Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 72

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (idea lab) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (idea lab). 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: 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

Removing all active indefinite blocks older than 20 years.

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

---

According to this Quarry query, 4388 accounts have active indefinite blocks that was made over 20 years ago (including one IP address). In 2005, community standards for adminship was near nonexistent and I struggle to see why we should not give people another chance after 20 years.

In the spirit of WP:NOTPUNITIVE, it might be worth having a temporary adminbot unblock them. This would exclude WMF Office actions (redundant as they began in 2012) and ArbCom blocks.

This query lists the 100 oldest active blocks.

This would include username blocks like User:WIKIPEDIA, as there is no easy way to filter them. But there is little difference if a long-dead account with violative username is blocked or not.

Chances that anybody still have access to their 20 year old account is slim, but if even one account returns to editing I would call it a success.

Any ideas are welcome. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Why >20 years exactly? Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It was chosen arbitrarily; I thought it was a good threshold to keep the number of blocks in question manageable. Relaxing it to >19 years gives us 61479 active blocks. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Did community standards for adminship improve significantly from 2006?

If not, the same process is ought to be repeated in 2026, when there will inevitably be 61479 active blocks to unblock. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. Hopefully with the experience gained in this trial, we can manage higher block counts. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Echoing some of the above concerns, just the list of the 100 oldest blocks includes permanently forbidden usernames such as User:AntiWiki~enwiki, User:AntiJew, User:Jimbo-Wales, User:ABOLISH CHRISTIANITY, User:PussyVagina, User:Spik dk~enwiki, User:I support the Cabal (and User:I support the Cabal 2), User:I want to kill George W Bush, and User:Wikipolice~enwiki. The task of separating such names out on scale would consume more time than the reasonable unblocks would be worth. BD2412 T 14:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412 Many of those users have empty block logs. Do those blocks predate the modern block log? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ahecht: I have no idea, I was just looking at the posted Quarry query. I don't know for a fact that it's accurate. BD2412 T 14:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

They do. The timestamps for these blocks range from 2004-03-28 01:19:37 (AntiWiki~enwiki) to 2004-07-31 19:00:56 (I support the Cabal); automatic logging didn't begin until almost five months after the latter. —Cryptic 14:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I have concerns about doing this, mainly regarding LTAs, which really shouldn't be unblocked ever. This would especially become an issue in a hypothetical 2026 unblocking; I haven't checked every LTA case page, but at least a couple stated their lifespans started in 2006. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 08:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

There are long-term blocked editors who were indeffed for good reason even in 15-20 years ago, who have given us no reason to believe that they want to edit productively and every reason to believe that they'll repeat the abuse. If any of the individuals behind these accounts really want to edit, we have WP:STANDARDOFFER - and ultimately if they aim for a WP:CLEANSTART and don't cause any trouble there's no reason we'll ever find out anyway. Kahastok talk 08:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Admin appointment standards may have changed, but has the community feeling on blocking? That's the real question.

There was a 2019 RFC about lifting old indefinite blocks on IPs - Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 158#Proposal about some indefinite IP blocks - and the consensus there was overwhelmingly to remove them, but in that case we had moved to a general practice of no longer indefinitely blocking IPs, so the old blocks were out of sync with modern standards. I don't think we've changed our approach to blocking accounts in the same way - we still regularly issue permanent blocks for vandalism only accounts etc. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I had a look at my own oldest account blocks (2006). Three were indefinite (two username impersonation, one substantial vandalism). Five were temporary vandalism blocks (from 24h to a month). Of those five, four never came back. The fifth one did... to do the same minor vandalism occasionally over the next year or so, then got bored and went away of their own volition.

It's a small sample, but it suggests that even . temporary block meant someone was unlikely to come back and use that account again immediately afterwards, much less two decades later. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Ehhh... I am opposed to blanket amnesty. Some of the names run contrary to WP:Username policy. If there is consensus to unblock the indef accounts en masse, the unblocks should be decided on a case by case basis. – robertsky (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I see a solution in search of a problem. Anyone blocked from that long ago either died, made other accounts. More importantly, just like anyone else, they can ask to get unblocked if they really care. I see no purpose in unblocking ~4500 WP:NOTHERE accounts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Anyone who got blocked 20 years ago for creating a VOA when they were 12 has since grown up, moved, changed IP address and can surely just register a new account if they want to edit constructively. Don't see what the point of this proposal is. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I concur with Headbomb. We can be generous in unblocking 20 year old accounts if and when they ask. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I tend to also disagree with blanket amnesties. It would be easier just to allow appeals, as we in fact do. I am unsure as well why there should be any automatic "pass", as I can recall plenty of editors who never learned and went straight back to bad behavior. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to do this. I'd be surprised if the people behind these 20-year-old accounts would even notice, and if any do they'd be more likely to be LTAs. I'd guess any who decided to be a productive editor probably came back with a different account long ago (maybe after having forgotten they ever had an account blocked). it might be worth having a temporary adminbot unblock them There's no need for that. If this idea somehow does get consensus, I could have User:AnomieBOT III do it. I'd insist on making a list of accounts, though, and giving the community opportunity to remove any entries from the list before running the bot, to avoid unblocking impersonation accounts or the like that would remain block-on-sight today. Anomie⚔ 13:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It is clear that this proposal is hopeless and I will be abandoning it. Just for the sake of curiosity, are there any LTAs that has been active for 20 years? The oldest active entry in WP:LTA dates back to 2007. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Larry Sanger as this discussion is related to his eighth thesis and originally started on that page's talk page. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for this, and far too many reasons to not do it. What exactly is gained by unblocking these accounts? Anyone who came back to edit without issue has long forgotten these accounts, any long term LTA will use it to continue whatever nonsense they are so set on. Throw in all the username violations, including BLP concerns, and doing this is just a bad idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree. This is a lot of work for no obvious benefit. An ordinary teenage vandal might have grown up in the intervening 20 years, but they've probably also forgotten the username and lost the password.

I might support a non-binding encouragement for admins to consider 10-year blocks instead of indefs, if they believe it's not a throwaway account, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe using it for throw away accounts could be a good idea. A lot of the nonsense vandalism comes from young people, having a 5yr or 10yr block could work in that situation. There're unblock requests from people saying "I was stupid when I was young". Those requests seem mostly to get unblocked why not make it easier to come back. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Throwaway accounts have very little to loose, so they could get at it once again. That being said,

1. 10 years is too much of a long time for someone not to simply create a new account and come back.

2. I have stated my dissatisfaction towards infinite bans in previous discussions.

My Suggestion : A non-binding encouragement for admins to consider 5-year blocks instead of indefs, if they believe it's not a throwaway account. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not against indefinitely blocks in every case, there are times when there are legal or BLP issues that I think would require it. If this was to be done I agree it would be better at 5 years rather than 10. I don't think it should be based on whether the admin thinks it's a throw away account though. What may appear like a gibberish name may be the username a person keeps using online as they grow up. Instead base it on why the account is being blocked, repeatedly adding "poop" to articles is less of a problem than posting death threats. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this still feels like a solution in search of a problem, given that the bar for acceptance of anyone filing an unblock request after multiple years of absence is very low. Conversely (and anecdotally), I’ve participated in multiple unblock discussions where multiple years had passed and they really seemed to have turned a new leaf in their request…and then went straight back to disruptive editing upon being unblocked. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

An escalatory ladder which rewards good behaviour while penalising the bad can be a good idea to tackle such issues.

1st ban = 14 Days | 2nd ban = 28 days | 3rd = 56 days and so on for bad behaviour.

However, if the violator showcases good behaviour for the exact same time period he's banned for eg, 448 Day Ban = 448 Days of good behaviour, then his next 'ban period' be reduced to the nearest lower level = 224 Days.

This rule ofcourse wouldn't apply for grave violations like legal or BLP issues which absolutely do require a permaban. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

that's a couple too many caveats for what amounts to a worse version of what's already in place, and whose variables would boil down to being arbitrary anyway

for starters, and i hoped this would be obvious, this would give specific types of vandals or disruptors even more chances than larry's proposed 3. they can just pretend to behave for a while, and then go about their merry way. it'd also make the process of getting back an unintuitive slog for constructive editors who just edit warred a little. it would also remove the need for constructive users with serious reasons for their blocks to make unblock requests, which would more likely than not result in nothing being learned

secondly, the people it's most focused on dealing with (that is, vandals with attention spans) will be the least affected either way, as they're the most likely to intentionally break other rules, like socking or misusing their talk pages, while knowing that their tpa removal would also be limited

ultimately, i think a system like this would not serve its intended purpose at all, and just inconvenience most editors and admins involved in any given process. any attempts to fix it or add caveats for its obvious weaknesses would probably culminate in the current system, too, so... why? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:THESIS8 In the typical case, on the first block, the longest possible sentence should be one month. On the second blockable offense, three months. Lesser block lengths should be much more common.

This increasing time-period somewhat mirrors my suggestion, except for the Permanent Ban in the 3rd violation within 6 months portion of it.

Ofcourse there are weak points in this suggestion as well, but it forces editors to behave for a longer time period than mine. That could be solved by starting my blocking period from 1 Month > 2 Months > 4 Months > 8 Months and so on, the period of good behaviour mirroring the same. If an offender keeps repeating his mistakes, the block period would get so large, it would be almost equal to a permaban, except not actually being so. Offenders can appeal all blocks lasting longer than 1 year as if appealing permabans.

But the WP:9T covers a wide area and much more comprehensive overall ! Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a great way to start arguments over if someone should have been blocked for 58 days or whether it should have been 72. There is a good argument for keeping thing simple, and allowing admins some amounh of leeway so they can react to the specific circumstances of any given situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, some violations do require a perma-ban. We can solve this by adding such case exceptions.

As for throwaway accounts, I think they're also supposed to have a relatively low number of edits (<500)? So there's not much to loose and the violator might just create a new account to get back at desk, which defeats the whole purpose of unbanning such accounts. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

No. All of this would be pointless at best, and a field day for LTAs at worst. Let's not create busywork for the admins here. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:3169:11F5:36DE:7659 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Indefinite does not mean infinite, I am struggling to think of a case where if a user came back 20 years later and put in a coherent unblock request they wouldn't be unblocked. -- Sohom (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  User:JarlaxleArtemis, who - last I'd heard - had begun serving time in 2023 for taking his Wikipedia show on the road and threatening Merriam-Webster. (I will not link the relevant news articles due to WP:OUTING concerns, but his RL identity is known to the WMF.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

should mention here as well that... i don't see the reason for that to work, or an alternative that would and isn't already covered by something like iar or cleanstart. most timeframes for both indef removal and a soft cap on blocks are either so long they're effectively not worth considering, or so short that they'd just give deliberately disruptive editors second chances for free at no benefit to other people who would've moved on or just made an unblock request by then. i guess impose a hard cap that limits block time to wikipedia's age (not its age as of now or at the time of a block, mind you) + 1 second as a joke during april fools

also, unblock user:turd as not actually a real account consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 23:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Any of these accounts would be welcomed back with a courteous unblock request (and in some cases, a change in username). It might be better to put a cap on revoked talk page access time than on block length, but I find it improbable that a single person would come back as a result of this trial anyway.

Also, Wikipedia went utterly parabolic in 2006/2007, so choosing 20 years ago would soon be a much bigger workload than it is now. 3df (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. As mentioned above, a lot of LTAs and username violators will be unblocked, and imo, the bad outweighs the good. I don't mind a case by case review of some of these blocks, but a mass unblocking? No. jolielover♥talk 17:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It is already well known that an indefinite block is actually meaningless on a wiki with a long history.

As time passes, active users change and blocked users are forgotten; data for CheckUser are deleted and people use new devices.

So even if an already indefinitely blocked user starts editing again after a very long time, no one would notice that they were actually indefinitely blocked in the past. CheckUser won't work either.

In other words, an indefinite block may actually be meaningless on wikis with a long history (Wikipedia is already more than 20 years old). The blocking policy should admit this.

— Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 24#Indefinite block may actually be meaningless on wikis with a long history

176.226.148.124 (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This is at best, a pointless proposal. Achieves nothing useful, and may have unintended consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Not needed - someone who has been blocked can file an unblock request. The time frame does not matter. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
• I don't like this idea. I can kind of see two camps of users that would be unblocked in this manner:
  • Users who vandalized or disrupted Wikipedia unknowingly (maybe because they thought Wikipedia was a place to goof off rather than a serious encyclopedia) and thus got blocked indefinitely for vandalism or disruptive editing;
  • Users who got blocked or banned from Wikipedia for other reasons.
  This second group is that which is most problematic when mass unblocking editors in this manner. I think a user in the first category who creates a new account and becomes a productive editor is a good example of WP:IAR and we should not block them. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
• No busy work. Most of these are abandoned accounts, so this helps no one. Users may appeal if they would like of course. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose because of the potential exponential increase in the number of such accounts in future. Better to have productive discussions towards implementing the WP:9T. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - the premise that we should give blocked users "another chance" is moot: every blocked or banned user already gets a second chance, unlimited chances really, via the standard offer. The rationale of indefinite blocks and the standard offer is really very simple: commit to avoiding the disruption that caused you to be blocked, and we'll unblock you. It's a very low bar, but if you don't clear it, you stay blocked. I don't see how this basic requirement is unreasonable at all. Any of those very old blocked accounts already can log in and submit an appeal whenever they would like to, but mass-unblocking accounts where nobody is even asking to use them has no upside, only risk. There's no reason to do it and we should not do it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
• Not needed – Users blocked ages ago, who have since chosen to "reform", will have created a new account and have probably been editing since. I suspect that we do not do any sock checks on reasonably behaved accounts — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  hell, they don't even need to have "chosen to reform". they could've just as easily forgotten they had accounts however many years ago in the first place consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:35, 15 October 2025 (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.

Likes

Basically, you can like or rate a person's post on wikipedia, such as village pump posts or replies. It'd be great, y'know? I mean, it'd only be available if you have an account and not an anonymous user. A barnstar is for much better stuff than just this stuff that'd get liked. Can be a thumbs up symbol or a heart symbol. 2607:FEA8:551F:8090:740E:5022:EF21:1C23 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you honestly think we're Instagram? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

No, but i mean it'd be cool if we had some likes for extended confirmed protection. Maybe even if someone favourites a page, it'd be displayed somewhere around the top, because I've seen some encyclopedias do it. 2607:FEA8:551F:8090:740E:5022:EF21:1C23 (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. We do not protect articles because an angry mob demands we do, and Wikipedia does not allow pages to be favourited. (Other wikis running MediaWiki might, but this is useless and counter-productive for Wikipedia.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

There is the Thanks tool; if someone posts a good comment then you can thank them (if you have an account). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Idea for improvement to Chess, Go, and other similar board game related articles

Just as we have a JavaScript calculator, I thought it would be helpful to have interactable Chess and Go widgets (especially Chess) because it may make it easier for the reader to follow along gameplay. We can have two modes: gameplay replay, where there are buttons to step through each of the moves made (useful for historical games), and a mode where the reader can interact with the individual pieces to experiment with the outcomes of different positions, etc. Especially because it can be difficult to follow along algebraic notation, etc.

I am not suggesting we install an RL algorithm so that a player can see the best moves for either. Nor am I suggesting that we allow the reader to play a full game to completion. Rather for a game like chess where a lot of articles on openings, etc. are encyclopedic it would be helpful for the reader to see how these openings work. For example for notable chess puzzles. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 18:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding chess, the most recent discussion that I know of was in July. I discussed the history of a chess viewer gadget (which was approved by the community but not by any interface admin) and the extension that was subsequently developed. Its deployment is stalled, pending commitment from a WMF team for support. isaacl (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if something like this would be backwards compatible with the {{chess board}} template. I do wonder if this issue is solvable with an interactive canvas where moves can be tested. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 06:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by backwards compatible, since {{chess diagram}} displays one position, while the gadget lets you step through a game. Kipod's gadget is deployed on Hebrew Wikipedia, and it uses PGN notation as its input, which is one of the input methods supported by {{chess diagram}}. As I understand it, the extension is based on the gadget. I think Kipod's gadget supports specifying which move will be initially displayed, so in that sense, I think it could replace {{chess diagram}} for cases where the diagram comes from a full game.

I don't know what you mean by "this issue". To me, the viewing use case is completely resolved by the existing gadget and extension. isaacl (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh okay. I was thinking about the mode where you manually insert piece positions into the chessboard. Hmm... Aasim (話す（はなす）) 17:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Awesome Aasim, there is Module:Sandbox/Bawolff/Chessboard (@Bawolff). — Qwerfjkltalk 20:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Ugly and distracting maintenance templates on top of articles

I understand why we want to have templates such as {{POV}} on top of articles. It is about the content of the article.

But for maintenance issues (clarification: I mean technical issues Bogazicili (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)), do we really need templates such as {{Duplicated citations}} on top of articles? Do our readers need to see that? Are we expecting IP editors to fix those issues?

Templates such as {{Duplicated citations}} can be converted to hidden categories or maintenance categories. At least, they can be visible to only logged in users. Bogazicili (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Is {{Duplicated citations}} not about article content? And it's much easier to fix than {{POV}}. Where have you seen {{Duplicated citations}}? I'll fix it within a few days, if nobody else does. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I already fixed it.

By "not about article content", I mean back end things. Do you think using named citations for duplicate citations are relevant to most readers?

