltCip (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Post a neutrally-worded link on CENT. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the section has been a constant, popular, and important part of the main page since (? but as long as I recall). As an up-to-date encyclopedia there is nothing broken here, the section simply accents articles of interest to readers as do the other features on the main page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The purpose of this project is to create a free encyclopaedia, and people acting in a way that's fundamentally hostile to the creators and users can't help with that goal. If one clicks through WP:NOTNEWS, for instance, they'll quickly discover why it can't be construed to apply to In The News. Similarly, none of the other complaints could be made by someone acting in good faith who has looked into the matter at all. WilyD 14:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No, as a reader I enjoy it TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The purpose of the Main Page is to connect readers with articles. ITN does exactly that, by providing links to articles that may be of interest to readers due to high contemporary relevance. The project itself may perhaps need an overhaul, but it should absolutely continue to exist and remain on the Main Page. Yunshui 雲水 14:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Alternative... the issue here was about the lack of coverage in ITN. The proposal to remove it is being done by an ITN contributor who wants nothing of the sort, to drown the perennial coverage issue. 4 genres dominate the whole thing. Those include disaster, government leadership, sporting awards and entertainment awards. That's like 80-90% of the template, which only gets four slots total. Why is there not a companion page, which is currently proposed on Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Proposal_for_a_companion_page,_Wikipedia:_In_other_news, and why is there no sort of link to Signpost or other attempt to lean into the sites mission? ~ R.T.G 16:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    • A link to Wikipedia:News (which itself includes a link to Signpost) exists in the box immediately after POTD. As that W:News page points out, there's various ways to dissect news about Wikipedia depending on what you want. This is perfectly fair for that. --Masem (t) 16:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Please Masem, respect the Signpost as well as you respect WPITN is. The Signpost is a valid thing, and it is a news thing. In an ideal world, they would link to one another. ~ R.T.G 16:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
        • All I'm saying is that Signpost is one way to cut news about Wikipedia. There's several other ways - such as what the Foundation says, how Wikipedia appears in the media, simple daily and weekly tallies of edit counts/etc. Wikipedia:News is a smart page to take someone if they say "I want news about Wikipedia" and give no other preference. --Masem (t) 16:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:News is not a link to news, but a link to links to news. ~ R.T.G 16:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
            • ... to allow the reader to pick which version of news about Wikipedia they'd wish to read, since there's a few different ways to distill it. Though I would not be opposed to adding a specific link to the Signpost as a second link on the same line on the main page as the link to Wikipedia:News as the one that I'd think most would likely use. --Masem (t) 17:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm okay expanding the scope of the RFC to include alternate solutions. The biggest noise I heard was regarding whether ITN should even have a continued spot on the Main Page, and as you know, being a regular, I'm surrounded by insiders who wouldn't even consider that as an option. I think a lot of people are in agreement that ITN should be changed, but that they are not sure how, and no single solution - not even the "In other news" page - seems to be getting much ground.--WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Well I'd like to see at least a small expansion to ITN and many others have expressed that wish in the past. Such a change can be done in a way which barely affects the ITN project. ~ R.T.G 16:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It would be useful if a much wider range of news were to be highlighted, but that requires wider participation, not relegating the project to somewhere less prominent. I'm not strongly opposed to moving it below the fold, but in the current two-column layout I'm not sure what merit putting a smaller featured picture in top right has for the main page (and let's face it, featured picture has as many problems as ITN). Espresso Addict (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • OpposeMain Page Wikipedia exists to serve its readers and not its editors. I think its hugely valuable to have this sections, I would support intelligent proposals to improve this section and make it more relevant to users, but there is no evidence at all