Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 206

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

Village pump (policy) archive

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212

RfC: Bot to add dark mode compatibility to old AfDs

There is consensus to replace the offending text with an unsubstituted template and to add NOINDEX to old AfD pages. A significant majority of editors were not persuaded by the concerns that this bot will cause any form of disruption and were supportive of making pages compatible with dark mode. The NOINDEX proposal was not seriously controverted. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Should a bot be used to fix linter errors and fix Vector 2022 dark mode on old Articles for Deletion subpages? 16:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Please read this RfC before commenting here. I (Matrix) am proposing a bot to fix dark mode on old AfDs, please read the proposal at the BRFA and comment here whether you support or oppose it.

Courtesy ping to people from last RfC and current BRFA: @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, Primefac, Jonesey95, Sideswipe9th, Levivich, 0xDeadbeef, Redrose64, Wbm1058, Isaacl, Terasail, LokiTheLiar, Zinnober9, Legoktm, TheresNoTime, GreenC, Bruce1ee, Hawkeye7, Mnair69, HouseBlaster, Afernand74, SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, Gonnym, Headbomb, Alsee, DFlhb, NatGertler, Sheep8144402, Novem Linguae, Folly Mox, Pppery, ProcrastinatingReader, Chipmunkdavis, Scott, Anomie, Izno, Choess, SilverTiger12, SMcCandlish, Jayron32, Scottywong, and Tenshi Hinanawi: —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose The chaos involved in making 200,000 edits greatly exceeds the value of this task. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Pppery: Chaos? Firstly, unlike the above RfC which made millions of edits, this is limited to the WP namespace, so no "user talk was edited" notifications will go off. Secondly, there's a reason the bot flag was created, which was to help you hide stuff in watchlists and stuff like that. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 19:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
(I'm copying this from the BRFA) "The question isn't the number of people who use dark mode, it's the intersection of the number of people who use dark mode and who visit old AfDs, and the latter set is pretty small in the first place. And you surely know already that large bot tasks inevitably cause people to complain as they are happening." (from Pppery) —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 19:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Pppery: People scrolling through AfD archives are more likely to have dark mode on, because they are likely power users and power users want all the new features. Besides, we're fixing lint errors along the way. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 19:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I doubt that claim. And consider the entire concept of fixing lint errors to be pointless busywork anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
If you don't agree with linter work at all, there's very little I can do to change your opinion about this topic. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

and power users want all the new features. ^{[citation needed]} Anomie ⚔ 21:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
why wouldn't they —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 22:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Well, I'm clearly a "power user", and I still use the 2010 Wikitext editor in legacy vector, so clearly not all power users want all of the new features. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
To the contrary, power users want the advanced features of Vector2010 like an obvious link to their talkpage. CMD (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
bro its two clicks —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm someone who is often regarded as a "power user". I use Monobook skin in light mode and, when I use the source editor (roughly 50% of my edits) I use the 2010 editor. Most "power users" will use whatever tool is the most powerful which is not necessarily the most recent - indeed in many cases the most recent tool is often less powerful because it has been simplified for the benefit of those who are not power users. Whether someone prefers light or dark mode is likely something that is completely independent of whether they're a power user or not. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
And many other power users will, like me, keep using what they're used to and already have set up how they like it if they don't need any of the new features, instead of changing and having to relearn how to do all the things in the new interface. Anomie ⚔ 13:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, but turning on the bot flag when there's a large activity in the spaces we edit means we're not only missing less frequent bot edits we might want to see, but also are missing recent living creature edits that were immediately followed by a bot edit, as the watchlist system will sometimes not display the human edit when that happens. As such, it's best to avoid the mass edits unless they are necessary. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MatrixBot 2#c-Pppery-20250908024600-Jonesey95-20250908005500 myself. Izno (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Izno: I saw you !voted Support on the other RfC. What made you change your mind with this discussion out of curiousity? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 19:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
The lint discussed therein has no workaround except fixing. Dark mode has a trivial workaround. Izno (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Izno: we're also fixing lint errors in this task as well, which has no workaround except fixing. And while we're fixing the lint error with color: inherit, we might as well convert the background color to the new dark mode one. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 19:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
The lint errors of interest being fixed are the dark mode ones, which as I said before has a trivial workaround. Izno (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Izno: A workaround which is actively trying to be phased out by the phab task that I have mentioned on BRFA and you are aware of. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
The relevant workaround being the one that targets [style~=background]? I'm the one who suggested that bit of CSS one fateful day several years ago to a relevant engineer as the dark mode effort was beginning to ramp up. I don't see trying to remove the need for that CSS as useful (at this time, perhaps) as there are many many other places that rely on it besides 500k pages worth of archives.