These templates are for editors to fix things. That's why one of my suggestions was visibility to only logged in users. Bogazicili (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It comes up a lot because people use User:Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences (pinging Polygnotus), which does drive-by tagging, and then leave it for someone else to do. People who use the script to flag this should be obligated to fix it, the problem is more about aesthetics and having a tidy references section, I can’t see any other benefit, which isn’t worth a tag Kowal2701 (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there any reason we can't just compromise and agree to put the template at the bottom of the article, like we do with {{Undercat}}? People looking in the reference section can see it needs fixing, and therefore fix it, and people who are annoyed at having to scroll past it before they get to the article content don't need to? I agree that it's less relevant than, say, POV or {{More medical citations needed}}, which warn the unsuspecting reader that they content they're about to read may be problematic. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That’d be much better Kowal2701 (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I do think that we need to come up with a top-down system that establishes some principles defining which issues are significant enough to warrant a tag at the top of an article, and how to record issues that are not deemed important enough. Sdkb ^talk 19:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree with this. We can have classes for templates, some will be visible to all, some will be visible to logged in users only. Bogazicili (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's dangerous to use "logged in user" as a proxy for editor. We want casual readers, even if they have no intention of editing, to create an account. Since that starts them down the path of becoming an editor and makes it easier to communicate with them if they dip their toes into editing. But if people see that, as soon as they create an account, their reading experience immediately becomes worse, they'll just log out and abandon their account. Sdkb ^talk 20:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sdkb: fair enough. There may also not be architecture for hiding stuff for non-logged in editors as well. I am now leaning more towards converting some templates into categories or switching to bottom of the page templates as suggested by GreenLipstickLesbian Bogazicili (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• To put it bluntly, when there is an issue that needs fixing in an article, we want people to add “ugly and distracting” templates. They encourage editors to fix the issue (and thus remove the template). They help us make WP better, and that is a GOOD thing. Blueboar (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Why do the readers need to see that?

  And do we want a giant template for few duplicate citations on top of the article, visible to around 10,000 daily visitors? Bogazicili (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, we desperately need new editors, and giving them an easy task that they can join in with a low barrier to entry is a good idea, obviously. Something like {{POV}} can be very difficult to fix for someone who is new and has no idea how the PaGs work, especially on an article about a complicated topic. Polygnotus (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is completely a personal opinion. I disagree with it, unless you can back up with some data about how readers become new editors. Fixing {{Duplicated citations}} is not going to make a reader a new editor. Bogazicili (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  That is literally what an editor is. Polygnotus (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Readers become editors. Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  for the claim those kind of templates encourage readers to become new editors. Bogazicili (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Well I dove in the world behind the encyclopedia because I clicked the link on a maintenance template message. Polygnotus (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Nobody needs to see it, but it acts as a useful reminder that Wikipedia is not finished, and there are things that need doing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Blueboar. It's useful to know when articles have issues even when I'm not logged in, and reducing their visibility strikes me as defeating the purpose of the tag (which is to inform people that the article has issues). I don't think there's a compelling reason to make the change. Gimubrc (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't found anyone who shares my opinion, but I find maintenance templates to be de facto hazard signs for casual readers. If we make them less intrusive we will have neutered the effect of the sign. Bremps... 04:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I had a quick look at Category:Article message templates and it seems like that template is very rarely used compared to some others. For example Template:COI is transcluded 14181 times. But if we are talking more generally about all these templates then there are a bunch of them that could be inline, in theory, but making them inline would have the disadvantage that people will not be encouraged to fix the underlying issue, like Blueboar correctly points out. I did find one of them that should be deleted in my opinion, Template:Cite check. Hiding article message templates makes converting readers into editors even harder, and we are already doing an incredibly bad job at that. Having some problems that are relatively easy to fix mentioned near the top of the articles is often the only thing that can convert someone from a reader to an editor. In other cases the templates serve more as a warning: "do not blindly trust whatever this article says" which, unfortunately, can be important to have. Polygnotus (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I would keep {{Cite check}} visible to all. It's a different category than {{Duplicated citations}} Bogazicili (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

But Cite check is an example of a template that is pointless, since it doesn't even specify where the problem is, so you'd have to go in blind and compare every source with every claim to see what it is about. So to get rid of a template like Cite check can be a hell of a lot of work, especially when the article is long or complicated or requires specialist knowledge. Polygnotus (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus Just wondering, how difficult would it be for you (as the maintainer of the script listed about) to have this tag added to the botton of the article, like {{undercat}}, rather than the top? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian Not at all, but its not gonna happen cuz its a bad idea. Polygnotus (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus Why? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian See my comment above. Polygnotus (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus Okay, I see that you're saying that you think this brings in editors. (Which... is a hypothesis, not one I'm sure I agree with - surely those types of editors are just as likely to find the tag in the reference section?). My take is that messing around in the source editor is not as easy for new, non-techy editors (the kind that we desperately need) as the techy editors who write scripts seem to think; anecdotally, I've had much better success at bringing in newcomers by tagging articles with the POV, CN, or CE tags than I have with reference gnoming, which mostly seems to be dealt with by experienced editors.

My other issue is that maintinence tags on Wikipedia articles, in the wider world at least, may as well be telling the reader that the article is known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity - mocked at best, banner blindness at worst. I don't think ones like this help the issue. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian I don't think it brings in editors, I know it does. I am here because I clicked a link on one of those maintenance messages and discovered the world behind the encyclopedia. It didn't even ask me to create an account! not one I'm sure I agree with You disagree with a fact?

My take is that messing around in the source editor is not as easy for new, non-techy editors (the kind that we desperately need) We also desperately need nerds. Both types are welcome.

If you want non-nerds to be able to contribute... ask the WMF to fix the VisualEditor. It is 2025 and MediaWiki is a pile of technical debt held together by aging duct tape. Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, and I'm here to fix source text integrity issues - the type of tag you said you wanted to delete because fixing wasn't easy. Conversely, I'm not suggesting we delete the maintenance tag - I'm wondering why moving it to the bottom of the page, where it will still be seen by interested parties, is a "bad idea". GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian That is a strawman. I didn't say I wanted to delete any tag because fixing source text integrity issues isn't easy. And some of the reasons have already been pointed out. Polygnotus (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I did find one of them that should be deleted in my opinion, Template:Cite check.

But Cite check is an example of a template that is pointless, since it doesn't even specify where the problem is, so you'd have to go in blind and compare every source with every claim to see what it is about. So to get rid of a template like Cite check can be a hell of a lot of work, especially when the article is long or complicated or requires specialist knowledge

If I misread you, then apologies.

I do still disagree that this tag brings in new editors at any higher rate than our other tags; looking at the five articles you've tagged with duplicate citations most recently, and we get:

• Fixed by an extended confirmed editor in Special:Diff/1305109701
• Fixed by an extended confirmed editor with over a thousand edits in Special:Diff/1309569604
• Fixed by an editor who has been around for decades Special:Diff/1304523945
• Fixed by an extended confirmed editors Special:Diff/1315400657
• Reverted by an experienced editor who didn't understand why you tagged instead of fixed Special:Diff/1296869070

Small sample size; point stands. I think these could be at the bottom of the article and be helpful.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

If I misread you, then apologies. Apology accepted.

I do still disagree that this tag brings in new editors at any higher rate than our other tags who said that it did? Who are you disagreeing with? Polygnotus (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Your argument is, to the best of my knowledge, is that you think it brings more editors? I disagreed, you said it brought in you, wo is just one editor, I believe, soooo I think we're still on that. Also, more counter examples to your argument that won't be helpful if it's at the bottom of an article. Or will be "bad". GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Well if we are talking about this single template then we probably shouldn't further confuse this discussion about all those templates with our discussion about a single template. I posted on your talkpage. I did not say that that this tag brings in new editors at any higher rate than our other tags, that appears to be a strawman (if it is me you think you are disagreeing with). wo is just one editor We are all just one editor. Shared accounts are explicitly forbidden, see WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Again, if you wanna talk about 1 template, please ping me on your talkpage. If you want to talk about all article message templates, then please let me know. Polygnotus (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• [1] Fixed by a longtime editor
• [2] tag remaining, was placed in June
• [3] tag fixed by an experienced editor
• [4] tag fixed by an experienced editor
• [5] tag fixed by an experienced editor
• [6] tag fixed by an experienced editor
• [7] tag fixed by an experienced editor
• [8] removed by an experienced editor because it was erroneously applied

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian Are we talking about a single very rare template, or are we talking in general? Have you seen User_talk:Polygnotus#Sub-referencing:_News_and_request_for_feedback? Polygnotus (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this template. And yes, have seen the sub referencing post; not entirely sure I get how that's relevant to the placement of a completely different maintenance category. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian Sure, I'll post on your talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian: For the bottom of the article templates, you mean the technical ones right? Bogazicili (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili Technical/aesthetic ones, yes. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

What is an aesthetic template? They all look rather ugly in my eyes. Polygnotus (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus Templates that mark issues more aesthetic than substantive, like duplicated references. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian Sssht! Don't tell me! For a second there I lived in a wonderful world where we used templates to beautify the encyclopedia articles with flowers. Polygnotus (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus Well I can't help with flowers, but do bunny rabbits count? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

If you stick images of bunny rabbits in templates and use them to beautify encyclopedia articles then maybe. Polygnotus (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian: what about converting it to categories? But we can also move your suggestion as option 2 below.

I want to gather some options and more feedback before I move it to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Bogazicili (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Let me put it this way.

Templates about content policies such as WP:V (eg: {{Cite check}}), WP:NPOV (eg: {{POV}}), and WP:NOR (eg: {{Original research}}) should be visible to all.

Technical templates that are not about content, such as {{Duplicated citations}} or {{Incoming links}}, should not be on top of the page. Or they should only be visible to logged in users. Bogazicili (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili You make bold claims. I sometimes do the same. But sleep on it. Sit back and think about it for a while. The situation is more complicated than you make it seem. There are things you haven't considered yet. Polygnotus (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

We may not have the architecture to hide stuff for logged in users. In that case, we can consider moving technical templates to the bottom. Or they can be converted to hidden categories such as Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. We do not need a top of page template for everything. Bogazicili (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The technical stuff is not the problem. Polygnotus (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

If this is the issue, I disagree with your reasoning. Bogazicili (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili Saying "I disagree" is usually not enough. And there are more reasons. So I gave you excellent advice. Polygnotus (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

See my response above. What are the other reasons? Bogazicili (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili You haven't explained your reasoning yet. And what you have posted shows a very incomplete understanding. Which is why my advice is so great. Polygnotus (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This is completely a personal opinion. I disagree with it, unless you can back up with some data about how readers become new editors. Fixing Duplicated citations is not going to make a reader a new editor Bogazicili (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah you keep repeating yourself. Boring! Check out my excellent advice above. Polygnotus (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought you had missed it. I was just waiting for you to explain there are more reasons. Perhaps there isn't any. Bogazicili (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili You said I disagree with your reasoning. but you haven't explained what you disagree with and why. Polygnotus (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think we have exhausted the conversation between the two of us. I'd like comments from other editors. Bogazicili (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili So you refuse to explain why you disagree? Polygnotus (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Multiple times I've seen the tag stay up for over a month on semi-high-traffic pages, and I'm annoyed I have to spend time doing something so tedious to get rid of a big garish tag because the tagger couldn't be arsed to fix it themselves. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 See Blueboar. Polygnotus (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Just gonna revert the tags from now on then, duplicate citations is not a problem worth fixing nor harming readbility. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 I read your userpage. Where my Old-fashioned Wikipedian values at? Polygnotus (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Old-fashioned wikipedia values would be WP:SOFIXIT and not the obsession with tags and palming off work to others Kowal2701 (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It's also simply bad design. Cluttering pages with redundant templates. At the very least, some templates should be converted to Category:Tracking categories Bogazicili (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 Not in the list Wikipedia:Old-fashioned_Wikipedian_values#The_pledges Polygnotus (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Option 1: Converting some templates into categories

Technical templates, such as {{Duplicated citations}} or {{Incoming links}}, would be converted to Category:Tracking categories such as Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Any support for this option? Or any alternatives? Bogazicili (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You haven't even bothered to understand the situation, or post your opinion. So maybe slow down a bit and think. Polygnotus (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Please do not undo or change my edits. Bogazicili (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Please don't waste everyone's time. This village pump is for developing ideas. It is not for polling. See the banner at the top and the editnotice. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not for polling. Giving the length of debate above already, I want to debate options separately and get more feedback before potentially proposing it in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If you think it's a waste of time, you are not required to respond. Bogazicili (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili The debate above is long because you keep repeating yourself, while ironically refusing to explain why you disagree.

It is so weird to me, people on Wikipedia act like this when they get told 'no' and don't stop and think about what they are missing, the unknown unknowns. If you would be a little more polite then it would be much easier to explain the situation to you and then you would know that I didn't create that template and worked on making it obsolete.

Just slow down. Try to understand the situation. Ask questions. Communicate. Then I can explain my POV and what I have done in this area. And then, when you understand, then you can act. Polygnotus (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

And for the record, people have been working on cleaning up the template namespace for years. The situation was way worse than it is now. So if you honestly want to have a good discussion it may be wise to get them involved. It is not as easy as "lets delete/hide/convert to cats all templates". Polygnotus (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not say all templates. Far from it.

I agree some templates are very useful on top of the page. Bogazicili (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili Are you willing to slow down and communicate so I can explain the situation to you? The upside is you will understand the situation before you act. The downside is that you'll see how complicated and layered problems such as these are. There is no one size fits all approach. Polygnotus (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I was about to log off.

If you want, you can write a detailed response explaining the issues, and I'll take a look later. Bogazicili (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili We can continue another day. That is probably easier. No one wants to have ugly banners, I'd much rather that the underlying problems be fixed so that there would be no need for them. But unfortunately we don't live in that perfect world. So even if I tell you 'no' and say this is a bad idea that does not make me the enemy. Sleep well. I am often online and usually respond quickly to pings. Some day I will finish User:Polygnotus/Scripts/DeduplicateReferences. Polygnotus (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

We have Template:Moved discussion to but not Template:Continued discussion at but see User_talk:GreenLipstickLesbian#Template. Polygnotus (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: make them uglier to encourage more readers to fix them. Preferably blinking and rotating; maybe bring back the marquee tag. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

No we need ransomware. Fix 50 typos or 10 factual errors to get 10% of your irreplaceable family photos back. Polygnotus (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Implementing the Nine Theses by Lary Sanger

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 full proposal

Before you comment, please read at least the key point and reasons I and II for bringing this forward.

1) This is not a political or partisan initiative. Its goal is to improve process, neutrality, and policy in line with community consensus. While many of the ideas originate from Sanger’s Nine Theses, this is not an endorsement of all of them. This page aims to neutrally break down, interpret, and evaluate them for potential adaptation or rejection by the editors.

The reasons for proposing this:

I) Both supporters AND opponents could benefit such a formal discussion: supporters get a chance it's implemented. Opponents could gain a record of rejection to cite in future discussions.

II) It is one of our imperatives to follow what the community wants. While the rule itself is subject to debate, until any change is officially adopted, the current policy remains in force. Because there is so much pressure on these suggestions, we should resolve it through a formal discussion. For more information on this, see my essay: User:Wikieditor662/Once and for all

Sanger’s critiques of Wikipedia’s neutrality have reached wide public audiences, with one interview receiving over 500,000 views. While YouTube comments aren’t representative of the editing community, they do reflect ongoing public concern.

III) These suggestions are intended to either entirely or partially might make Wikipedia more neutral and accurate.

After the proposal done, I plan to bring it to the policy section and see what the community thinks.

A few open questions remain about the structure of the proposal and how !voting should be handled:

A) The most reasonable option seems to be to have the community !vote on each of these theses individually, while giving each !voter the option to state whether they reject specific parts of a thesis.

Something like this:

• Break down the Nine Theses into sub-proposals. Each thesis will be treated as a standalone proposal for voting/discussion. A sub-thesis will not be asked about individually, rather, users can clarify with each !vote if they think a certain subthesis should be included/excluded
• Enable individual !votes per item. Participants may support, oppose, or comment on each thesis or sub-thesis independently. You may also oppose or support parts of a sub-thesis (e.g., 2a–2f).
• Open-ended feedback welcome. Even if you oppose a thesis, suggestions for improving it are welcome.
• Consensus determination. After sufficient discussion, a neutral closer will attempt to summarize whether there is consensus to adopt each item.

B) So how does this sound so far? I'm wondering what you all think of these arguments, and the way it's structured, and the way the !voting could occur.

Larry Sanger (@larry sanger), the co-founder of Wikipedia, had proposed his Nine Theses (can also be found on https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/ ).

Here are his suggestions (I'll use his words and reasoning as much as possible, but I may fill in the gaps if someplace is missing. Let me know if this is a good idea, or if it should be uniquely based on what he wrote):

Theses 1) On the issue of Consensus:

1a: Stop using the word consensus

1b, and quotes like this in green unless indicated otherwise are from Mr. Sanger: Create an open editorial committee of persons known to be uniquely identified (if not known publicly), so that there is always one person, one vote. Controversies are settled by a vote of some randomly selected subset of the committee, who can escalate important issues upward.