presented that this change would improve Wikipedia for its readers. AlasdairEdits (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    • The evidence is the inadequacy of the current template. It has four, sometimes five slots. From a readers perspective, literally anything additional would improve that. ~ R.T.G 19:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - use it (and Wikinews) more, and avoid including breaking news & WP:NOTNEWS in our articles, particularly in the AP2 topic area. Perhaps stronger enforcement of related PAGs would help? --Atsme Talk 📧 17:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Replace with highlights from WP:MOSTEDITED. Let's use the top of the most viewed page to show readers what our editors are genuinely interested in as a means of editor recruitment, instead of trying to be just another headlines site for an overly-wide audience based on the opinions of typically no more than two dozen ITN participants. EllenCT (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Those at ITN have no control over who participates. Anyone (including you) is free to participate, and I invite you to. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: there are some plausible, if anecdotal, arguments that ITN doesn't promote article improvement before inclusion. But to really evaluate whether ITN's presence on the mainpage serves our purpose of building an encyclopedia, it would be helpful to have more information (data/examples) regarding whether articles tend to benefit from increased attention and editing after ITN links to them. Assuming ITN provides some non-zero benefit in this regard, it's better than nothing and shouldn't simply be removed -- but I guess the next question would be whether there's some alternative that might provide a greater benefit in the same space. (EllenCT's suggestion above of using highlights from WP:MOSTEDITED is pretty interesting.) -- Visviva (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Question: what is the basis for the statement above, that "Main Page exists to serve its readers and not its editors"? I would have thought it self-evident that the main page exists to serve the purpose of the project, namely to build a comprehensive free and open encyclopedia (the Wikipedia.org website being merely one incidental aspect of this project, and the main page being in turn an incidental aspect of the website). So whether the main page serves current editors or not, it surely needs to promote editing, or at least some sort of involvement in the work of the project, in some way. -- Visviva (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    All parts of Wikipedia, all in equal measure, serve everyone and no one. Editors and readers are, in equal measure, the purpose of the main page, every article, and every thing else at Wikipedia. Without editors, there would be nothing to read, without readers there would be no reason to edit. --Jayron32 20:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I open the main page every day or two to see if there are any news items. It's my main method of hearing about news, and I'd be sad to lose it. The quality seems high (it has plenty of eyes on it, I think; I fear that moving it off the main page might damage that). Using encyclopedia articles as the basis of news items also avoids the "firehose of trivia" effect that would come from trying to stay up to date with a source like Wikinews or the BBC (if the headline won't still be on the front page in a few days, I probably don't need to know about it!). ITN keeps me up to date while using my limited time and energy efficiently. I appreciate that a lot. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for essentially the same reasons as Goldenshimmer above: I intentionally don't consume news, and agree wholeheartedly that "if the headline won't still be on the front page in a few days, I probably don't need to know about it." I appreciate that ITN is slow-moving and focused on holistic summaries rather than individual 'breaking' details; it seems appropriate to Wikipedia's mission to supply information that will be of interest to many people but in an encyclopedic, not news-y, way. I suppose since I don't follow the news, I wouldn't know if there were major events that ITN is leaving out, but everything that has appeared seems appropriate. As a reader there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with ITN. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 00:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose ITN is not meant to be a news ticker, it's meant to showcase relevant, timely articles relating to current events that people who visit the site can find more information about. ITN serves its purpose relatively well and should definitely remain on the main page. Nixinova   T   C   05:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but only if all the stories are replaced with alt blurb 3 - "Wikipedia closes its "In the News" section. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I find ITN one of the more useful sections of the home page. Like it or not, Wikipedia does have articles on current event and they are often among the best sources for finding out what is happening without hysteria. The current coronavirus situation is an excellent example. I check ITN irregularly, both to find out about interesting stories I missed and to check on how events are being covered, with a view to fixing any problems I see (I rarely find that necessary). I think attracting more eyes on current event articles is an important side benefit of ITN. While there is always room for improvement, ITN isn't remotely broken.--agr (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename and broaden scope I would support changing the name of the section from "In the news", which causes confusion, to "Recently updated". Along side that, I would expect the scope to be broadened somewhat to include articles that have been recently updated with new facts, even if those facts are not what someone would consider "news". So for instance, imagine there is a significant archaeological find about Ancient Egypt, something that changes the way historians interpret the civilization going forward. That would likely take a long time to be written up in journals, accepted by mainstream historians, and filter down to Wikipedia, such that it's not really "in the news" - you won't turn on CNN and learn about it. But when our article is updated with that information I wouldn't mind seeing Ancient Egypt in such a "Recently updated" main page section. I would expect that the bulk of that section be things like blurbs about recent deaths and other newsy things, but I think this change would stop the confusion of it being a news ticker and would also serve to keep the content fresh, as right now finding the right combination of updates based on news and quality means the section changes somewhat slowly.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and support the proposals to start a new main page feature concerning recently updated content or WP:MOSTEDITED (one of which is the proposal identified as "rename and broaden scope" immediately above). ITN is and has been fraught with questionable judgment calls about what constitutes relevant content for our readers and it is beyond the scope of a limited volunteer team to do this accurately and impassionately, plus reflects poorly on our core mission which we codify as WP:NOTNEWS. Wholeheartedly agree with the comment Is it even possible to untangle ITN from systemic bias? made by Banedon. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support For years it has no longer served its intended purpose. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, readers do come to Wikipedia to get the most thorough coverage of topics that happen to be important news events. BD2412 T 21:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - It will never fulfill its purpose. We will never have quality articles on breaking news stories. In the meantime, it’s a political honeypot that detracts from Wikipedia's actual mission. We’re here to build an encyclopedic not a newspaper. Levivich (talk) 03:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I look at ITN a lot more than I look at DYK, and would rue its removal (even though I've never contributed to the former). I find the slight time delay between a news story developing and maybe even a pre-existing page being posted here is actually quite helpful. I also quite like the fact that stories stay for a few days longer than they do in non-Wiki news feeds. I tend to discover tid-bits about people and topical events that have happened around the world that are not in my country's news outlets - or at least that I've missed them. And when something big has happened that I am interested in, I find it of great interest to see how my fellow Wikipedians have covered it. I find the recently deceased links also of some interest and value, too. All in all - it's a great shop window element to include on the Wikipedia main page, and long may it continue. It's a shame Portals aren't so visible! (Now wanders off and hides from the impending howls of foaming-mouthed editors...) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I feel the same way as multiple editors above. This is a useful section that directs readers to encyclopaedic articles about current events. I think it's very much in line with our mission. The events I find are normally of global significance. I also think it is a channel for new editors to become involved because of editing to new articles. I feel strongly this should be kept. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - why don't we move it down the page and create a new section to replace it? Specifically, a section highlighting recently promoted Featured Articles. That way we can showcase both some of Wikipedia's best ongoing work and encourage people to get involved in featured article creation and promotion. This would complement TFA quite nicely - one special featured article from the past for TFA, several newly improved and approved featured articles for the new section. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
(arbitrary break)
  • Oppose or Strong oppose 23
  • Support 7
  • Alternative 1
  • Replace 1
  • Rename and broaden scope 1