1c: As a variant on the foregoing, weight the votes in the same way that X.com does with its “Community Notes.”

1d: Those who submit a dispute to some deciding agency must precisely identify the issue on which the users disagree. They must spend at least 24 hours attempting to arrive at consensus on at least what the issue is that they disagree about.

Defense/s given: i) many of these decisions are still controversial when decided, so it's not a consensus ii) there is not equal weight given among the users, as those in power have more influence

Theses 2) Enabling competing articles:

2a: permit multiple, competing articles written within explicitly declared frameworks, each aiming at neutrality within its own framework.

2b: New articles begin life in the Draft: namespace, or, possibly, a new namespace. So, effectively, they are hidden from the public, to start, and no one need be alarmed about the inclusion of total nonsense on the website.

2c: Articles automatically move to the main namespace when they meet certain objective criteria. Wikipedians would have to hash out exactly how this would work. Here are a few ideas that might be part of the mix. Each is worth debating. (a) The article is different from existing articles by at least 25%. (b) The article should be at least one-third the length of the main namespace article (if there is any), or 2,000 words, whichever is shorter. (c) The article must receive a minimum rating score across a diverse body of human raters (see Thesis 7); or, alternatively, the article must be rated “Approved” by an agreed-upon (i.e., suitably neutral) AI rating system. (d) The article should have at least two sources. (e) There should be at least three contributors (who have made reasonably substantive edits on the articles). I personally am not wedded to any of (a)-(e). These are just ideas.

2d: The article creator determines who works on the article. Without providing any explanation, the article’s first author would decide whether the article’s roster of authors is (a) “by approval only,” i.e., only explicitly included accounts can contribute; (b) “filtered,” i.e., anyone may contribute, except those explicitly excluded from authorship; or (c) “open.” The article creator would also be ultimately responsible for maintaining the lists mentioned in (a) and (b). If an article is marked as open, then it cannot later be changed to by approval only or filtered; but a more restricted article could be made open.

2e: Competing articles about the same topic are distinguished by differing frameworks. The article originator must explicitly declare a framework, a summary form of which will be placed at the top of each article that follows it. This is a particular combination of (a) audience, together with broad national and/or other intellectual tradition(s); (b) acceptable and unacceptable sources; and (c) “Overton window,” i.e., which opinions, broadly speaking, are viewed as being “within the range of respectability.” While all articles will be expected to be neutral within their framework, they will inevitably differ in what range of views are treated (see Thesis 3). Anyone may invent a new framework, and there is no need to have just one article per framework or to create a bunch of editorial committees.

2f: The Arbitration Committee and other bureaucratic groups must respect the rules of each framework

2g: A rating system, or in lieu of that, an AI system, may be used for article sorting (note that this would be based off of theses 7)

2h: Application to search results and hyperlinking.

Defenses given: i) Imbalance of power, where articles reflect more of those with more of it (such as admins) than of the wider community. ii) would bring greater neutrality iii) be inclusive to a greater variety of beliefs iv) that rule was created because there were not enough writers, but now there are far more. v) More editors would come to Wikipedia vi) more agreement and thereby productivity among editors

Theses 3) On certain sources getting unblacklisted

Note: I'm fairly certain that by 'blacklisted', Mr. Sanger means all sources that are not deemed as reliable enough to be used. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

3a: Remove the possibility of a source to be blacklisted, and Jettison the perennial sources list

3b: Permit sources to be cited much more broadly.

3c: If you embrace the competing articles proposal of Thesis 2 (q.v.), then you might retain the perennial sources list, but only within the “Status quo (GASP) framework” (see the table toward the bottom)—not for any other frameworks.

3d: {{rethink the conclusions they formerly reached on Reliable sources/Noticeboard}}

Defenses given: i) important information only contained in blacklisted sources would be missing. ii) the reasoning behind this seems personal as well: on what grounds are these sources deemed unreliable? Well, you might say, based on the reliable sources. But what make these sources considered reliable? You might say more reliable sources. But then we run into the same problem. iii) the current list does not reflect what the community wants.

Theses 4) On the neutrality policy:

4a: Allow viewpoints currently viewed as fringe, minority, pseudoscience, false, misinformation, or anything of this nature, in articles

4b: Redefine neutrality to mean not stating a controversial statement as fact, even if the majority of scholars support doing so.

4c: Allow the use of primary sources to a greater extent.

4d: Have primary sources be seen as just as acceptable if not more than secondary sources, or in Mr. Sanger's own words, primary sources ought to be regarded as the gold standard for citation.

4e: Avoid the following pejoratives, except if self-claimed, or with attribution, and then with great care. [...] terms including, but not limited to: racist; sexist; homophobic; transphobic; fascist; authoritarian; conspiracy theorist; white supremacist; neo-Nazi; anti-vaxxer; far, extreme, radical + left, left-wing, leftist, right, right-wing; hate group; hate speech; climate denier; misinformation or disinformation spreader; revisionist (used pejoratively); discredited theory; extremist; alt-right; alt-left; pseudo-intellectual; cult; controversial figure (when vague); anti-democratic; propagandist; demagogue; unreliable source (without justification); ideologue; dangerous ideology; radicalized; grifter; gaslighting; dogwhistle; reactionary; globalist; elitist; science denial; quackery; progressive ideologue; neo-Marxist; cultural Marxist; Antifa member; anarchist; utopian; class warrior; race-baiter; DEI advocate; cancel culture proponent; political correctness enforcer; identity politics advocate; woke; collectivist; Maoist; Marxist; communist; marginal figure; intersectionalist; nanny statist; redistributionist; toxic masculinity; election denier; bigot or bigoted; Islamophobic; ableist; xenophobic.

4f: avoid unattributed words about factual claims, theories, etc.:

true; false; misinformation; debunked (when not properly attributed); unfounded; unsubstantiated; refuted; baseless; disproven; discredited; nonsense; irrational; myth (when used dismissively); hoax (unless exposed and truly universally regarded as such); junk science; outlandish; irresponsible; disgraced.

4g: State whether views are the majority or minority.

4h: Delete all mentions of 'false balance' on the neutrality policy page.

4i: Adopt a useful set of subject-related principles.

4j: dmit that there is a stunning variety of belief on all subjects

Defenses given: i) that this has been this way since the beginning (note: this might fall under Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, anyhow that's just an essay so it's not required, but let me know what you think of this argument). ii) the other defenses given for the first three theses, which are similar to this. iii) For 4h specifically, To declare that balancing the discussion between A and B is “false” is to declare that A is true and B is false, or vice-versa. Wikipedia’s neutrality policy was, and should again be, that when A and B are in disagreement, then you do not declare a winner. They should receive approximately equal space; not even extreme minority positions should be entirely removed from an article. Sometimes, if there are many competing opinions, it makes sense to allot space in a single article according to the approximate representation among those affected by the dispute (or, if it is an academic dispute, among academics). But this is just an imperfect solution to a hard problem, not the general rule. The best general rule is to assign equal space to competing views.

Theses 5) on the "Ignore all rules" policy:

5a: remove the policy of Ignore all Rules

5b: [Create] the very solid notion that nobody is above the law (or sensible editorial policies)

Defenses given: i) it excuses bad behavior ii) fuels inequality

Theses 6) On Wikipedia's leaders "Wikipedia's leaders", it is referred to leaders such as “CheckUsers,” “Bureaucrats,” and Arbitration Committee members

6a: Require that Wikipedia's leaders publicly reveal who they are, including uniquely identifiable information.

6b: require top-level Wikipedia functionaries to use real names

6c: offer free assistance to volunteers who face threats, stalking, or other security concerns.

6d: Give stipends to those who are no longer eligible to work due to these previous requirements under Theses 6.

6e: Make it easier to become an administrator.

6f: indemnify named editors by purchasing Errors and Omissions (E&O) Insurance for them, and agreeing to legal representation in case of lawsuits.

6g: Allow subjects of articles a prominently placed official response page

Defenses given: i) accountability ii) Wikipedia is one of the most influential sites, so it's crucial to know who the leaders are iii) accountability iv) for 6f, In so doing, the WMF will be following the professional practices of serious, responsible journalistic enterprises in the West. Such indemnification would not necessarily entail an admission that the WMF is acting as a publisher that would remove its Section 230 protections. Purchasing general or professional liability insurance for volunteers is common among larger nonprofits. This is not an act of generosity, but of moral and professional necessity. v) Would the profitability of paid Wikipedia work increase or decrease if editorial leadership had to declare its identity? The answer seems obvious. Why then would Wikipedians resist a culture of leadership accountability?

Theses 7) on public rating of articles

7a: let the public rate and give feedback on articles

7b: [Include] an overall rating posted at the top of each article, with links to details

7c: combine such existing metrics with an open source AI review system

7d: guarantee voter uniqueness, such as systems employing a state ID or credit card

7e: In voting, have users (a) labeling themselves with various hashtags or categories, and (b) endorsing other users in terms of their expertise, for example, or credibility qua representative of some point of view (party, denomination, philosophy, etc.). Users who are highly endorsed by other users who are themselves endorsed might receive a boost in weighted averages.

7f: Have a system where Posts are corrected (with a “Community Note”. only when accounts with a history of sharply divergent views agree on a correction. By the way, the Community Notes system is invite-only, which makes it harder for the system to be gamed, but is also less compatible with the purported culture of openness on Wikipedia.

7g: More on how the reviews would work: In a full review, one would rate an article on several different dimensions, such as completeness, accuracy, bias, mechanics, and style. There should also be room for extended verbal feedback, as with any academic peer review. Reviews should expire (or be archived, or no longer counted in averages) once an article is, for example, 20% different from an earlier version. Perhaps it would be a sliding scale. Finally, there should be support not just for one-off reviews, but also for updating reviews.

Project managers should, in addition, consider enabling discussion of reviews (if reviewers prefer). This would be an independent community of discussion of Wikipedia articles, quite distinct from editorial discussion (i.e., on the talk page). Particularly if this system were not under the direct control of the editorial community—as it obviously should not be—this means that there would have to be some sort of community moderation. LLMs could support a layer of support for that. Another option is the Stack Exchange model, which works well.

7h: If the previous parts of the seventh theses passes, dismantle Wikipedia’s “Content assessment” system of self-rating.

Defenses given: i) an encyclopedia written by the public must be allowed to be publicly evaluated by the public ii) The feature existed in the past, and had overwhelming support iii) improves the quality of articles iv) make Wikipedia more collaborative v) reduces bias

Theses 8) on indefinite blocking

8a: Heavily reduce the amount of indefinite blocking done.

8b: To indefinitely block, require the agreement of three or more Administrators, with guaranteed periodic review available.

8c: Wikipedia's blocking system must not be able to exclude, de facto systematically, whole categories of persons based on petty disagreements, power plays, or worldviews.

8d: Repeal the rule that Submitting an appeal according to this process requires expressions of deep, sincere contrition

8e: Repeal the rule that The “standard offer” requires a plea of contrition followed by the blockee waiting at least six months, not making any attempt to edit Wikipedia at all in that time.

8f: Except in (again) truly rare and exceptional cases, no block of any length should be issued before one clear and formal warning is given.

8g: Indefinite blocking only after three strikes

8h: Speed up appeals

8i: The “standard offer” essay, with its long waiting period, should be entirely annulled.

8j: Adopt an annual (or more frequent) parole hearing, with no exceptions except WP:sockpuppets.

8k: If the WMF begins paying Administrators, [...] the frequency of appeals for indefinite blocks to be greater—even, say, every 60 days.

8l: Appeals should be heard by different Administrators.

8m: All individuals blocked for sockpuppetry might identify themselves and select one and only one of their permanently blocked accounts to revive. The rule would be one amnesty account per individual. If the individual chooses to disclose past sockpuppets, the amnesty period would allow for the editor to keep their current account, but past accounts would be associated with the retained account and those accounts would remain blocked. If sock puppetry were discovered outside of the window of time that the amnesty is offered, no such courtesy would be extended.

8n: In the typical case, on the first block, the longest possible sentence should be one month. On the second blockable offense, three months. Lesser block lengths should be much more common.

8o: {tq|# Block-happy Administrators should be retired: The procedures of the relatively new “Administrator recall” system should be fully supported and used more frequently.}}

8p: Administrators, like police officers, must be trained in patience

8q: {{tq|# More Administrators should be found if Administrators cannot keep up with the workload of properly adjudicating cases; as discussed in Thesis 6, stipends could be offered in order to make this happen, if necessary.]]

Defenses given: i) there is corruption in the blocking system. (Mr. Sanger often criticized behaviors in some admins) ii) some people end up reformed after being temporarily blocked, so they deserve a second chance iii) even well intended administrators could be mistaken behind the reason for blocking someone -- i.e. blocking someone for sockpuppetry when they're not actually one iv) many people are against the treatment of Wikipedia administrators, which includes permanent blocking. v) for 8d, it's unfair to require those who have been mistreated to apologize in order to appeal vi) the long appeals processes are violations of "innocent until proven guilty" vii) indefinite blocking leads to more sockpuppets and rulebreaking vii) simplifies a complex system

Theses 9) The legislative process

9a: Wikipedia should adopt rules for a constitutional convention

9b: The primary goal of the convention is to settle on the method and procedure for a Wikipedia editorial assembly

9c: Both the constitutional convention and the assembly should conduct business at face-to-face meetings paid for by the Wikimedia Foundation.

9d: The unique identity of those voting for members of the constitutional convention and the assembly should be confirmed.

9e: A first order of business should be the rewriting of policies and the adoption of policy pages, guideline pages, and essays as “official policy” or not.

9f: Remove the policy of “Wikipedia is not a democracy,”

Defenses given: i) would make changes faster and bolder ii) in the current system, there is nothing in place to make significant changes ii) for 9c, Among other advantages, this solves the problem of ensuring one person, one vote, at least in assembly voting. ii) greater equality.

To the reader: if you have experience in policy discussions, neutrality disputes, or article governance, your input is welcome. Thank you.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Many of these have no hope of being accepted, and having such a large RFC would likely result in a train wretch. I would suggest looking at the more likely ones and working towards RFCs specific to the reform of a certain area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Seconding ActivelyDisinterested here, this massive RfC would be pretty much intractable – and even individual theses are often multiple bundled proposals each. Some have interesting ideas, like thesis 1's goal of doing away with the word "consensus" (which, like many pieces of Wikipedia jargon, can be misleading). But it follows up with an uncomfortably hierarchical open editorial committee [...] who can escalate important issues upward and deciding agency, which goes against Wikipedia's spirit of advanced user rights not giving additional power over content.

This also confuses me when looking at thesis 2, where one of the criticisms given for the current system is Imbalance of power, where articles reflect more of those with more of it (such as admins) than of the wider community – beyond seemingly arguing in the opposite direction from thesis 1 (that concentration of editorial power is bad), this is simply not a thing today. Pulling rank goes against the community's expectations for administrators, and would likely lead to a quick recall if it happened. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

• close, preferably speedily. too much to juggle at once, and it'd be easier and funnier to address each thesis separately. preferably don't open again either, as the discussions in the essay's talk page show that the only things that have any hope of being implemented have already been implemented (even if we don't ignore comments from suspiciously new accounts) consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

1. many of these decisions are still controversial when decided, so it's not a consensus - that's literally what consensus is. Quoting Consensus decision-making:

   Consensus is reached when everyone in the group assents to a decision (or almost everyone; see stand aside) even if some do not fully agree to or support all aspects of it. It differs from simple unanimity, which requires all participants to support a decision.