Current tallies here for reference (question/comment removed) ☆ Bri (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose It encourages people to improve articles, connects users to where our articles are for topics of some of the highest current interest, connects users to articles about people and topics they may not otherwise know about (RD in particular) and also to navigation aids such as the list of recent deaths page, helps reduce duplicate article creation on topics of sudden interest, and acts as a display-window for some of our better material. If it disappeared, I would miss it, and I think Wikipedia as a site would be that degree diminished. People click the links if an item is in ITN, so I do think people use it, and I do think people find it useful. Jheald (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wholly stupid proposal. ITN encourages the improvement of articles, and it also advertises relevant articles that people worked hard on to a wider readership. This seems to have been prompted by a single disgruntled user complaining about the wording of a single blurb. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but it is also not a traditional encyclopedia that cannot easily handle updates. The feature is fine as it is, but I would not oppose renaming it to something like "Current events", which might work better semantically. StonyBrook (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Removing (or hiding) it certainly doesn't make wikipedia better. I can understand where the initiators are coming from, but ITN is a well established feature of the main page, and the one that I probably use the most. – sgeureka t•c 16:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose one of the issues with ITN is that it's a small box with static content. We should redesign the main page to support dynamic content, scollers, and HTML5 CSS widgets. When the main page is successfully redesigned we can revisit the value of each component. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ITN often seems like an inadequate fudge between being a news service and showcasing encyclopedic content. The most prominent events often have trouble getting in because of the quality of the relevant articles, but the best articles may not correspond to sufficiently important events. I'm sure we can use the space for something better. Hut 8.5 22:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per C&C and Goldenshimmer. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 23:13, 03 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per... well everything, but C&C is a good start. The nomination is fundamentally misguided and making invalid assumptions, like "having both a significance criterion and a quality criterion is bad." That said, while we're here, I would be in favor of removing the link to Wikinews in the sister projects template, and also shutting that misbegotten project down entirely - but that's an entirely different debate that's been had before and rejected, so eh. SnowFire (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I like ITN. Yes news is knowledge. And yes we do summaries of breaking news very well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a reader of Wikipedia I use ITN on a daily basis to find out world happenings. It certainly would be missed should it be removed. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2020 (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.

Discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Grant to improve and spread excerpts

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! I'm requesting a rapid grant to improve and spread excerpts on the English Wikipedia and five other wikis. Excerpts are a form of content reuse within Wikipedia, easy to use and with wide potential. The proposed strategy involves:

  • Developing the necessary resources in six wikis (Spanish, English, German, Portuguese, Italian and French)
  • Manually replacing 1500+ calls to plain #lsth parser functions for excerpts, here in the English Wikipedia
  • Developing a user script for replacing sections that contain just a link to an article (thousands exist) for excerpts
  • Using said script for adding thousands of valuable excerpts to six wikis
  • Manually adding excerpts to a few high-traffic articles in six wikis

I hope you'll consider taking a look at the full grant proposal and leave a comment there. Thanks! Sophivorus (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

In defence of wikiprojects

Latest comment: 4 years ago39 comments24 people in discussion

From many of the above comments, it looks as if wikiprojects are a thing of the past. Only those concerned with producing high quality articles are considered successful while those with few active participants are considered to be inactive.

I have a rather different view. I find wikiprojects extremely useful in identifying articles on a given area of interest, in contacting editors for pertinent collaboration and in alerting potential collaborators to developments which may be of interest to them. I can confirm this has worked effectively in connection, for example, with the monthly topics of Women in Red, with notices of contests, with the need to concentrate on third world countries/populations, and with attracting interest in developments such as elections or world conferences.

There has been little mention of the part wikiprojects play in attracting new editors but in my experience that is frequently one of the more important outcomes.

There is one aspect in particular which seems important to me and which up to now has received little attention. It is the frequency with which wikiprojects are included on the talk pages of new articles. These templates serve not only to relate an article to the areas of interest it covers but they are also a means of initial and on-going assessment. I think it would be very useful if we could find a means of listing the number of talk page templates per wikiproject added each month. In my opinion, it would provide quite a different view of the importance editors give to one of the more important features of wikiprojects.