   there is not equal weight given among the users, as those in power have more influence - firstly, there are no people "in power" (all permissions are simply tools; not some kind of privilege or status), secondly - do you have any examples? I have never seen sysops or any other users "in power" being treated as "more equal" than regular users (though I'm, admittedly, not a long-time editor).
2. Imbalance of power, where articles reflect more of those with more of it (such as admins) than of the wider community. - what do you mean by more of those with more of it? such as admins - again, adminship is a tool, not a privilege. Admins don't have any more authority than regular users when content disputes occur. would bring greater neutrality - neutrality isn't false balance. We shouldn't and mustn't represent all existing views. be inclusive to a greater variety of beliefs - This is not what Wikipedia is for. that rule was created because there were not enough writers, but now there are far more - why do you think this policy was created because there was not enough editors? I can't see any connection between the two. More editors would come to Wikipedia - currently we don't have any problems with active editors. more agreement and thereby productivity among editors - again, why do you think so? There will never be any agreement between Holocaust deniers and Jews, there will never be any agreement between homophobes and gay people, and so on and so on.
3. important information only contained in blacklisted sources would be missing - even if it's important (though I've never seen any case where important information was reported by only one source), we can't be sure that it's trustworthy. A source not being trustworthy is the main reason for the source to be blacklisted, if not the only reason. on what grounds are these sources deemed unreliable? - because they're not trustworthy. But what make these sources considered reliable? - because they are trustworthy. But then we run into the same problem - what problem? the current list does not reflect what the community wants - ^{[citation needed]}.
4. that this has been this way since the beginning - ^{[citation needed]}. Poor word choice in a 20-year-old version of a policy doesn't mean that the current version of this policy doesn't represent the original intent behind the policy (by the way policies aren't required to do so, because consensus can change). Wikipedia’s neutrality policy was, and should again be, that when A and B are in disagreement, then you do not declare a winner - Wikipedians don't "declare a winner". They follow sources. When A is "the winner" in the majority of reliable sources, then A will also be the "winner" on Wikipedia.
5. it excuses bad behavior - for example? Wikipedia:Ignore all rules explicitly says that it is only applicable in cases when it prevents someone from improving Wikipedia. Bad behavior isn't an improvement for Wikipedia. fuels inequality - how so?
6. accountability - we don't want real-life accountability for editor's actions on the site. Wikipedia is one of the most influential sites, so it's crucial to know who the leaders are - there are no leaders. See my first and second points. the WMF will be following the professional practices of serious, responsible journalistic enterprises in the West - why should it? Would the profitability of paid Wikipedia work increase or decrease if editorial leadership had to declare its identity? The answer seems obvious. Why then would Wikipedians resist a culture of leadership accountability? - is there any evidence that "leaders" are paid to do their work?
7. an encyclopedia written by the public must be allowed to be publicly evaluated by the public - talk pages exist for improving articles. If you just want to voice your opinion on an article, without suggesting any improvements, you should do that somewhere else - not on Wikipedia. The feature existed in the past, and had overwhelming support - ^{[citation needed]}. improves the quality of articles, make Wikipedia more collaborative, reduces bias - see my point about talk pages.
8. there is corruption in the blocking system - ^{[citation needed]}. some people end up reformed after being temporarily blocked, so they deserve a second chance - standardised unblock procedure exists. If a person admits their mistakes which lead to them being blocked indefinitely, there's no reason not to unblock them. even well intended administrators could be mistaken behind the reason for blocking someone -- i.e. blocking someone for sockpuppetry when they're not actually one - yes. Admins are people, and people make mistakes. There's nothing wrong with it. many people are against the treatment of Wikipedia administrators, which includes permanent blocking. - ^{[citation needed]}. it's unfair to require those who have been mistreated to apologize in order to appeal - why do you think they should? the long appeals processes are violations of "innocent until proven guilty" - Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. indefinite blocking leads to more sockpuppets and rulebreaking - that's the problem with the person breaking the rules, not with the measures taken to stop them. simplifies a complex system - yes, because as I said, Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy.
9. would make changes faster and bolder - there are no problems with making a change when it's helpful, no matter how big it is. in the current system, there is nothing in place to make significant changes - significant changes which aren't helpful shouldn't be made because they're not helpful. If a significant change is helpful, there will be no problems with the community accepting it. Among other advantages, this solves the problem of ensuring one person, one vote, at least in assembly voting. - "one person, one vote" is already ensured by the Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry policy. greater equality. - are there any examples of "inequality" in the current decision-making?
   TL;DR: no. sapphaline (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

   the claims in #7 have a really funny story behind them... in that they're complete lies. i don't just mean some facts got mixed, i mean larry just made the entire story about its implementation and reception up. it's a level 4 headcanon. rating and reviewing systems were tried, seemingly multiple times, and the results were so disastrous for all the obvious reasons that almost everything related to them has been nuked off the internet. and i mean "it's not even in the internet archive" nuked, that shit is GONE gone, we literally have more of the xevious movie preserved than that, which is saying a lot when all we have effectively amounts to youtube poops of some of it. imagine not being able to say that about something from one of the biggest sites pretty much ever. you ever seen the public comment on the rating system? i'll doubt your sanity if you have, because the experiments barely even left a memory

   and the system as larry suggested it would somehow be worse than that, as it'd almost instantly kneecap wikipedia's reliability as a tertiary source because some people like they might be giants more than they think the article is actually good, or dislike yuji naka more than they think the article is actually bad. somehow, all the fitting examples i could've named for this were b-class consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

   What are you talking about? mw:Extension:ArticleFeedbackv5, mw:Extension:AjaxComments, mw:Extension:Comments etc. are all available & maintained and you still can download them. sapphaline (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

• This unfocused ramble is absolutely absurd as a serious policy suggestion. Can someone close down this mess quickly please? Simonm223 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2025 (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.

Reopening the case

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.

---

@Anomie May I respectfully ask you to reconsider the closure of the Idea Lab discussion?

1) The page was clearly marked as part of the Idea Lab, not a formal policy proposal. The intent was exploratory: to refine and evaluate possible ideas, not to !vote or finalize anything. I had also requested that users refrain from !voting for that reason.

2) Even if it were viewed as a proposal, the discussion was only a few hours old. Large-scale suggestions (even controversial ones) benefit from time to develop organically, and from the proposer having a chance to respond to initial feedback. In this case, I didn’t get that opportunity.

I understand the concerns, and I’m happy to adapt the format if that’s a sticking point. But I believe the community benefits when bold ideas are debated thoroughly, even if they’re not adopted in full. Thank you for your consideration. Wikieditor662 (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Anomie, the lengthy list is not the sort of idea that is going to generate substantial discussion beyond what the existing replies already noted in that regard. CMD (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

nah. as i suggested, even if this had a sun ray's chance in ireland of being seriously considered, an rfc on all of them at once is too much for any closer to handle. at best i think an rfc on one thesis at a time (including each of the further theses) would work, but even then, most of them require that others already be in place, like 6 needing 9 (AS DAVE OSHRY INTENDED), 9 needing 1, 2, and 8, 3 needing 1 and 4, 7 needing 6 and 9 (hell yeah two 69 jokes at once), and 8 needing 1, 4, 5, and 6 (which you may realize creates a sort of catch-22 where both can't be implemented without the other already having been), so even ignoring how 6 is very likely going to get a good couple of people imprisoned and/or killed if not immediately shot down, the idea of actually implementing them would be so complicated that you might as well just make an entire alternate dimension where this was always how it's been, no one bothered to question it, and as a result, wikipedia never really got off the ground and silently disappeared in 2008 consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not an idea, it is a laundry list of a few things which might vaguely warrant discussion after they have been thought out a bit more, and things no one in their right mind would ever suggest for Wikipedia ("2d: The article creator determines who works on the article."???). As a whole, it is a waste of time posting it here as no useful discussion is possible like this. If you really want to proceed with this, take what you consider the best idea and discuss that one separately (if it isn't being discussed already). Fram (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You'd do better to join the existing discussions at User talk:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-10-02/News and notes#Larry Sanger is "baaaaack!" with "Nine Theses on Wikipedia", and wherever else they're happening. If some actual concrete proposal comes out of any of that, then it might be worth a post for that specific idea. But even then, witness the fate of one such bad idea. Anomie⚔ 14:23, 17 October 2025 (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.

Final round of suggestions for This Week's Article for Improvement before WP:VPP

Recently, I proposed that the Main Page host This Week's Article For Improvement. It's an obscure bit of Wikipedia infrastructure that spotlights low-quality articles that are a) important, b) highly-viewed, and c) uncontroversial so that they may be improved. Despite relatively low activity on the infrastructure itself, the list of articles for improvement is the key resource we are tapping into.

The new section of the main page will look something like the mockup @Scaledish created. It will highlight the article, opening paragraphs, and a list of issues with the current article. The goals of TWAFI are threefold: a) to showcase the power of crowdsourced editing in action, b) to improve the specific article, and c) to recruit new editors.

I am sending out a final call for suggestions for this proposal before I move onto WP:VPP. Try to distill it down to what it would take for you to cast a support vote at VPP.

Pinging people who participated in the previous discussion

The following individuals participated in the discussion last time. To those individuals: I deeply appreciate your input and have carefully considered your suggestions, and answered them as best as I could below.

@Cremastra @Isaacl @Chipmunkdavis @Chaotic Enby @OwlParty @WhatamIdoing @PerfectSoundWhatever @Rosguill @Danubeball @Sahaib @Aaron Liu @Clovermoss

Here are my responses to earlier questions/suggestions

Q. Won't this require a lot of volunteer time?

A. To some extent. However, as articles do not have to be polished before spotlighting (as highlighting great articles would defeat the purpose), it will require less work than the current main page sections of WP:DYK, WP:ITN, WP:TFA, and WP:OTD. There is already a substantial list aggregated by the contributors at Articles for Improvement we can cycle through.

Q. Will we forget to update the queue, like the first time this was tried?

A. No. Wikipedia in 2025 has matured from Wikipedia in 2013. With more editors, especially on the main page infrastructure, it's less likely that mishaps such as these happen. If one day the queue is fully emptied, this project will have been a smashing success.

Q. Will beginners find this too hard?

A. Yes and no. Many a frustrated beginner will quit before fully learning the ropes on Wikipedia after initially chipping into TWAFI. However, I don't see how opening one more door could lead to a decrease in recruitment. After all, Wikipedia editors are drawn from the humble- we are looking for those who would be good editors and don't know where to start editing, rather than trying to mold all readers. Ultimately, even if we assume the absolute worst case scenario of no beginner recruitment, we'll at least have an improved article by the end of the week.

Q. Could we modify WP:TASK/Community Portal/something else to recruit new editors instead?

A. Why not both? Many of these ideas sound good, but don't necessarily mean that TWAFI can't also get off the ground.

Bremps... 02:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's worth trialling to see how it goes. I mostly just worry that the whatever articles chosen would go through cycles of vandalism/protection and thus kind of defeat the point of being on the main page at all. But maybe that's too cynical of a take and not how it would work out in practice. I think it'd also be good to include a help guide of some kind in the section that features these articles so we're not simply setting people up to fail. We should also mention the sandbox in it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a help guide in principle and remain open to it. Avoiding banner blindness and making people actually slow down and read is another matter. Something similar to the warning you get when editing extended-confirmed pages (but less scary) could probably work, though I haven't the technical knowledge to implement it. Bremps... 03:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I just don't want us to be in a situation where we tell people: go edit these articles! And then be mad at the result when people predictably struggle. Having some amount of guidance is better than none at all. Maybe we could do a mini mentorship program? It'd be cool if we could use tools like recently active editors and pair people up with someone if they have a question/need a mentor. Or use the existing mentorship framework. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's necessary to have a pairing program for a separate mentor. The existing mentor assigned to each editor should suffice to answer questions. I agree that providing help links in "today's article for improvement" main page section is a good idea (such as the initiative's talk page and the teahouse). isaacl (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably sufficient. The main benefit of the Teahouse over mentorship is that it's possible to get a more immediate response if your mentor isn't online all the time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

We can add something like a banner to remind old hands that there will be a disproportionate amount of new users on the article, so that they may WP:AGF and remain patient, even if reverting some of the new edits. Bremps... 00:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, to I still support this, at the very least for a trial run.

We need new editors, and this is one way to attract them. Yes, there will be a lot of vandalism and incompetence, but we'll also attract one or two potentially excellent contributors. If we want gold, we need to take the time and effort to pan for it. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bremps, do you have a FAQ for "It didn't work when we tried this in the past (decision to try it, declaration of failure ["the articles are barely being edited", "I'm biased in favor of TAFI's inclusion, but even I must acknowledge that the attempt was unsuccessful", "Users weren't editing the articles to a significant extent", "virtual absence of editing", ], proposal to try again), so why do you think it will work this time?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @WhatamIdoing, thanks for your comment.

I would like to note a few points:

1) The past trial run featured three articles at a time, diluting focus

2) The template occupied very little real estate on the main page and only included article titles, not any lede paragraphs

3) Levy's assessment (which you quoted four times) is contested. As Northamerica1000 notes, "[many articles] were improved, and some quite significantly." NickPenguin adds that "[the articles have improved] dramatically, with 32 of the 52 articles being reassessed at C class or higher".

Levy, the strongest critic of the project in the page you linked, supported TAFI and felt that a new configuration of the template would probably be conducive to "moving forward" with TAFI.

I think this should dispel concerns.

Best, Bremps... 03:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, North claimed that many articles were improved... but he was also accused of cherry-picking the best examples and not disclosing that most of the improvements were done by people who belonged to the WikiProject. Existing supporters don't need a slot on the Main Page to improve articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Bremps, to be clear, I don't want to prevent your proposal. I want you to be prepared for the obvious objections, and I want the discussion, if it's accepted, to result in an agreement that includes objective metrics (e.g., "an average of four unregistered editors or brand-new accounts will make an unreverted edit to each advertised article"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

+1 This is a good idea. I think that the four editors criteria is good, along with at least 10,000 views over the week. If we run into failure, we can also adjust the pilot instead of scrapping the idea completely. Also pinging @Chaotic Enby. Bremps... 00:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good as a starting metric! Since some of the articles for improvements might be highly-viewed articles already, maybe we could track excess views compared to the baseline? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

That seems good. Bremps... 18:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

You could use the GAs in DYK to get an idea of what a realistic increase in the baseline might be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be helpful if you create a mockup with the latest design, and explicitly describe how the design and process are being improved over the previous time in order to achieve the desired goals. I appreciate the work you've put into this initiative so far. isaacl (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, that would be a very strong argument in favor of the project. I also like WhatamIdoing's idea of objective metrics. Maybe we could also track the number of page views coming from the main page? That would help us see if any issues with engagement stem from people just not clicking on it, or from new editors not knowing how to improve the article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there a link to the mockup? One key thing to note is that a focus on new editors may require looking at the list again, as this is a different audience than regular experienced collaborators. Tailored advice should also hopefully push new editors away from the lead and into the body. CMD (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the current Article for Improvement (Genus) is too high of an quality to be approachable by newcomers. Any AFI featured in the main page should be start class or below and not be overly technical. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion noted. Bremps... 00:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Chipmunkdavis, the mockup is at User:Bremps/This week's article for improvement. The image parameter is glitching out. Bremps... 00:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Isaacl as well. Bremps... 00:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

This look neat! I'm wondering if one or two more lines could be taken to explain how the article should be improved? (which is especially non-obvious for newcomers with already large articles like this one) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

+1 Can do. Bremps... 16:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Is it okay if I slightly edit your userspace prototype? (or make another version just below it) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It's fine if you edit it. Bremps... 15:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I notice that the color is the same as that of the TFA/L and DYK column. Is this meant to be placed in there? If not, I would recommend a different color.

I forgot if we discussed "where to place on the main page". If not, I'd recommend putting this side-by-side along with the "other areas of Wikipedia" section (and of course in a color that's not grey). Aaron Liu (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe the "other areas of Wikipedia section" would be too low. I would place it just under OTD and DYK, spanning the width of the screen. As for the color, I'll make not of changing it, but I'll have to wait for when @Scaledish and I can coordinate. Bremps... 03:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean to lower it, lol; I meant to bring that section up so we have two columns right below OTD and DYK. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

As there is a parallel discussion about expanding ITN/RD, an alternative could be to have it on the left column below DYK, balancing out ITN's added space on the right column. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to have a link to the corresponding project page, or at least to an explanation of how the articles are queued. Will there be help links as discussed earlier? On the process side, have you worked out how the queues will be prepped and then deployed to the main page? isaacl (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Idle thoughts that may or may not be feasible within space and formatting constraints, but if the goal is to bring in new editors there should be a link to some sort of talk page where they can ask questions. Other links might include Help:Introduction, WP:Teahouse. CMD (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Definitely helpful! We don't want to flood them with too many links either, and it might not be clear for new editors if their questions should be asked on the article talk page or at the Teahouse – maybe we can link them the article talk page, and send a notification on the Teahouse so that hosts and other volunteers know to take a look there? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

We already have the teahouse and other forum links under "Other areas of Wikipedia", so I guess that's another reason to support putting this new section right next to it. I agree that linking the article talk page is worth exploring, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking of having a line below the blurb reading something like: "Be bold and edit the article yourself! For example, you can [insert things that can be improved]. If you have questions or want to give suggestions, go visit the article's talk page!" Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I added a collapsible and a set of navlinks to the bottom of the template. Bremps... 04:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

That is great, although I still believe that linking the article's talk page could be helpful – many new users don't know that talk pages exist, and this kind of collaborative project with other new users, plus a few experienced users for guidance, could be a great introduction for them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I know this sounds like a radical proposition, but I think the randomly chosen status quo is for the best. There's no obvious criteria for selecting article of the week like DYK and I don't want to create an inside-baseball process like TFA. I think picking a random article out the pool is best for stopping conflicts before they start.

There will be queues in the sense that we know what articles will be coming up, though I think they should be reasonably short (perhaps one week in advance) in case we serve up already great articles to improve upon. ;)

I detailed help links above. You can check them out in the template. Bremps... 04:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the mockup; there were no help links when I looked at it previously.

I wasn't asking about specifically about article selection, but the whole set of procedures. In your Q & A list, you've said that the community has matured with respect to process. To me, that implies there's been some planning about how to put this initiative into effect in way that maximizes the chances for success: how each week's content for the main page will be prepared in advance, how the main page will be updated, if there will be any changes in how the pool of articles is generated, and so forth. These aren't questions that have to be answered right now, but I suggest it would be helpful to have a good view on how the process will work in detail when the change to the main page is formally proposed for community consensus, with specific volunteers lined up. I think it would help allay concerns. isaacl (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Bremps... 15:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey guys, just noting that I'm still reading suggestions and will be more responsive this weekend. Bremps... 04:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Asking WMF for short intro videos for Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Core content policies?

Inspired from the quiz topic above.