In conclusion, while I welcome general discussion of how we can revive community collaboration, it looks to me as if many wikiprojects continue to serve a useful purpose and should therefore be given further support. But to avoid confusion, those which really no longer serve any useful purpose should be deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Sandy is referring to the fact that many WikiProjects end up inactive or barely have a couple of active editors and that most editors have the tendency to do their own thing. I know I've personally started a few projects which are now largely inactive and I see dead projects all of the time when I send out notifications of my contests. The Intertranswiki project for instance is arguably one of the most important things we can do towards addressing systematic bias and getting content on other wikis put into English but we only have one regular contributor who functions within that project, most people work independently. My challenges are faring pretty well as a whole though, and have grown in the number of contributors. The Women cause is somewhat different in that it unifies a lot of people in the real world who are campaigning to make a difference, Women in Red has been extremely well organized and run, in an ideal world every topic would have a fully functional operation and be consistent like this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The inactive WikiProjects should be nominated for deletions. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Sandy is quite right that many wikiprojects often end up completely inactive and I agree that they should either be deleted or completely bypassed. But many of the others serve a useful support purpose as I've tried to explain. Thanks for reminding us of Intertranswiki - I had almost forgotten about it. It's the kind of wikiproject that could be usefully revived as there is a growing need for translations in and out of English. But like many of the others, someone needs to drive it along.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't expect my observation about MILHIST's performance, relative to other moribund WikiProjects (or active WikiProjects where quantity does not equal quality), to be taken as a reason to delete WikiProjects, rather as a reason to Be Like MILHIST. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the deletion of WikiProjects unless there is a good reason behind doing so. The pages can just as easily be marked as "historical" until interest is regained on the subject. See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion as an example of this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I just want to add that past consensual reasons for deleting WikiProjects include: Projects created by a sock/banned user, and Projects that are created pre-maturely. Keeps have been historically high for former large scale WikiProjects, and those with a lot of members. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I can only think of one WikiProject that was deleted, and that was because its purpose was deemed to be antithetical to collaborative editing. isaacl (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • How is the encyclopedia improved by deleting an inactive wikiproject? This is like people wanting to clean up stale userspace pages. They may have minimal (or even, zero) value, but if they're not actively causing any harm, why expend any effort to delete them? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • If anyone wants to spend time and effort on getting wikiprojects deleted then I would suggest that they would get more bang for their buck by improving articles, not least by finding reliable sources. Yes, most such projects are moribund, but why waste effort on getting something deleted that nobody reads anyway? Let's remember that we are supposed to be producing a public-facing encyclopedia, not making a nice tidy Wikipedia space for ourselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
      • One possible benefit of deleting an inactive wikiproject is that it makes it less confusing for editors to find a venue to raise their concerns. Wikipedia has lots of dead spaces where you can shout as much as you want, but no one is listening. Removing some of these could make for a more responsive experience.
        That said, I think this is a fairly minor concern. The harm done by inactive wikiprojects is pretty minimal and likely not worth the trouble to address. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
        The work done by the WikiProject can still be of use, even if the project is no longer a central hub of activity for the topic area, such as style advice and guidance on article content and format. Additionally, preserving the historical record is important to ensure that future work can build on the past and that blind alleys aren't unnecessarily retaken. Marking them inactive may be useful to set expectations on responsiveness, but deleting them is not required. isaacl (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
        That's well-argued and convincing. I never did think it was very useful to delete them; I was just pointing out that it's not quite no benefit. --Trovatore (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
        I would like to chime in briefly, just to my own agreement with Isaacl's well-said comment above. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikiprojects were never just about collaborating on articles. Of the two projects where I make regular comments on the talk, I've only ever "signed up" for one. Usually the best way to judge the health or usefulness of a project is to see how often the talk page has changed. Women in Red score very highly there, and in fact generates a lot of collaboration or just helping out, but nearly always at well below FA level. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Aren't Wikiprojects also the framework for how articles are rated? I don't think I've ever seen an article rating outside of a Wikiproject banner on the Talk page. Even a moribund project can still serve that purpose. Schazjmd (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, but many of us see ratings more often because there's an option in your gadget preferences to display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header (documentation). Wikipedia runs parallel rating systems: A-B-C are managed by the projects, FA-GA by community processes. At MILHIST we have vigorous A- and B-class review processes, but responsibility for ratings below B were turned over to the Project Bot. (Any other project that would like to use this facility is welcome to do so.)
    • In addition to ratings, the MILHIST project organises collaborations, runs competitions, provides recognition in the form of barnstars and other awards, and provides a forum for editors to receive expert advice and resolve content disputes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
^^this. I agree fully with this comment by Hawkeye7. on that note, please feel free to comment on the section above, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace. I am trying to offer different ideas for some sort of workspace where WikiProjects could actively provide updates on their status, their current activities and where people can find them, i.e. in a resource and forum that could be used by 'editors and coordinators from multiple wikis, in other words to provide a shared space where several wikis would combine information and updates.
If no one finds this handy enough for easy use, then I guess it may not get so far; however, I am open to any form. method, or approach that people think might enable this type of resource to become useful. E.g, if you want to make this a sub-page of some existing resource, page or project, then that's fine as well. feel free to comment if you wish. thanks!!--Sm8900 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, as a novice editor, I have found the concept of WikiProjects useful. Experience Report I am still in the observe, learn, and make very small contributions phase as an editor. The WikiProject I found that I wanted to participate in is inactive. I looked around and found an active WikiProject topic adjacent to the one that caught my interest. I then read about the history of WikiProjects, about reviving WikiProjects, explored the articles of interest to the inactive WikiProject that drew my initial interest. Someplace in my journey I caught a subjective, subtle, nearly subconscious sense that WikiProject’s days we're waining. Today I asked at the tea house about the topic, then I tripped into this conversation. I can't say I have a point of view. Too soon. Thanks you for your attention. I will return to observing this community in which I am new and trying to grok the culture. — philoserf (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