I think short, few minute intro videos could be helpful for newer editors? Bogazicili (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there a strong reason that these need to come from the WMF? Wouldn't it be less hassle and give us better control if we just made them ourselves if they were desired? Tazerdadog (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili, are you considering something like A Wiki Minute? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Trizek (WMF): yes exactly something like that! I see the information is organized a bit differently in those videos though. For example, Can you trust what’s on Wikipedia – A WIKI MINUTE mentions WP:V and WP:NPOV. But it doesn't fully explain WP:NOR (Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves). It says articles should be written from a neutral point of view, but doesn't explain what that is (which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic). Maybe something like "Core content policies – A WIKI MINUTE" about Wikipedia:Core content policies? Bogazicili (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili, please suggest it at the project's talk page. Maybe your idea would be part of the next season? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks will do Bogazicili (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

yeah I mean couldn't anyone do it at any time? sure, it would probably higher production budget and more "official" if the WMF did it, but someone like you or me could put something out there that does the job pretty well. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 04:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog and EatingCarBatteries: sure but who is going to do it? A lot of requests in Wikipedia:Graphics Lab go unanswered. I sometimes think the number of active Wikipedia editors are overestimated. Many of them are also busy with their watchlists, or other maintenance tasks. Bogazicili (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the real question. I'm not sure. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 19:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding "transparent" or "transparency" to Wikipedia:Five pillars

Transparency is a core Wikipedia value and way of doing things. It's quite implicit, but it's not explicitly stated in Wikipedia:Five pillars. Pretty much everything is recorded and publicly available, such as page histories, talk pages, and archives.

Wikipedia is also transparent about criticism about itself, including articles such as Criticism of Wikipedia, or essays Wikipedia:Systemic bias, or projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red.

It's mentioned in this video [9] and I remember Jimbo Wales mentioning it in a recent NYT interview [10]

Should we add "transparent" or "transparency" to somewhere in WP:5P2? Bogazicili (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's a better fit for WP:5P3. mw:Principles says "fully transparent and observable, with all changes to pages tracked and all actions logged". That's not really about being neutral. I'd put it after the "no editor owns an article" sentence, if we decided to add it at all (which I'm leaning a bit neutral-to-exclude on). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You know Wikipedia has recently been criticized for being biased and stuff in the news. That's why I thought it fit "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" as in everything is transparent. But I can see 5P3 too. Bogazicili (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been criticized for being "biased" approximately every day of the week for the last two decades. The definition of "biased" is often "does not agree with my personal viewpoint". We do have NPOV problems, but they're often mixed and complex (do we say that over-the-counter cough syrup is an effective medication? Lots of lay people believe it is, but research says mostly no. How much information about (e.g.,) evolutionary biology belongs in an article about, say, teenage pregnancy? Are we biased against the biologists?), rather than "too red" or "too blue". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Pilot project for GPT-5 powered article bias analysis WikiTool

I wanted to propose a pilot project to create a WikiTool that is powered by GPT-5, Perplexity Sonar Pro, or otherwise allow the user to choose their preferred AI model to run. Open-source models should also be available to choose from. Before being available to most users, the pilot project can be started on 50-200 articles that are controversial or had recent edit wars, and reports generated by the bot can be put in a project namespace. Edits proposed by the software will be advisory only and can be posted on the article's talk page in collapsible form, or in a project namespace. It will also be transparent and show usage logs, as well as copies of the exact prompts used. Any outputs from the AI will be verbatim for transparency. Source analysis can also be included as an additional feature. Furthermore, only public information (and possibly article revision history) will be used. User talk pages will not be used unless explicitly authorised. Article talk pages can be used by the bot optionally.

Use cases can be seen in my sandbox:

1. User talk:86.33.69.28/Sandbox/Test1
2. User talk:86.33.69.28/Sandbox/Test2

I am proposing a 3-6 month pilot project for this tool to be run by a specific team before it is available to be used by all Wikipedians. It can be linked with the API provided by the AI services.

I am looking forward to feedback from the community. I understand my proposal may need some refinement, but please review the example above and use this as a starting point. 86.33.69.28 (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I am very much opposed to the idea of having a bot post anything like this to an article talk page. If it is a seperate tool that a user can run on a page and get private feedback I would be more inclined to accept that. An LLM shouldn't be posting anywhere public facing it's own interpretation, when it's still very prone to errors, nonesense and gibberish. Posting on talk pages could also lead to people thinking the LLM's interpretation is 100% correct and lead to more arguements and disruption. Private anaylsis allows for a human to review the anaylsis, make corrections as needed and toss out any nonesense the LLM produces. This also still allows a human to make the final decision and being able to defend their decision, you can't effectively argue with an LLM. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Anyone posting such bot-generated garbage on talk pages should be indef blocked on sight. The last thing we need is fucking bullshit-bots telling us how to write articles. They are incapable of creating policy-compliant content themselves, for multiple reasons. They routinely hallucinate (i.e make shit up). They fake citations. They synthesise crap, and then claim it came from somewhere else entirely. They have no concept of 'neutrality' or 'bias' (or of anything else, since they are simply next-word-guessing algorithms). And given how much of their training was done on Wikipedia, they'd merely generate circular-referenced crap. At least they would, if they didn't also hallucinate Wikipedia policy (complete with fictitious 'quotations' of said policy) on demand. A monumentally bad idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I am torn with agreeing with your comment because it's true and disagreeing because it's incorrect. jp×g🗯️ 21:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest you self revert your addition of what seems to be User talk:86.33.69.28/Sandbox/Test1 to Talk:Glenn Diesen#Article bias analysis according to GPT-5 (for your information). I'd also support someone else removing it but I don't have the time to monitor potential further discussion. Skynxnex (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I've collapsed the bullshit-bot generated list of vacuous platitudes posted at Talk:Glenn Diesen, using the relevant template. Adding such crap without prior consensus (for which there is zero chance) is a misuse of the talk page. And I've got to ask why the IP chose this particular article? A sample of one is useless, and running the same thing through the bollocks-generator twice is stupid. If you want to actually test something, you'd need a statistically-significant number of randomly-selected articles to work with, not a single article selected because you don't like it or whatever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

LLMs have shown they have a very poor understanding of Wikipedia's policies, so this wouldn't be very useful. Instead they tend to generate verbose but vague comments that are somewhat related to the title of policies rather than the actual details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The post the Glenn Diesen shows many of these issues, including not understanding false balance or that articles should be based on secondary sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Bias analysis is a hard problem. Have you seen any papers with evidence that foundational models like GPT-5 perform well at this task? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Note also that we aren't supposed to look for 'bias' in the abstract (whatever that means), but bias per Wikipedia policy - which requires balance centred around significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Given that such an assessment requires analysing such sources, any algorithm compliant with Wikipedia policy would have to be demonstrated to actually perform such an analysis on the sources cited. And arguably, be capable of searching for further sources on the subject matter, to ensure that the article hasn't cherry-picked its sources to push a specific PoV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Source analysis - especially as it comes to sources that have no online presence (i.e. scholarly books) - is something that chatbots famously cannot do. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Though I'm sure that the chatbots will get around that little difficulty by looking at the title cited, and making shit up about its contents. After all, they can do it the other way - look at article content, and invent fictitious sources to cite for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Just for fun, from the horse's mouth (current free version of ChatGPT):

Prompt: Give me a short summary of why ChatGPT is so bad at writing Wikipedia articles.

Reply: ChatGPT struggles to write Wikipedia articles mainly because Wikipedia requires verifiable, neutral, and well-sourced content, while ChatGPT generates text based on patterns in data, not real-time fact-checking or citations. It can sound authoritative but often hallucinates details, misrepresents sources, or fails to follow Wikipedia’s strict style and citation rules. In short, ChatGPT is good at fluent writing, but bad at accuracy, sourcing, and neutrality — all of which are essential for Wikipedia. [11]

I'd dispute the 'fluent writing' bit, unless pointless repetition and vacuous hyperbole have somehow become evidence of fluency, but whatever. Wouldn't have proved a thing if it had insisted it wrote perfect articles, but it doesn't. It essentially describes itself as an unreliable source, and it would be hard to disagree with such an assessment without tying oneself in philosophical knots. And self-evidently, if it can't create valid content, it can't distinguish valid content from invalid. Which we already knew, but now we have it self-confirmed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Fluent as in effluent. It flows. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

While the site does have a bias issue regarding certain things like current events, LLMs are too flawed (perhaps inherently) and resource intensive for it be worthwhile. --FelineHerder (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with the chorus already commenting here: LLMs seem completely unsuited for this kind of work, and I suspect would prompt editors toward false balance in a lot of circumstances. I don't pretend to know everything about how they work, but we know the LLM doesn't limit itself to relevant scholarly literature or WP:RS to judge bias, and it's not a fact-checker. It aims to sound plausible, which is too low a bar (and more likely to be misleading in a way that is hard for a non-expert to detect).--MattMauler (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I question the premise that an AI would be a suitable judge of bias (whatever that may entail) and would be superior to human beings. LLMs are just next-word predictors and only as good as their training data. Bremps... 04:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

To address the substance of User talk:86.33.69.28/Sandbox/Test1, GPT-5's analysis seems to be at odds with Wikipedia's sourcing policy. It repeatedly asks for a higher weight to be given to primary sources (e.g. present Diesen's responses or rebuttals alongside them, is the subject's own response included and sourced?), which goes against our use of primary vs secondary sources (and, honestly, might be a case of Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies). The model also fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, as, instead of looking to give due weight to each side based on the number of existing sources, it asks for "counterbalancing" sources to be added (aiming for a false balance). Use of adversarial sources without equivalent counterbalancing sources: Critical claims (e.g., "promoting Russian propaganda") are supported by multiple media citations; the article gives comparatively less space to Diesen's responses, contextual explanations, or neutral academic evaluations. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The only response this deserves is Trout. sapphaline (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I think making a tool is overkill, the better idea would be, by policy, to establish appropriate usage of LLM by users in talk pages.

For example, a user may list the sources of an article to an LLM and ask if these sources represent all views or are biased in favor of one ideological camp, and then in the talk page say "I asked such-and-such engine (input) and it answered (output)" --Scharb (talk) Scharb (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Add all pages in a category to your watchlist

I would find a feature like this useful. Since I only have an original idea about once a decade, I assume this has come up before. I guess it's not very difficult to do this with a DB query and some messing about in Special:EditWatchlist/raw or via the API, but a button that did it might be nice. Maybe there is already a tool that does it... Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

There are two scripts at Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Categories that would seem to do what you want. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

You can also do like Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Birds of Central America to get a watchlist-like view of changes to pages in the category, if that's all you're wanting. Anomie⚔ 19:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

These are both excellent suggestions. Thank you both. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator

Has there been an event where so many administrators get involved that there are no more uninvolved administrators? How will processes such as unblock requests or page deletions continue if there are no more uninvolved admins? Appeals to ANI or AN could spark a lot of involvement, too. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I doubt that we have ever had a situation where every admin has been involved. Lots of them perhaps, but not all. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Such an event has never happened, and functionally could never happen, because at any given time, some subset of administrators are simply not active and thus could not be WP:INVOLVED in this context.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

We have enough admins that it's not a practical issue. Sometimes admins, especially arbcom members, decline to involve themselves early so that they are available to resolve it later in the process. If every admin somehow got involved, we'd use the rule of necessity, via IAR if necessary. There have been times when all of the active regular admins at a more niche process like categories for discussion involve themselves, and need to be unstuck by an admin at AN, but even that is uncommon. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, great to know. I was originally thinking that the last resort would be to appeal to Jimbo, as he doesn't get involved in too many processes nowadays. However, as far as I can tell, Jimbo doesn't have administrative powers anymore. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Since his account is regularly targeted by black hat hackers, I would imagine that he wants as few privs as possible on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Converse is also true: Some discussions are so thoroughly unpleasant that sometimes people involve themselves so that they are unavailable to resolve it later. "Oops, I expressed an opinion on that, so I can't be dragooned into writing the closing summary. Sorry!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

More emphasis towards the content of sources being the most important.

I want there to be a way for people to further understand why the content of sources arguably matters more than reliability, that is, it needs to pass the general notability guideline. I firmly believe that if a source does not count towards GNG, then it shouldn't be in the article, and I want new editors to understand the importance of the guideline. After the source is deemed to pass GNG, then focus on reliability and verifiability. For a further explanation of my opinion, please refer to my essay, WP:CONTENTFIRST. NotJamestack (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I've clarified one of your examples, and I encourage you to click the link to Wikipedia:No original research#cite note-Exists-1, read it, and think about how different it is from what you've (probably) been told. Our telephone game of teaching about OR tends to give a distorted or inaccurate view.

I think that as you gain more experience, you will see the value in using a small number of non-Wikipedia:Independent sources in some articles. Non-independent sources often help us comply with WP:BALASP (e.g., by giving us a birth year or birth place for a BLP) and sometimes with other rules (e.g., MOS:GENDERID). The rule is that you want all articles to be WP:Based upon (i.e., mostly use) independent secondary sources. There's no need and sometime some harm from banning all others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

On the general subject: There are two main views of SIGCOV (meaning media coverage in a significant amount, not coverage that an editor subjectively believes is "significant" in the sense of being "important" somehow). One view is that each individual source, considered in isolation, must have all the qualities or be ignored. The other view is that all independent reliable sources, taken together as a whole, must add up to a significant amount of coverage.

It's not really an objective, numeric evaluation, but let's simplify down to Wikipedia:One hundred words for the sake of an illustration. We'll stipulate for this illustration that 100 words is a significant amount of coverage. Imagine that we have five independent reliable sources. They have word counts of 90, 95, 99, 101, and 105. The separatist view would look at these sources and say that's nothing, nothing, nothing, and two sources with 100+ words that we can use to show notability. The comprehensive view would say that's five sources totaling 490 words.

If the sources contain different information, the comprehensive view might give you a more accurate view of whether you could write a policy-compliant articl. Figuring out whether we can write a policy-compliant article is why we have notability rules in the first place. But if they each say very similar things, then the separatist view gives more accurate insight into the likelihood that you will be able to write a policy-compliant article. IMO neither view is always right or always wrong, but I think that it's valuable for editors to know that both of these approaches exist within the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that the content of sources arguably matters more than reliability, that is [...] if a source does not count towards GNG, then it shouldn't be in the article is simply not true. Not every source does need to count towards the GNG - for example those being used to support uncontroversial facts. For example, in today's featured article Deer Lady, sources 20 and 21 are being used to support the statement that Yoda is "a fictional character in the Star Wars franchise who uses a backward speech pattern." Those sources do not contribute to the article passing the GNG in any way, but they are necessary to support the content.

In other cases, primary sources (which cannot contribute to notability) are the most reliable sources for the content they support - one example is ridership statistics for public transport - the facility/service operator is very often the only organisation that can obtain those figures, so any figures that appear in secondary sources are taken from the primary source but with the added possibility of errors being (inadvertently) introduced. Thryduulf (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

if a source does not count towards GNG, then it shouldn't be in the article This isn't necessarily true. Primary sources can never count towards GNG, but WP:PRIMARY explicitly permits their use. We can use databases for key facts despite the fact that they do not count as significant coverage. Non-independent sources do not count for GNG but can be used in some cases (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF). Sometimes an article includes a contextual claim where it is useful to point to the best source for that claim even where that source is not about the main subject of the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public, here's a link to a database entry: https://omim.org/entry/616517 Read that and then try to tell me again that databases don't count as significant coverage. If you read English at an average speed, it'll take you four minutes to get to the end of just the prose.

I agree that some (maybe even most) databases don't represent a significant amount of coverage – but I'd say the same about some any content format. We should not go around making false and misleading statements like databases...do not count as significant coverage, especially in conversations with newer editors, who might take such statements as received wisdom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

A problem with received wisdom is that it is often a load of bullshit anyway. Misremembered details distorted by personal bias is a thing, even when there is no intention to mislead. This can also apply to sources - primary, secondary, or tertiary. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Your firm belief does not overrule WP policy and guidance. If you want to persuade us, bring out the evidence. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be more about WP:DUE. Not everything needs to be in an article just because it is in a published source. There is no space for everything in high level articles Bogazicili (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this is mostly about AFD. Imagine how much easier it would be if an article at AFD only cited sources that independently demonstrated that the GNG was met. Instead of having to look through a dozen sources, you could just say "Three little blue clicky numbers – it's notable" or "No refs – it's non-notable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It definitely would be easier. Maybe we should have a way of flagging the refs which are specifically intended for establishing notability. I have sometimes suggested a similar strategy to newbies for getting their first articles through AfC: Keep the article and refs focused on establishing notability until the article has been approved and moved into mainspace, then flesh it out with the less notable details. This of course is not attractive to the editor who wants to create a nice useful and informative article, all at once, or the one who does not understand the notability requirements, so it doesn't usually get much traction. Also, three clicky blue numbers actually gives no indication of notability until you check them, and no refs does not mean not notable, just that notability has not been established. Multiple is easy - count the heads. Independent can be claimed and in many cases easily verified. Non-trivial actually needs to be checked in most cases, but if flagged, can save time. Everything beyond that is gravy. It could also be useful if there was a way to flag that a source has been verified, and by whom. If I was checking refs and saw that you had already verified a source, I could concentrate my efforts at those not yet checked. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the idea of identifying which refs should be looked at is the motivation behind User:RoySmith/Three best sources. The only times we need to "establish notability" is if it goes through NPP/AFC, or if it ends up at AFD.

I think the strategy you recommend is sound. I don't know why so few editors adopt it. But if AFC has gradually and unintentionally adopted a minimum-length standard, then that might account for an unwillingness to submit a short article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This seems to mix up several different areas. Notability isn't about article content but the subject of the article. Also GNG sources have to be reliable, three random website wouldn't show notability whether they have shown significant coverage or not. If any sources was accepted as adding to notability then there would be no point in having a policy about notability. Primary sources don't generally support notability, but when it comes to certain BLP details they are the most reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I firmly believe that if a source does not count towards GNG, then it shouldn't be in the article I'm not sure I understand. Surely the goal is to get information into the article? There are plenty of sources that won't provide SIGCOV that still have facts that are useful. Why exclude them? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Navboxes to assist with dispute resolution (particularly over content policy)

A few recurring problems I continue to have and observe (despite being an editor for years at this point) are:

1. I still don't know what all of the current WP:P&G policies and guidelines even are, much less all of the related WP:SUPPLEMENTAL pages associated with them;
2. Editors in talk page discussions not invoking policies or guidelines to resolve disputes (particularly over content) and where fewer editors participate in the discussions than would really be necessary to achieve consensus per WP:CON;
3. Editors invoking policies or guidelines without citing what the policy actually says or what the text of the policy suggests its larger principle is (or what a WP:SUPPLEMENTAL page says it is);
4. Policies, guidelines, and supplemental pages are not always clearly consistent with each other per WP:POLCON, and WP:IARMEANS claims that policy and guideline pages sometimes actually lag the establish practice despite the claim of WP: NOTBURO that written policies reflect already-existing community consensus.

I believe that having a group of well-designed navboxes with a policy or guideline (or a group of policies and guidelines) as their subject with all related information, how-to, and supplemental pages and any related administration, noticeboards, and request pages could address these concerns because it occurs to me that the reason editors ever become aware of articles or notice issues with them is when they are included in navigation templates. I have not seen any existing navigation templates that do what I am envisioning.

I previously proposed a Content Policy Committee to address some of these same concerns without being fully knowledgeable about existing community self-governance and administrative processes (and still remain unfamiliar with them). Editors in the previous discussion suggested coming up with a way to increase use of noticeboards instead of a broad committee. I propose this here first because policy, guidelines, and supplemental pages per WP:PGCHANGE. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

While not quite what you are proposing, you might be interested in the newly restarted effort at Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines to attempt to simplify and consolidate policies and guidelines. Donald Albury 17:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how effective/active WikiProjects are in general or whether that one will end up being a worthwhile endeavor. I'm generally discouraged by the project's lack of coordination in trying to address issues editors recognize as problems and am doubtful that my participation will improve things. I make the proposal I suggested above precisely because it would not require an active coordinated effort. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

P&Gs don't define what we do anyway, so this project seems doomed to failure from the start. I have been editing Wikipedia for nearly 20 years now, and I very rarely consult P&G pages. I simply know a few basic principles and act on them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

P&Gs don't define what we do anyway, so this project seems doomed to failure from the start. Per WP:P&G, "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia." Per WP:CON, "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision-making", but WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS states that "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense" and WP:DETCON states "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." While WP:NOTBURO establish that policies and guidelines are not the purpose of the community, WP:P&G do appear to define what the community does by documenting and clarifying its best practices, principles, and exist for dispute resolution and decision-making purposes. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It's the other way around. The community's views and actions define the policies and guidelines; the policies and guidelines are merely imperfect attempts to describe the community's views and actions for the convenience of newbies, outsiders, editors in disputes, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

It's the other way around. The community's views and actions define the policies and guidelines; the policies and guidelines are merely imperfect attempts to describe the community's views and actions for the convenience of newbies, outsiders, editors in disputes, etc. Not sure if it uses a descriptive linguistics approach to usage, but the New Oxford American Dictionary defines the word define as "state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of" and lists describe as a synonym. If it does, then no, the policies and guidelines define the community's views and actions. What they don't do is prescribe them, which is defined as "state authoritatively or as a rule that (an action or procedure) should be carried out". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The relevant definition of define is "to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and this is why P&G are, in principle, supposed to define best practices and practices, as well as exist to resolve conflicts. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

No, this is why the community's actions are supposed to define the policy, and why the P&G pages are supposed to describe what the community's policy is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

If define means to "state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of", then the community's actions cannot define anything except when the community's action is writing something down. While the community may define its P&Gs as a description of its norms because the community's actions "make up or establish the character of" its norms and thus its P&Gs, P&G pages still define them P&Gs. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Note there are existing navboxes – see the bottom of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, for example. The reality, though, is that no one's going to read all of the guidance before contributing, and that improved organization won't fix the inconsistencies that arise out of the community's piecemeal approach of documenting community best practice. For better or worse, the difficulties of making all decisions in large, unmoderated discussions make it really hard to complete tasks that need extended focus and prolonged discussion of details. I agree with Phil Bridger, though, that most editors will do fine with understanding a few basic principles, acting collaboratively as needed, and looking up guidance as required. isaacl (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I was aware of the key P&G template before I made this proposal, and that WP:P&G notes that editors don't need to read every policy before beginning editing and only need the five pillars to get started. What I'm proposing isn't for that. It's for providing a means for editors who are engaged in talk page discussions to be able to more easily find their way from policies and guidelines to supplemental pages, noticeboards, departments, and other centralized discussions since even most active editors don't participate in them. Editors often don't cite policies, guidelines, or supplemental pages in talk page discussions, and the supplemental pages, which aren't always linked to the P&G they are intended to supplement, are supposed to exist to aid interpretation of P&G. If the policies, guidelines, and supplemental pages are connected to the centralized discussion pages in this way, I would argue that it would encourage greater reconciliation of discrepancies because the policies, guidelines, and supplemental pages would be listed right at the top of the centralized discussion pages (like the Noticeboards template at the NPOV noticeboard). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I read your initial post. For better or worse, experience to-date on English Wikipedia hasn't shown that the ample number of existing directories of information that are provided in many places, including welcoming messages on user talk pages, has been able to address the fundamental underlying issues that lead to inconsistencies in documented best practice. isaacl (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

experience to-date on English Wikipedia hasn't shown that the ample number of existing directories of information that are provided in many places, including welcoming messages on user talk pages, has been able to address the fundamental underlying issues that lead to inconsistencies in documented best practice This an assertion; what evidence do you have that documents this? My observation is that when pages are included in navigation templates, they tend to be more frequently edited in a such a way that they are improved and far more so than when pages are only included in categories (since newer and less active editors often don't realize that categories even exist). Instead, I would argue that the reason why navigation templates are less effective than they could be is due to the limited number of recommended best practices and explicit restrictions on their use (which leads to poor and unstructured construction and the creation of competing templates), as well as the lower prominence they are given than is needed for them to perform this function and the lack of inclusion on specific project pages (like noticeboards) where they would be more likely to attract greater attention. Given the limited number of editors on Wikipedia and level of engagement by editors, I'd argue that enhanced improved navigability of Wikipedia is a prerequisite to greater coordination and improvement of any issue within the project. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The inconsistencies exist to a sufficient extent that you're seeking a way to reduce them. The many existing directories of information haven't stopped them from occurring. The problem isn't noticing inconsistencies, but that it's much easier to write new guidance than to try to gain consensus to modify existing guidance. The portion of the English Wikipedia community who like to discuss these matters is conservative about making changes to guidance, and it's really hard to get enough people to engage long enough to establish a consensus. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The problem isn't noticing inconsistencies, but that it's much easier to write new guidance than to try to gain consensus to modify existing guidance. I thought all guidance, whether in policies and guidelines or supplemental pages, required consensus to establish, and that policies and guidelines document practice rather than prescribe (which would be odd if we write guidance). More likely, the reason the WP:P&G imperfectly describing describe community practices and norms is because the community does not actually have any because it's decision-making and discussions have been so decentralized historically—which the navigation templates could be used to help correct.

The portion of the English Wikipedia community who like to discuss these matters is conservative about making changes to guidance "Conservative" is an overly charitable way of describing this behavior. I believe ownership is a more accurate word since no matter what changes are ever proposed such editors are always opposed and will always think up a reason to oppose any changes. And no, my experience has not been to confuse ownership with stewardship. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Participants in discussions on English Wikipedia are self-selected and vary a lot due to many factors, leading to inconsistencies. Plus consensus isn't required for anyone to write a page that initially isn't labelled. I don't agree that adding more directories of guidance will change English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions. The community has to want to change to an approach that is less prone to deadlocking. So far, those who like to discuss these matters place a higher priority on ensuring everyone gets to weigh in on their own schedule. isaacl (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Everything on a wiki requires a basic level of consensus, because without that, it'll get reverted. But much of that, on low-traffic pages, is at the level of benign neglect rather than enthusiastic support.

@CommonKnowledgeCreator, I wonder if you could link to a few proposals that you've been unsuccessful with. Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard, and sometimes there's a pattern to rejections that can be addressed (e.g., proposals in principle tend not to get as much support as proposals with a recent, solid example). Feel free to drop some links on my talk page, if you don't want to talk about it here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

A basic consensus that the page shouldn't be deleted, sure, but not a basic consensus of support. There are many essays providing guidance that don't have consensus support. When someone has a slightly different view of a current guidance page but can't garner consensus support for a change, some times they'll write their own variation to capture their opinion. Over time, it may gain support as an alternate approach to the primary guidance page, when the specific situation warrants it. Multiply that many times, and the current ecosystem of many overlapping guidance pages is the result. isaacl (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, considering the expressed support of at least one member of the reactivated P&G WikiProject, I still believe that it would be preferable to create the navigation templates. Per my reply to Moxy below, the templates would not be very large and not take up much space on the noticeboards and policy pages themselves. If they grow larger, they could always be collapsed. More importantly, if they grow in size, I would hope that instead would encourage the editors who more regularly participate in the noticeboard discussions to consider participating in the WikiProject to help consolidate the policy, guideline, and supplemental pages per WP:CREEP. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator, are you the kind of person who likes to read the directions first, rather than plunging in and possibly making mistakes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

IRL, I like reading directions for appliances, other machines and gadgets, when assembling furniture, and figuring out how my car works, but that's never how I've ever approached editing Wikipedia. I usually just proceed without much concern for making mistakes because my intent is not to deceive or harm. If something isn't exactly done exactly according something like MOS and it sufficiently bothers someone else, I usually assume that they'll fix it. However, in my experience, many editors are often object to my contributions invoking one of a countless number of other policies, guidelines, and supplements, so I take the time to read them so as to create content and to participate in ways that conforms to the community's supposed norms. After I take the time to read them, I more often than not come to the conclusion that they have objected to my contribution following an overbroad interpretation of the policy or guideline (which are also often vague and contradictory) and that they are not following the community's procedural or behavioral norms, but nonetheless their interpretation is always the one that prevails since other editors that chime in typically just pile on. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

So just as a way of managing your expectations, I strongly suspect that most editors never read the directions for anything, and their understanding of policies and guidelines was acquired through a process very similar to the children's telephone game plus some guesses based on the WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

their understanding of policies and guidelines was acquired through a process very similar to the children's telephone game plus some guesses based on the WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts I have no doubt that this is correct, and it shows why the community's norm of unstructured talk page discussions is dysfunctional and also needs to be reformed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

This does seem like a very helpful idea! We have right now a pretty big {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} template that is organized into broad categories, but it misses all the important supplemental materials, and having more specialized navigation templates putting them in context could be much more helpful. Although it is a pretty big project, do you have a topic in mind for a first prototype navbox to start with? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't, but like I've suggested, my first thought was to start with P&G that have noticeboards (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOR) and then identify the other supplemental pages that are associated with those individual policies and try to build a navigation template that includes them all with a link to the noticeboard in an above line. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Everything is organized Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia..... This would be impossible to put all in it navigation template. Moxy🍁 20:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

No indefinite article or plural noun used. If the former was intended, your comment would be a mischaracterization of what has been proposed. If the latter was intended, I would argue that it would not be an issue given the number of project pages included in Category:Wikipedia policies (65), in the subcategories included in Category:Wikipedia guidelines (229), in Category:Wikipedia information pages (365), in Category:Wikipedia how-to (419), and in Category:Wikipedia supplemental pages (142). The ratio amounts to approximately 3.15 information, how-to, and supplemental pages for every 1 policy and guideline, and 17.77 guidelines, and information, how-to, and supplemental pages for every 1 policy. The result would not be particularly large navigation templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you're messing up what the community considers protocols. Put it simply essays are not part of the community norms. They are a side notes...yes a few essays are part of the Wikipedia gestalt but overall essays are just advice or opinions of a few editors. Essays should not be presented as the norm or on the same level as protocols Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy Moxy🍁 17:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you're messing up what the community considers protocols. ... Essays should not be presented as the norm or on the same level as protocols WP:SUPPLEMENTAL (which is a project content guideline), explicitly says that the purpose of explanatory essays exist is to supplement or clarify P&G along with information pages and how-to pages, and that they have this designation due to having wide acceptance to have the supplemental banner and be linked from a policy or guideline page. WP:NOTPOLICY is itself an essay rather than a policy or guideline, and not a WP:SUPPLEMENTAL explanatory essay (so it must not have wide acceptance within the community per WP:ESSAYPAGES). So, as far as the proposed linking in navigation templates is concerned, it is unclear per P&G why this would be a problem because they are not being presented as being equivalent and only as supplements to the specific P&G that the community has established that they are supplements for (per a community guideline). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Another question, CommonKnowledgeCreator. Are you Larry Sanger in disguise? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Even if I was, what makes you think I would acknowledge it? :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I am the one that wrote the supplemental template information and the essay information page....I'm wondering if it's not as clear as I thought it would be. What can we say to make it clear that it's simply still an essay. Moxy🍁 01:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:SUPPLEMENTAL is explicit that project pages covered by its recommendations are not policies and guidelines, and that information pages, how-to pages, and supplemental pages have a "limited status" on Wikipedia. However, if there is a community consensus that certain advice pages are truly a supplement to P&Gs (in that they provide clarify the interpretation of P&Gs such that they are permitted to linked from the P&G pages) and that other advice pages are not, then I'd argue that such a consensus establishes that WP:SUPPLEMENTAL pages do have a different status than WP:ESSAYPAGES essays. This is not a matter of semantics but set theory, since WP:SUPPLEMENTAL establishes that such pages have a property that distinguishes them from the set of project pages covered by WP:ESSAYPAGES. If WP:SUPPLEMENTAL pages truly are no different than essays in general, then WP:PRJ should not make a distinction between them altogether because the very existence of the category itself with a distinguishing property for included pages effectively designates them differently. But clearly, there must be a consensus in favor of the distinction because otherwise the separate sections would not have been included on a P&G WP:GUIDELINES WP:GUIDES page in the first place per WP:NOTBURO and WP:CONLEVEL. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a pure logical construct. At best, it operates by a very fuzzy logic. P&Gs (and what is considered a P or G) are subject to constant small adjustments while tending to stay within certain channels, and as long as Wikipedia is a collaborative project, largely driven from the bottom up, there is, IMHO, no way to force a strict consistency on anything. Donald Albury 17:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. If the community actually wanted greater consistency, I'm sure it could be imposed by technical changes to the site. The problem is that some of the community must prefer the disorganization, dysfunction, and normlessness and the rest is willing to tolerate it. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right: The community actually does prefer leaving room for editors to use their best judgment instead of encouraging mindless rule-following. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The community actually does prefer leaving room for editors to use their best judgment instead of encouraging mindless rule-following Yes, and stupidly. It's It leaves so much the room that that the project requires things like new page patrols and various other cleanup projects precisely because the community's supposed rules and norms are not rules or norms at all. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you just call your fellow Wikipedians "stupid"? I doubt that will help you convince us to make the changes you want. Donald Albury 18:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you just call your fellow Wikipedians "stupid"? Making decisions that have the effect of creating unnecessary work is stupid. It wastes time that could be devoted to improving other parts of the project. If there simply was a rule and the technical means to guarantee that it was enforced, then there would be actual norms. I doubt that will help you convince us to make the changes you want. I doubt anything I say will persuade anyone here to make changes that I would prefer because the supposed stewardship behavior longtime editors claim to engage in is actually ownership behavior. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

What change do you propose to make NPP no longer needed? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a specific change in mind because I'm not familiar with the statistics of new article creation and because I don't have the knowledge of computer programming to design the changes to the site (despite having taken an introductory college course in computer programming).

However, at a minimum, if an article does not cite any sources, why is it allowed to be added to Wikipedia at all? This is permissible under Wikipedia's current structure despite the requirements of WP:V and recommendations of WP:N, and I have seen more than one older article that does not cite sources. It shouldn't be that hard to design a bot or some feature of Wikipedia to prevent articles from being added to the site and to remove existing articles that cite no sources. Similarly, I've encountered older articles that cite only one source, that may not be more than 150 words (per WP:SIZERULE), and are not categorized as stubs.

As for the other requirements of WP:N, the subject-specific notability guidelines, and other P&G, I believe that evaluating whether an article's content satisfies the standards and best practices of the site still requires a some human determination and is not something that can be entirely turned over to a bots or AI programs. We could require that only editors with some level of experience or knowledge of P&G be allowed to create articles (like through WP:AFC), but I don't believe we do. Also, there is simply so much P&G-inconsistent content in existing articles that it probably leads to newer and less experienced editors to create similar content—which is why I've haven't bothered to go back to NPP despite being asked to help out and was willing to participate.