adding this memory of Wikipedians past to the conversation: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-16/WikiProject report — philoserf (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, wikiprojects should stay. >>BEANS X2t 16:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

possible collaborative resources

I can see many areas where a collaboration (never a bad thing) would be important. One example would be article assessments and issues involving multiple projects. There is some bot assessed articles but I have seen where a member from one project raises the level (particularly on B-class), and then someone else raise the others to match. An issue I have is particular to a B-class article with sourcing tags or inline citation tags. This means the blanket promotions where solely to match the other articles without looking to see if there are issues. The criteria is that the articles should be suitably referenced with inline citations. I realize that many like to state something to the affect of "why not do it yourself. On articles in the areas I regularly operate I may, BUT sometimes I am reading articles, from a maintenance point of view, that may involve a large number of articles on a list. It is easier to note comments on the talk page than redirect efforts (like to researching the issue) to solving problems on one article. Also, why just demote an article, especially that has a 4 or 5 year old career tag, as if there is an emergency. An involved or topic proficient editor may "fix" the issue, without someone slapping a revert for BRD reasoning, that should not be applicable on policy and guideline related maintenance issues, and then involve more discussions and edits. Seems logical to me but not to everyone. I give more attention to BLP issues and at my age I would never get through one complete list, if I stopped on every article to assess the issue. Sometimes I am not topic proficient, and sometimes I may notify several projects of comments seeking a solution. It would be a benefit, in some of these cases, to have cross-project collaboration where diverse editors watch one page. I, in fact, read where if there is doubts to inquire at the relevant talk page or project. That is seeking uncontroversial collaboration as well as help. Nope, I don't see a down-side in this instance. Otr500 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@Otr500:, thanks so much!!! if that is the case, then could you please stop by the draft page for the proposed forum, and leave any comments, any content you may wish, or else simply say hi? I haven't gotten a whole lot of activity there, in the short time since I introduced this new proposal. that's totally fine of course, and obviously I will accept whatever the overall community consensus may be. However, my main thought in creating this page was that it would simply be a community resource, for anyone who might wish to use it; in other words, for those who want to use it, it is available, and for those who don't, they are free to use it or to not use, as they may wish. it is meant simply to be available for those who find it helpful as a community resource and forum.
so therefore any ideas, input, or simple greeting that you might wish to add there would be more than welcome. right now, we simply want to hear from active or experienced members of our community, really any editor who has any group idea or effort that they wish to explore, and who sees a resource like this one as a net positive. so I would welcome any input that you might wish to provide. thanks!!
* the draft page is located at: User:Sm8900/Draft for town hall page (see below for new title)
I appreciate your help, and your great positive and encouraging comments above. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm a member of Unreferenced articles and despite what looks like a healthy list of members is currently in a semi comatose state with little wider community involvement or collaborative efforts. One of the reasons I think is looking and clicking through the oldest and obscure unreferenced articles is enough to make you lose the will to live. WProjects like MILHIST are more interesting, broader in scope etc. I'm not sure that outright deletion of WProjects is the answer, some of them could be merged/redirected. I remember there was a big blacklog drive (8 years ago?) to deal with unreferenced BLPs so the Wiki community can come together when there is the will among enough editors. I'm haven't got an answer to the WProjects problem, many of the smaller projects get created by a small group of enthusiastic editors only to die when there isn't any wider community support for them to keep going. Hopefully User:Sm8900 efforts can bring something positive to the WProjects ecosystem Mattg82 (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mattg82:, thanks so much!! I appreciate your positive words and encouraging insights.
Based on some comments above, I have decided to simplify the name for this new page somewhat. the name "Town Hall" was overly broad, and does not give a real idea of what we are trying to do. so here is the new name, below:
  • DRAFT NAME: User:Sm8900/Community forum and bulletin board re WikiProjects
    • in order to build this, I will be approaching various individual editor who are working on specific group projects, to ask them what items they might like to post.
  • One editor asked an excellent question; how is this different than Wikipedia:Community bulletin board?
    • this idea is different from the Community bulletin board because this would be an active forum, where editors from different wikiprojects exchange ideas and data; the Wikipedia:community bulletin board is mainly for concise announcements.
    • however, until we get actual activity there, any such features might remain hypothetical. so I will approach some individual editors, and see what they might like to post there.
    • even for simple updates, this page would be much more expansive; in other words, it would not just be for terse announcements, but rather a collaborative bulletin board and forum, so even simple updates would be more detailed, and more engaging
  • the reason I entitled this "Community forum and bulletin board for WikiProjects," is to make it clear that this is not just one more new WikiProject which might eventually fizzle out; so that's why I did not name this "WikiProject bulletin board," as that would be a bit misleading.
this is still just a page in my own user space. it will remain there, as a draft, until I get some more editors directly involved in this. I hope to approach a few editors who are leading current group efforts, whether at WikiProjects or elsewhere, and see what they might like to post, and hope to make this a real resource for them.
however, if anyone here has any content or topics that they'd like to post, please feel free to come by any time. right now, we are seeking any material for inclusion that others might find helpful. so any ideas or items are welcome. feel free to visit the page any time, to provide ideas for topics or material, or any comments. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Inactive WikiProjects should NOT be nominated for deletion. They should be tagged as inactive. We should not delete the history of any once-active WikiProject. There is always potential for a resurgence of interest, and other good reasons.
Many WikiProjects are moribund. This should be acknowledged.
I propose that as a rule, new pages should not be tagged with the banner of an inactive WikiProject. I believe that patrollers adding banners for WikiProjects have been a contribution to the death of WikiProjects. Only active WikiProject members should be tagging new pages with their WikiProject banner. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikiprojects certainly shouldn't be deleted. I am not sure of the benefit of marking dormant ones as inactive, the risk is that it may make them less likely to revive when editors post there or return after wikibreaks. With a broadly stable editing community there are bound to be areas which come in and out of activity. I'm also not sure of the merit in not tagging articles for wikiprojects, in the past I have come across editors who screened new articles in particular wikiprojects at least to tag hoaxes and unnnotables for deletion. So an apparently inactive Wikiproject may still be serving a purpose. ϢereSpielChequers 15:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of editors here seem to have some strange ideas about the function WikiProjects serve. WikiProjects served a different function 10 or 15 years ago: there were large amounts of interesting articles that needed creation on most topics, and at the same time, lower featured standards much more easily facilitated article collaboration of the WP:FA/WP:GA type between lots of editors who weren't necessarily niche subject matter experts on specific article topics.