There's just too few of us, and Wikipedia as a project is larger than we can manage with such open-ended norms. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Even if implemented, none of what you mention would be able to eliminate NPP.

if an article does not cite anysources, why is it allowed to be added to Wikipedia at all?

1. It may be a (malformatted) disambiguation page.
2. Certain editors may wish to adopt an article and add sources they found to it. See also WP:HEYMANN.

Also, this is the exact subject of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Delete unreferenced articles.

and are not categorized as stubs.

Well, go ahead and mark them.

We could require that only editors with some level of experience or knowledge of P&G be allowed to create articles

That is pretty much what we have with the autoconfirned restriction. Anything beyond would probably be a net negative, There's statistics à la Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Prohibit unregistered users from editing showing that most content creation is done by the 99%—editors who have not racked up hundreds of edits. I expect this to especially apply in the case of articles on recent events.

Wikipedia as a project is larger than we can manage with such open-ended norms

Aren't we managing right now? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Even if implemented, none of what you mention would be able to eliminate NPP. Perhaps you glided past the first sentence of my comment: "I don't have a specific change in mind because I'm not familiar with the statistics of new article creation and because I don't have the knowledge of computer programming to design the changes to the site". This discussion isn't about how to eliminate NPP; it's about whether the navigation templates as proposed should be created. I only cited it as an example of why Wikipedia’s lack of actual norms creates unnecessary cleanup, but your focus on this further illustrates my point about how Wikipedia does not actually have norms since it is tangential per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC (along with your referencing WP:HEYMANN – an essay rather than a policy or guideline per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:DETCON).

Aren't we managing right now? No, we are not managing now and NPP is a great example of why. As the WP:NPP page says, there is a rapidly growing backlog of nearly 10,000 articles that need to be reviewed and it shows why the lack of actual norms creates and reinforces problems. Unless the site's technical aspects are changed to slow down article creation and the community's norms encourage greater conformity with the P&Gs that supposedly reflect norms and consensus, it's not worth participating in something like NPP because the problems will continue to pile up faster than they can be addressed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

All I know is that the articles I have created (8 in the last 6 months) typically have been reviewed within a couple of days of moving them to main space. Are there multiple queues? Donald Albury 19:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

A navbox that includes links as you suggest to guidelines, howtos and essays pertaining to a particular policy or policy area doesn't sound like a bad idea. I am not convinced that such a series of navboxes will assist with dispute resolution though. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Why are you skeptical that it will help with dispute resolution? I think anything that fosters greater centralized discussion will do so. It’ll be easier for editors to navigate across the centralized discussion pages and the pages for their related policies, guidelines, and supplements. Part of the reason why I have difficulty doing this is because I don’t know what all of them are and how to find them. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Because I don't think that most disputes arise out of an absence of opportunity to read the pertinent policies and guidelines, etc. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. And I think that there are already a fair few quite clearly signposted paths to the well. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying that disputes arise because of the absence of familiarity with P&G, and I am not proposing the navigation templates to prevent disputes. I proposed the navigation templates to make it easier to find the relevant policies, guidelines, supplements, and centralized discussion pages for resolving disputes. You may be aware of these navigational aids that enable editors to seamlessly peruse all of the project pages, but I still remain lost in this website's bureaucracy after years of using site. Whatever signposted paths to which you refer, they're too scattered for me and I suspect I am not alone. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

CKC, I think that you should make an example of what you'd like to see. Do you know how to make a WP:NAVBOX yourself, or are you here because you need someone else to make it for you? Do you have a sample topic in mind? Do you know what pages should be linked in your sample?

For example, Template:Wikipedia referencing is a navbox that lists ref-related pages that might be useful for resolving disputes. What's in that navbox that you don't want, and what's missing from it that you do want? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you know how to make a WP:NAVBOX yourself, or are you here because you need someone else to make it for you? I know how to create navigation templates and have done so many times. Again, I made this proposal here first because, as WP:PGCHANGE says, "policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits, to be sure they reflect the community's view and do not accidentally introduce confusion."

CKC, I think that you should make an example of what you'd like to see. ... Do you have a sample topic in mind? Do you know what pages should be linked in your sample? I have created a sandbox for myself with two examples. The examples involve the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies. They are incomplete because many of the information pages, how-to pages, and explanatory essays don't always identify what P&Gs for which they are supplements.

For example, Template:Wikipedia referencing is a navbox that lists ref-related pages that might be useful for resolving disputes. What's in that navbox that you don't want, and what's missing from it that you do want? Per WP:NAVBOX, {{Wikipedia referencing}} appears to me to be overly busy, bloated, and to suffer from some of the disadvantages of navigation templates (arguably, WP:NAVBOX Disadvantages List Items #3, #4, and #6). It includes links to categories and templates and does not include links to centralized discussion pages. Personally, I don't find that to be particularly intuitive per WP:P&G and WP:NOTBURO. If all editors need are the five pillars to start editing and P&G exist primarily to provide descriptions of how the community understands and follows the five pillars in practice to clarify them, resolve disputes about them, and otherwise structure community decision-making necessary for building the encyclopedia, then navigation templates for browsing project namespace should be built around one specific policy, be limited in size and overlap as minimally as possible, and direct editors to centralized discussion pages. Perhaps policy-specific templates and project pages should be included, but the former need to be identified as templates and the other categories of project namespace they fall into by the navigation template. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Well... it seems to me that you're proposing making overly busy, bloated navboxes yourself. Also, by focusing on navboxes, you're proposing to create something two-thirds of our readers and some of our editors won't be able to see, since navboxes are invisible on the mobile site.

Looking at your NPOV navbox, I think you're missing at least the following:

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored
• Guidelines that are meant to promote NPOV, such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:No disclaimers, and Wikipedia:Autobiography
• Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs
• multiple ordinary essays in Category:Wikipedia essays about neutrality, particularly including Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Fancruft, Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent, Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, Wikipedia:Don't "teach the controversy", all of which are generally supported by the community.

There are others you might want, e.g., Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/2.

I suspect that you are putting too much trust in the label at the top of the page.

Part of the problem with make "a list" is that the policies and guidelines are a multi-dimensional network instead of a linear collection. Another problem is that Wikipedia:The rules are principles, so producing a complete and accurate list ("If you follow all these rules, you'll always be correct") is not actually possible by design. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Well... it seems to me that you're proposing making overly busy, bloated navboxes yourself. Not really. {{Wikipedia referencing}} that you cited has 54 project page links and 7 external links, and thus 61 links in total. Without having counted, the templates included in {{Wikipedia editor navigation}} appear to have as many and often more. In comparison, the NPOV and NOR templates included at my sandbox currently have 36 and 26 project page links respectively. However, if the SUPPLEMENTAL talk pages that are currently included were removed, the link counts would fall to 24 and 16 total links respectively, while if all the related-P&G page links that are currently included were removed along with the SUPPLEMENTAL talk pages, they would fall to 14 and 11 total links respectively.

Looking at your NPOV navbox, I think you're missing at least the following: [WP:NOTCENSORED]; Guidelines that are meant to promote NPOV… multiple ordinary essays… which are generally supported by the community. If the P&G pages you suggest are missing from my NPOV sandbox template were included (while the talk pages links were removed), the template would still have fewer than half the links included in {{Wikipedia referencing}}. However, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:DISCLAIM, and WP:AUTOBIO are not linked on the NPOV page–which is why I didn't include them and was unclear to me that they should be included and still is per WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE per the WP:P&G Content section on linking and MOS:UNDERLINK.

The header for WP:TENDENTIOUS indicates that it is a supplement for WP:DE, not NPOV. As for the specific WP:GUIDES and WP:ESSAYPAGES essays that you claim are have the support of community consensus, the only links I see to them in the NPOV article are in the See also section. Considering that they do not have SUPPLEMENTAL headers, it is not clear to me that they have had the necessary "authority" deferred to them per the Content section of WP:P&G and MOS:SEEALSO since links included in See also sections are considered relevant but tangential per MOS:SEEALSO.

If links to those essays were included in the body of the article, especially following WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE, then I would have included them following WP:STRUCTURE, MOS:UNDERLINK and WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE. Alternatively, as User:Aaron Liu noted that the {{Supplement}} page suggests that a local consensus per WP:CONLEVEL at a WP:P&G talk page is needed for the tag to be applied, if you can point to a discussion at the NPOV talk page that established the essays should be included in the See also section per the Content section of WP:P&G, then that would be grounds for including them but otherwise not. Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/2 is not a WP:P&G or WP:SUPPLEMENTAL page.

Part of the problem with make "a list" is that the policies and guidelines are a multi-dimensional network instead of a linear collection. Another problem is that [WP:RAP], so producing a complete and accurate list ("If you follow all these rules, you'll always be correct") is not actually possible by design. I'm not saying this is a simple or straightforward exercise, but the navigation templates being proposed are not an attempt to create a linear collections of project pages. Rather, the navigation templates are being proposed to make it is easier for editors contributing to discussions to more easily identify project pages that have already been explicitly accepted by community consensus as supplements to specific policies. If including related WP:POLICIES policy P&G pages in the proposed templates would cause them to bloat due to multi-dimensionality (or as I would more simply suggest calling it, "scattering" arguably redundant content forking), then they can be excluded.

Also, by focusing on navboxes, you're proposing to create something two-thirds of our readers and some of our editors won't be able to see, since navboxes are invisible on the mobile site. What difference does this make? If most editors don't read P&Gs before contributing (as multiple editors in this thread have suggested), why would most non-editing readers read them either? Does the Pageview statistics tool show that project pages in general have higher page views than articles do? I doubt it, and the tool does not differentiate between editors and non-editing readers when selecting "User" in its "Agent" menu.

However, even if most non-editing readers read project pages to a greater degree than editors do, per WP:DETAIL, most readers do not need a level of detail about a topic that warrants SUMMARYHATNOTE sub-articles and many readers don't even read past lead sections, so it is not clear that non-editing readers need linking for browsing project pages. Even more importantly, only a minority of active editors even contribute to community discussions. Instead of designing the layout and features of P&G and supplements for non-editing readers and active editors who do not even use them, the navigation templates being proposed here are to help the high-volume editors who do contribute to discussions by providing easier navigation of related P&G and supplements.

WhatamIdoing, the arguments you are presenting to oppose this proposal are getting less and less persuasive. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The first sentence, and the definition of, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing say that it's about NPOV. There's a section on Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject. How could that page not be about NPOV? I think you have put too much faith in the formal structures.

I doubt that anybody is going to stop you from making these navboxes. I also doubt that few people beyond yourself will find them to be improvements over the existing ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

How could that page not be about NPOV? I think you have put too much faith in the formal structures. ... I doubt that anybody is going to stop you from making these navboxes. Again, I'm not saying this is a simple or straightforward exercise, but if other editors (like yourself) really oppose their addition to the P&G pages, they will remove them. It's why I opted to proposed them at a centralized discussion page first. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you'd have better success if you took it one page at a time, and said something like "I notice the navbox here contains X, Y, and Z, which I'd like to remove. And I'd like to add A, B, and C, which I think are relevant." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the problems are too systemic for that, and editors are not willing to make those changes across-the-board here, then why would they be willing to do it piecemeal? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Because success breeds success. Because people are less fearful of a small change than of a large one. Because if you can have one experiment succeed, people will trust you to try something bigger in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I doubt it. I suspect that if editors oppose a change, they would oppose it whether it is proposed piecemeal or a systematic change. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I've had more success with stepwise changes than with sudden changes. Seeing a 'demo' helps a lot of people understand what's intended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, it occurs to me now that part of the reason for why the more than 1,200 P&G and SUPPLEMENTAL project pages may contradict each other must owe to them each having their own talk pages rather than centralized discussion pages for discrete groups of related P&G and SUPPLEMENTAL pages. This probably leads to proposed changes to any one not being discussed in the context of all related project pages. As such, if I can persuade the rest of the community of this proposal, I think I'd also propose replacing such talk pages with such centralized discussion pages. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Probably not. For one thing, the pages don't contradict themselves as much as might be supposed. Secondly, many of the guidelines are WP:Naming conventions, which don't tend to overlap (and therefore can't contradict), and making sensible choices about them requires subject-matter expertise rather than coordination across other pages. There's no point in redirecting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek) to a central page, because you need people who can read Greek more than you need people who care about article titles as a general concept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Probably not. For one thing, the pages don't contradict themselves as much as might be supposed. Whether or not they do is irrelevant. The Content section of WP:P&G and WP:POLCON require that P&G and their supplements not contradict each other and also not be redundant. It would be easier to ensure this if all proposed changes were approved made through a centralized discussion. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:PGCONFLICT says that when there's a conflict, we should fix it. And I mean "just" fix it, not "set up elaborate rules and spend enormous amounts of time trying to prevent it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not proposing that we "set up elaborate rules" to prevent inconsistencies, but rather consolidated centralized discussions about changes to P&Gs and their supplements to encourage a greater number of editors to participate in discussions over the changes. It would give the changes greater consensus–which is what WP:PGCHANGE requires when any changes to a P&G are made rather than "just" fix[ing] it. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

All NOTBURO, WP:5P5, WP:IAR, and WP:IARMEANS clearly establish is that Wikipedia dispute resolution is not conducted following an interpretation of P&Gs analogous to strict constructionism or textualism in favor of the spirit of the law, but that P&Gs should normally be followed and only explicitly ignored after careful consideration of not just their principles but also the practical consequences that the exceptions being made will have for the project (which is more analogous to legal pragmatism). This is especially true when an editor wishes to make changes to P&G pages themselves, because those changes could unintentionally introduce confusion about what Wikipedia's norms actually are, but since P&Gs may be edited by anyone, it is probably why Wikipedia became a rule-making exercise rather than an encyclopedia-making exercise. This is why I argue that centralized discussion for changes to P&Gs are preferable to having a large number of talk pages. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between "careful consideration" in applying a guideline (e.g., the MOS says to do this, but because of this weird situation in this article, it'd be better to do this slightly different thing...) and merging together all 98 WT:MOS pages into a single busy page ("centralized discussion for changes to P&Gs"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between "careful consideration" in applying a guideline... and merging together all 98 WT:MOS pages into a single busy page WP:PGBOLD permits editors to boldly edit P&G pages, but PGCHANGE and WP:TALKFIRST strongly recommend not doing so. Merging the talk pages into a single centralized discussion page would lead to greater discussion of changes to P&G pages collectively to reduce inconsistencies and consensus for changes. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Or not. Merging 98 talk pages together could result in confusion ("What are you talking about?!" "Oh, sorry, I thought I was on the talk page for MOS:ABCXYZ, not on a centralized page"), a poor signal-to-noise ratio, and people refusing to discuss changes because the talk page is too busy.

Also, your faith in discussion as a way to prevent inconsistencies is touching. I assume you're aware that WP:ONUS and one sentence in WP:NOCON contradict each other. That one sentence was discussed extensively, the contradiction was noted at the time on the talk page for both policies, and the change was still made ...and now, years later, I still haven't been able to resolve the contradiction. "More discussion" is not what's needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Merging 98 talk pages together could result in confusion ("What are you talking about?!" "Oh, sorry, I thought I was on the talk page for MOS:ABCXYZ, not on a centralized page"), a poor signal-to-noise ratio, and people refusing to discuss changes because the talk page is too busy. These assertions seem to me to be speculative. Do you have evidence that editors use noticeboards less than talk pages because the pages appear to be too busy? It would occur to me instead that the reason don't use them is because even editors who have used the site for years (like myself) don't understand Wikipedia's self-governance structures and don't think to use them.

Also, your faith in discussion as a way to prevent inconsistencies is touching. I assume you're aware that WP:ONUS and one sentence in WP:NOCON contradict each other. Given how many dishonest and impolite comments that I've received over the years (along with other editors simply just talking past the comments I make), I actually don't have much faith in discussion but that's supposed to be the decision-making process in general for disputed content and P&G. I've reviewed WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON; it's unclear to me that there is a contradiction. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Noticeboards aren't a relevant comparison, because a noticeboard is a place you go to in the hope that someone else will solve your problem (e.g., to WP:ANI in the hope that an admin will block your opponent in a dispute). A MoS talk page, on the other hand, is a page that you go to because you want to change something in the MoS. It's less transactional.
• ONUS says that editors are allowed to remove long-standing content unless there is an active consensus to keep it in (consensus to keep=keep; consensus to remove=remove; no consensus=remove). NOCON says that long-standing content is kept unless there is an active consensus to remove it (consensus to keep=keep; consensus to remove=remove; no consensus=keep). When there is no consensus, and "I" want to keep it, then I can cite NOCON as a policy-based justification for insisting that it be kept; under identical circumstances except that "I" want to remove it, then I cite ONUS as a policy-based justification for insisting that it be removed.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, this is off-topic. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Not really. You proposed a change. Part of your rationale for the change is your belief that "Wikipedia as a project is larger than we can manage with such open-ended norms". Editors are attempting to explore whether your rationale for the proposed change is valid.

BTW, DETCON (WP:Consensus#Determining consensus) says that disputes should be settled according to the quality of the argument. NB that "the quality of the argument" isn't measured by whether the WP:UPPERCASE leads to a page that has a {{policy}} tag at the top of it. Two practical and believable examples of how an article that is initially unref'd can be turned into a valid contribution to the encyclopedia are better than an unsupported assertion that waves at a policy page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of what the WP:DETCON says since I've taken the time to read it before citing it. I'm not asserting that the quality of an argument is measured by the simple citation of a policy, but that it is a requirement that a policy be cited in talk page discussions because that is what WP:DETCON and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS actually say. This is because I believe it is not possible to understand the spirit of a rule without at least reviewing its letter because it is unclear how someone could even attempt to articulate the larger principle otherwise. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Citing a policy in talk page discussions is not a requirement, and that is not what the Consensus policy says. The policy says try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. It is 100% acceptable for editors to work out a dispute using exclusively "common sense". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Fascinating. I didn't realize there were people in this world who believed that "and" and "or" meant the same thing. If the policy said "editors... try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, or common sense" then you would be correct, but because it says "policy, sources, and common sense", "policy" is a necessary rather than a sufficient condition for editors trying resolve a dispute. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

By your logic, sources and common sense are both also necessary conditions for resolving all disputes. But we all know that some disputes are unrelated to sources, and that common sense is often completely absent.

If you need a "policy" reference, then I suggest this one: WP:NOTLAW says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies" – such as by declaring that "and" means no dispute whatsoever can be solved without explicit reference to policy – and that "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures" – such as insisting that "policy" is necessary even if there is no policy disagreement in a given dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of what WP:NOTLAW says. I cited it before in this thread. However, P&G and their supplements appear to provide guidance for just about every aspect of the site, so I think what WP:NOCOMMON suggests that editors are better off citing P&G rather than just common sense to resolve a disagreement is a more accurate interpretation of what WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR actually mean. I would argue that any fair resolution of a disagreement would be impossible without a rule or procedure being invoked, and I would argue that selectively invocation of P&G is part of how longtime editors effectively assert ownership over the project because it allows rules and procedures to only apply to newer editors and not themselves. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that we can have fair resolutions of a disagreement without anyone invoking a rule or procedure. The existence of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules suggests that we can (occasionally) have a fair resolution of a disagreement while directly contravening some rules or procedures. But I'm convinced that most ordinary disagreements could be resolved without invoking a rule or procedure, and instead talking to each other like ordinary humans. Imagine "I think this makes the article better because it's simpler language, and this subject is probably read by a lot of younger people" instead of "WP:I WP:THINK I WP:WIN WP:EVERYTHING!"

I agree with you about the problem of selective invocation of rules. I believe that WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON are a prime example of that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: But I'm convinced that most ordinary disagreements could be resolved without invoking a rule or procedure, and instead talking to each other like ordinary humans. I don't. I'm sure every human being believes that their point of view is reasonable and commonsensical, that people who disagree with them are not, and that the result is that disputes are not resolved by persuasion. I suspect that's why WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:DETCON, and WP:NOCOMMON require/recommend citing P&G rather than only invoking common sense. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

If it's not possible to resolve disputes without invoking a rule, how do we resolve disagreements for which no rule is applicable? For example, which of two very similar images shall we put in the lead? There is no "given a choice between two nearly identical photos, choose the one that is more ____" rule.

For that matter, how do we make the rules in the first place? Once upon a time, Wikipedia didn't have any rules or procedures. If you are correct, we could never have created our extensive rule set in the first place, because we didn't have a Rule on How to Resolve Rule-Making Disagreements that we could "invoke". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

For that matter, how do we make the rules in the first place? Once upon a time, Wikipedia didn't have any rules or procedures. If you are correct, we could never have created our extensive rule set in the first place, because we didn't have a Rule on How to Resolve Rule-Making Disagreements that we could "invoke". Well, to now answer a question previously posed in this discussion, I am, in fact, not Larry Sanger (although he appears to have returned to the project). I wasn't around when the first P&G were created but evidently Sanger wrote the initial drafts for many of them (including NPOV, NOR, V, and IAR) and appears to have been the creator of the "Rules to consider" historical archive page that was the forerunner to WP:P&G. The "Rules to consider" page became active on February 4, 2001 less than a month after Wikipedia as a whole went active, and appears to be the only page in the policy archive that appears to have established consensus through editing and discussion as a norm in community decision-making and its rule-making process but also suggests "realistically, enforcement depends on whether enough supporters of a rule keep track of changing pages and newly created ones."

If it's not possible to resolve disputes without invoking a rule, how do we resolve disagreements for which no rule is applicable? If disputing editors seek input from a greater number of editors following WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and no consensus emerges per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:DETCON, and WP:NOCON due to the absence of an explicit rule, the community formulates a new explicit rule following WP:PROPOSAL and WP:PGCHANGE after reviewing the most widely used practices per WP:NOTBURO. As such, rules as expressed in P&G are always being followed to resolve disputes. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You didn't say that the rules need to be followed. You said the rules needed to be invoked. Invoked means mentioned explicitly, especially by name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Then perhaps I should have said invoked. Nonetheless, a rule is being invoked when following WP:PROPOSAL and WP:PGCHANGE to create a new rule. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, (to amend what I said per WP:TALK#REVISE), I would argue that selective invocation is not as much the problem as overbroad interpretation because in my experience that's what longtime editors do to revert content on a basis of what policies don't say and don't clearly mean. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

We have a problem with selective invocation. We also have a problem with overbroad interpretation. I suspect that the overbroad interpretation problem is related to our WP:UPPERCASE problem. WP:Nobody reads the directions (except you), but since an editor said the magic spell "WP:BBQ" when reverting me back when I was a newbie, then when I want to revert someone, I'll say the same magic spell words, and that's good, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

No. Editors should read P&Gs being invoked by a disputing editor in a discussion and before they invoke P&Gs themselves since that's what leads to overbroad interpretations of the community's P&Gs in the first place. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you remember me asking you whether you read the directions before doing things like assembling furniture? It's because it was evident to me a couple of weeks ago that you belong to a small minority in this regard. Most people don't read the directions, and it's not pointful to say that they "should". They're not going to do that, no matter how much you (and I) wish they would.

We address incorrect interpretations by providing information (e.g., creating pages like WP:UPPERCASE), by contradicting errors when we see them (e.g., posting comments like "WP:QUO doesn't say that" or "WP:BRD is optional"), and by making it harder to misinterpret the written documents if someone actually read it (e.g., for a while, every time someone told me that Wikipedia:External links applied to ==References==, I added another note to that guideline saying that it doesn't). This is a slow way to go about things, but it's more effective than wishing people would read the directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

How does one assemble furniture without reading the directions without being a carpenter? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Experience? A good eye for spatial things? Not actually caring if the end result is any good? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Not being able to follow the style of directions furniture uses? Hubris? Dunning-Kruger? Anomie⚔ 13:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

It's because it was evident to me a couple of weeks ago that you belong to a small minority in this regard. Most people don't read the directions, and it's not pointful to say that they "should". They're not going to do that, no matter how much you (and I) wish they would. Really? Considering that Wikipedians are supposed to be the types of individuals who bother to ensure that things that they say are referenced with a reliable source (which is to say "they bother to look things up"), it's a little strange that they're not willing to read the P&Gs of the project. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It may be strange, but it's real. You can see this if you look about for people citing WP:STATUSQUO after a discussion has ended, even though it says, in bold-faced type, that it applies only during a discussion. See how often people say that others "have to" follow WP:BRD, even though BRD emphasizes that it's an optional process. If people read and remembered the rules, then they wouldn't say things like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

If people read and remembered the rules, then they wouldn't say things like that. Pretty sure the human brains selectively remembers things, when it thinks its in its advantage. The idea of the human memory as a videocamera, which records an "objective" truth, has long been debunked (ask any cop). Extremely lossy compression, with a strong house advantage. "They misremember" sounds like a far more likely scenarion than "They've never even read it". And unfortunately there are many situations in which following P&G&Es does not lead to the ideal outcome. Polygnotus (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator, any page is permitted to be linked inside a policy or guideline. We link to articles, to essays, to help pages, to other wikis – anything. Our policy at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content says Policies and guidelines may contain links to any type of page, including essays and articles. There isn't any special "supplements are permitted to be linked in policies and guidelines, but mere essays aren't" rule.

What makes a supplement different from an ordinary essay is that the supplement is trying to explain something specific. For example, 15 years ago, I wrote Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged. I wrote it because the words "likely to be challenged" appear in Wikipedia:Verifiability, and we had a series of disputes about whether "likely" meant a tiny chance in the next century vs a very high chance right away. It's marked as a supplement because it provides a longer explanation of something in a policy, and we really didn't want to bloat the main policy page with this extra text.

See also Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays, which (as explained in the footenote) we deliberately created as a supplement, even though the content has just as much consensus as the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines policy itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

You've removed the full context of the Content section of WP:P&G; it also says that "Such links should only appear when clarification or context is needed. Links to other advice pages may unintentionally or intentionally defer 'authority' to them. Make it clear when such links defer, and when they do not." In conjunction with WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, that still indicates that certain non-P&G project pages do have a different status from others. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, different pages are treated differently, but what's accepted doesn't correlate as well as you might like in terms of their tags. Wikipedia:Tag bombing is a mere essay, but it's popular and widely supported. Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read is the iron law of the internet, but it's "just an essay". Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose is only an essay, but it widely obeyed, especially when discussing subjects like spam prevention.

Other essays, though, are neglected or rejected even when they're correct. Many of our newer editors seem to struggle with the concept of Wikipedia:Fallacy of the revelation of policy. I think many editors should be aware of Wikipedia:Applicable law, but it averages one page view every three days. There are editors who believe that Wikipedia:Verifiable, not cited is an oxymoron, no matter what the actual WP:V policy says. There are editors who will tell you that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED if you suggest that we should Wikipedia:Don't link to bomb-making instructions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, different pages are treated differently, but what's accepted doesn't correlate as well as you might like in terms of their tags. Yes, and this is yet another example of dysfunction within the Wikipedia project because it means that the community is unwilling or unable to make clear which essays do reflect community norms and which don't. It's part of why I proposed the navigation templates in the first place (to get back on-topic), to hopefully encourage the community to make more of an effort make clear what its actual norms are (if it even has any). But clearly the community must not actually have norms to apply to everyone given how much opposition I've received over this specific proposal (and like I do in general). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Policy writing may be hard, but what is being proposed here is not changes to P&Gs. Only navigation templates that link specific P&G pages with their associated centralized discussion pages and supplemental pages in a manner similar to {{Noticeboard links}}. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Again: Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard#You might not be very good at this, and specifically the sentence that says "If you find that most of your proposals are rejected, then – even if your ideas and goals are great – you're probably just not very good at" writing policies. If your proposals actually do get "much opposition" "in general", then maybe you should start with smaller proposals and a partner who is better skilled at preparing and presenting proposals to the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Or because WP:PWIH is an essay rather than a P&G or SUPPLEMENTAL essay, it's advice must not be that widely accepted within the community, and so if a less experienced editor's proposals are rejected, it means that Wikipedia's community governance structures are run by an oligarchy of longtime editors that assert ownership over the project by preventing any change, large or small, to its norms and P&Gs instead and while everyone else lives with remaining anarchy. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

There are changes to Wikipedia's PaG all the time. Proposals see consensus against simply because they are not convincing, not because our PaG is some static frozen repository.

I do not think people oppose adding navboxes listing the supplements of PaG. People said "I like this idea for the reasons you mentioned and think it should be implemented, but I do not think it will help dispute resolution", and you've been arguing "This will help dispute resolution" ever since. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The title of this thread is "Navboxes to assist with dispute resolution (particularly over content policy)", so actually I've been making that argument since opening the thread. By my count, of the eight editors (yourself, Donald Albury, Phil Bridger, Isaacl, WhatamIdoing, Moxy, Chaotic Enby, SunloungerFrog) who have left comments, only 3 expressed any degree of support and the majority appear to be mostly opposed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Aaron, in practice, the proposal isn't "adding" navboxes. It's "replacing the existing navboxes" with new navboxes containing a different collection of links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I support adding navboxes. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu, I must not have been clear. Let me give you two examples:

• Wikipedia:Verifiability has a navbox specifically about referencing. Do you support having two navboxes about the same subject?
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not already has two navboxes. Do you support having three?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:V: That navbox is even better because it organizes the existing supplementals and how-tos by topic. It's effectively already implemented this proposal.
WP:NOT: of course? Why not? How would a navbox on WP:NOT be able to replace any of the existing navboxes? Is having three navboxes a bad thing? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Only Moxy opposed. Saying your proposal would not succeed at the biggest goal you are pointing to is not opposition. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This conversation was spawned from the question of why existing indexes for essays don't already suit the task. You argue that it's not enough because essays are very important to dispute resolution, which is what this entire conversation has been assessing.

How I see it, whenever someone cites an essay (note the difference from explanatory essays/supplements which might be helpful to have some kind of per-topic navigation for), they're effectively copy-pasting all of its arguments into their reply. People make essays to simply contain their personal arguments and invite others to comment and improve on them. It just so happens that some arguments like "solution in search of a problem" and "drop the stick" have such wide acceptance their essays are frequently used to avoid needing to explain an argument every time you use it. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

This conversation was spawned from the question of why existing indexes for essays don't already suit the task. You argue that it's not enough because essays are very important to dispute resolution, which is what this entire conversation has been assessing. Let me be clear: I am not arguing that WP:GUIDES and WP:ESSAYPAGES essay pages are important (or unimportant) for dispute resolution, but rather that WP:SUPPLEMENTAL information pages, how-to pages, and explanatory essay pages are important for dispute resolution and other decision-making even though they are of lower status than policy and guideline pages.

How I see it, whenever someone cites an essay,... they're effectively copy-pasting all of its arguments into their reply. ... It just so happens that some arguments like [WP:SLFP] and [WP:DROPTHESTICK] have such wide acceptance their essays are frequently used to avoid needing to explain an argument every time you use it. I'd argue that when editors cite any WP:P&G, WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, or WP:ESSAYPAGES page they effectively doing this and its one of the benefits of being able to link shortcuts in comments and edit summaries. However, if WP:SLFP and WP:DROPTHESTICK have such wide acceptance, then why aren't they categorized as WP:SUPPLEMENTAL pages? What specific community decision-making process establishes that certain project pages qualify for the {{Information page}}, {{Wikipedia how-to}}, and {{Supplement}} headers? WP:SUPPLEMENTAL does not articulate one, and WP:PROPOSAL only clearly applies to P&Gs. Among other things, I believe the navigation templates I'm proposing would foster greater centralized discussion by the community to decide when those headers should be added to project pages or removed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The vast majority of our P and G are related to building the encyclopedia. With a few overview type WP:BEHAVE protocols.... supplemented by a large amount of essays so editors don't have to type out the same argument over and over again....and to avoid excessive rules on behavior. To be blunt if editors are unable to apply common sense and show competency they will not last long. This is the type of thing that is obvious to the majority of editors here so there's just no need to make them into policies and guidelines. Something like Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle has no need to be a policy or guideline because it's already covered under Wikipedia:Edit warring and is simply a way of avoiding edit warring. Have you seen Template:Wikipedia editor navigation this breaks things down for navigation. Moxy🍁 04:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

To be blunt if editors are unable to apply common sense and show competency they will not last long. This is the type of thing that is obvious to the majority of editors here so there's just no need to make them into policies and guidelines. Well, then! This seems to me to go against the spirit of WP:DONTBITE, WP:TECHNICAL, WP:NOCLUE, and WP:NOCOMMON. :) I only referenced WP:PROPOSAL because WP:SUPPLEMENTAL does not explain what process is used by the community to make the consensus-based decision to add the {{Information page}}, {{Wikipedia how-to}}, and {{Supplement}} headers to specific project pages. I would assume the RfC process could be it but WP:SUPPLEMENTAL doesn't explicitly say this, and if WP:SUPPLEMENTAL pages are not thoroughly vetted, it may not be.

Have you seen Template:Wikipedia editor navigation this breaks things down for navigation. I hadn't. But like the I said in my reply to User:WhatamIdoing about {{Wikipedia referencing}}, {{Wikipedia editor navigation}} to me is unintuitive, bloated, template clutter. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that it would be good to have a navbox listing the supplements a PaG has.

There is a clear definition for when something is a supplement, though:

Use this template carefully, only when there is a well-established consensus at the relevant policy or guideline page to use this template on an essay that links from the relevant policy or guideline.
— {{Supplement}}, emphasis original

With SLFP and DROPTHESTICK I was using an example to illustrate what essays actually are. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Different effects of search.

Let's say I have searched for "mint ice cream", I'm now at the search result page. The search result page has two different search boxes I can fill in and hit the search button. The one at the top that is part of the normal header and the one below with all of the choices like limiting to a different draft space. What seems really confusing to beginning editors is that those two searches are different. If I type "John Hopkins University" in the top search box, since that is a redirect (for a mispelling), I'll end up jumping to the "Johns Hopkins University" page. On the other hand if I type "John Hopkins University" in the lower one, I'll see all of the occurances of the string "John Hopkins University in enwiki. Would it make sense to differentiate those two somehow?Naraht (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Naraht This is why the top one has an extra item in the autocomplete results: "Search for pages containing [x]" —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Naraht (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

If you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random?useskin=monobook and look in the left-hand sidebar, you'll see that the (tiny) search box has two buttons: "Go" and "Search". The first takes you straight to the article/page. The second takes you to search results. This difference is the functionality they're trying to replicate with these two behaviors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)