The former are largely done now except in areas that severely lack interested editors, but WP:WIR is a great example that it still works for that purpose only as long as you've got a discernable group of interesting articles that needs creating on a subject matter broad enough to bring in a mass of editors. The rising standards have meant that WP:GA/WP:FA collaboration as a thing across the encyclopedia is largely dead, and WikiProjects for that purpose only work where you've got numbers of hardcore niche experts wanting to work together on the same specific articles - which is very rare, and unsurprising WP:MILHIST is one of the few to pull it off.

What we're left with is that areas have more subtle content issues: neglected corners of the subject matter that need fine-tuning and ideally need multiple editors to put their heads together and come up with a good solution that's generally agreeable to the editors in that area, new work that needs highlighting to interested editors, and a place where interested editors can generally engage with other interested editors where that would be helpful. This, although less suited to the mega-topic projects (i.e. history, medicine) happens quietly all the time in our more specific WikiProjects across the encyclopedia. It was also the inevitable evolution of the role WikiProjects once the low-hanging fruit was done and the standards rose. Given that, I think it's helpful to have more discussions about how you effectively link up the editors in a subject matter area through a WikiProject in a way that works, for what it's worth, given that many ongoing WikiProjects would be, if they were people, almost old enough to drive in some places. And I also think it's a damn bit more helpful thinking about how we can more effectively revitalise projects that have fallen by the wayside (given that, as I said, the mega-topic ones are too broad to be helpful - there are rarely editors actually interested in all of "history" as a topic). The attempts to undermine the format from editors who don't understand the role of WikiProjects for the last decade or so because they aren't involved with any is really frustrating when they continue to be an incredibly important part of keeping the encyclopedia functioning in many areas (and could be in more areas given some thought). Editors who are heading down the portal line with these need to get out and engage with editors doing the subject work more. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife:, I agree with you!!!!! your points above are excellent. so then, if that's how you feel, can you please come by, and help me build a community forum, for addressing these exact issues and ideas?? I hope you'll feel free to drop by! if not, that's okay too,; however, either way, I hope you will take a little time to let me know what you would ideally like to see in such a community-wide forum for projects, and what you think of our current ideas so far. Here is a link, to view our efforts so far: User:Sm8900/Community forum. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that these are excellent points, particularly regarding the value of more fine-grained projects and the need for more thought to what effective topical collaboration looks like on-wiki. However, I do feel compelled to disagree with the idea that article creation is "largely done". AFAICS we are orders of magnitude short of what even a rough sketch of a complete Wikipedia would look like. Indeed, I would suggest that the collapsing rate of article creation (for which those "rising standards" IMO carry considerable blame) means that we are actually moving backward relative to the only benchmark that matters ("the sum of all human knowledge"). This fact is obscured by the dysfunctional way that editors are socialized into creating an illusion of completeness by not creating redlinks or creating inappropriate redirects to conceal the inadequacy of our coverage. Almost every time I create an article, I have to run around and create links that should have been red to begin with. (One example that sticks in my mind is subscription school, a topic of considerable importance in US educational history whose absence was hidden first by widespread non-linking and then by an editor creating a wholly inappropriate redirect to an unrelated topic.) -- Visviva (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not so much suggesting that article creation is "largely done" as much as that the low-hanging fruit is. For example, we had many city-based WikiProjects that were very active in rolling out articles on things like suburbs, major monuments, parks, etc, but faded into inactivity when all of that was created. On larger topics, all the more obvious topics that easily sparked editor drives tend to have articles. The article creation work that needs doing these days is much more niche, less likely that a particular specific niche is of interest to large amounts of editors, and harder to collectively drive through that format. For example, in my areas of interest, we can highlight creation work that needs doing, and it'll probably get done eventually, but any one niche area needing articles created is rarely of interest to multiple editors in that subject area. The use of WikiProjects now reflects this obvious development of the project. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I added some new features to this. the draft is at the link below. thanks.
thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Another (somewhat labour-intensive otion) can be to consolidate wikiprojects into taskforces of a more active wikiproject. A cetralised talkpage might be able to consolidate some of the discussion to keep momentum in the community whilst maintaining specific tagging of articles, subject-specific advidce etc. E.g. WP:Molecular Biology recently merged WP:GEN, WP:MCB, WP:COMPBIO, WP:BIOP, WP:RNA, WP:WPMP and WP:CELLSIG. See also WP:MED's taskforce system. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 04:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Evolution and evolvability, I agree with that idea. by the way, one option might be to create a shared page where all such projects could discuss group projects. it could be a roundtable for related wikiprojects. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree. In my experience, conversion to a Task Force is just a slow death march. Task Forces get deleted due to lack of use as well, only with less fanfare. A better option would be a straight merge into a WikiProject that could cover that area, or create a new WikiProject with a wide ranging portfolio, in either case allowing for growth and then a natural split into a functioning specifically focused WikiProject again. WikiProjects contain a lot of information in them - subject specific guidelines, styles, resources etc. That information should not be lost, or else we'll just find ourselves having to reinvent the wheel. - X201 (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

What gets overlooked by many that WikiProjects give access to a number of automated lists which aid the editing process by pointing to articles that need looking at, even when there is no apparent discussion going on. Maybe it needs a tutorial for the new generation of editors, rather than just deleting what they do not unterstand. Agathoclea (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with the comment above. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Here, here. Invaluable! —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_166&oldid=1073152903"