That phab task has little to do with this concern IMO, so I'm a bit puzzled about why you're citing it here. Izno (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Izno: we need to move away from relying on that CSS rule, which is why I am suggesting this. We don't need to remove the rule, but just reduce reliance on it, as it is quite crude. This is one step at that. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 22:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Peppery nails it. : Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Pppery and Nat Gertler. Editing archives should only ever be done when the edit makes a substantial improvement to the project in some way. Making nearly half a million edits just so that a bit of form text that appears on >90% of AfDs is slightly more visible to the tiny number of people who read old AfDs while using dark mode is so far below that bar it's ridiculous. Even fixing lint errors fails to reach the bar most of the time and this is significantly less useful than that. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: this is a lint error, read the BRFA. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
A lint error that only appears in dark mode? You really need to do better to explain why this should be "fixed" and why it is worth doing more than 50 edits. —Kusma (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Kusma: you seen very very confused. The lint error is also present in light mode, as lint errors don't magically disappear based on client state, please read mw:Help:Lint errors/night-mode-unaware-background-color. Currently all AfDs before 2024 are broken in Vector 2022 dark mode, which is the default skin. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 22:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Matrix, if this is a lint error worth fixing then there will be consensus for the lint error fixing bots to fix it. You will also note that I said Even fixing lint errors fails to reach the bar [where editing archive pages is beneficial to the project] most of the time and this lint error is especially low value. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, please stop bludgeoning this discussion. You've made your case already; you don't need to reply to every single comment in opposition. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
@Pppery: Considering this is a very technical topic it is necessary to explain a bit more - that is not bludgeoning and is actually constructive towards consensus. I only responded to like 3 comments anyway, and I don't expect to change anyone's view if they are opposed. See Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
You've made 17 comments here, which is only slightly fewer comments than all other editors combined. That's clearly bludgeoning. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I got taught counting in reception. Every comment of mine is distinct, from discussing technical issues with Izno to clearing misconceptions about the lint tool. Again, Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Support I don't use dark mode myself but looking at the before and after examples linked on the BFRA, it improves things for those using dark mode. Also, doesn't hurt things for anyone not using dark mode, so don't see any reasons not to. If someone is willing to do those changes then why not. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Support per WOSlinker and what Primefac said on the BRFA. It doesn't really hurt anyone, those concerned about watchlist spam can just configure their settings to ignore bot edits. Tenshi! (Talk page) 22:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
er, what is the improvement being made? It looks pretty much the same to me (at least in Monobook Dark mode) so oppose unless it is clarified what the point is. —Kusma (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Kusma: no, vector 2022 dark mode/minerva dark mode, i.e. the default skins. This also fixes lint errors fyi —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 22:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
If this appears only in some skins, just fix the skins. —Kusma (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Support: I don't personally think linter errors are a huge priority, but that doesn't mean others should be prevented from fixing them. The set of people who have old AfDs on their watchlist for some reason and could possibly be inconvenienced is probably as small, if not smaller, than the set of people who view old AfDs in dark mode. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I am in generally in support, but if you're going to make this many edits I'd like to see a deeper investigation of what other kinds of issues can be fixed at the same time. Also seems like it would be more worthwhile to replace it with a template so we don't need to make a second pass if other issues are discovered in the future. Legoktm (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
@Legoktm: that would be a good idea, but if we did that we would also need to do the same thing for all XfD discussions, plus all RMs, most {{atop}}s, etc. Not to mention the massive technical issue of fixing nearly every single anti-vandalism tool. I don't think that's worth it. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we need to decide the fate of literally everything now just to improve AfD archives, it can be an iterative process. I also don't see why anti-vandalism tools need to be fixed, why would they even care about this formatting change? Legoktm (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
If we use a template now, don't we have to use the template in the future? I feel it would be inconsistent to sometimes use a template and sometimes subst stuff. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I was going to make this an RfC from the start to avoid LOCALCONSENSUS issues, but forgot. Also as proposer and the person who made the BRFA, I support obviously. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Pppery and others. Also that this is a lint error doesn't necessitate so many changes to so many archives. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Support. I really don't see any downsides to this. But, as someone who regularly reads old AfDs, sometimes uses dark mode, and generally appreciates that linter issues can be important in the long run, I think there would be significant benefits. Toadspike [Talk] 06:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as it would be too much of a hastle Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 13:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Hassle how? Please explain. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: Similar to WP:RAGPICKING: we all have better things to do than make miniscule formating tweaks to old pages for a minority of users. If hundreds of editors were coming forward and saying "I use dark mode and this is a real pain", then I'd support. But I'm not seeing that. I honestly don't understand what a lint error is, but this one seems to be pretty minor (replacing standard inline CSS with something complicated). Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
MFDs time away from other people. This takes time away from the one person who has volunteered to do the work, not the community. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Full Support: Accessibility improvements should never rejected on the basis of "it inconveniences my watchlist" or "I don't use this feature", it should pass or fail on the merits and benefits of the task proposed and the proof of the task will address the issue as intended with minimal to no error rate if run. To those complaining about "well, it don't look broken in light mode", this task isn't for fixing something in light mode and will not affect your light mode viewing, this is for fixing a glaring problem in dark mode that makes viewing AFDs in dark mode problematic. The claims of "well, I don't use dark mode, don't run this task" are an injustice to users who do use dark mode who have to endure being blinded on AFD pages from these sections not displaying as they should. If Wikipedia offers different viewing modes, all pages should work and display correctly in all modes.
To highlight the proposed change in a visual manner so that there's no question what this task is changing, This -> https://i.imgur.com/Fch83DD.png is an AFD page in dark mode with no changes and is a prime example of this error. The page should NOT be mostly white in dark mode, it should be uniformly dark and comfortable to view without feeling like you are staring at an approaching car's highbeams at night. After this task runs, it would look like this -> https://i.imgur.com/Gw40Qfc.png for dark mode users and behave as it should. The suggestions of "just use light mode, there's no issues here" are as obnoxious as me stating to you "Dark mode is only a few clicks away, why aren't you using it as it's easier on the eyes"?... We both know we have reasons for picking light mode or dark mode as our mode of choice, and we just want pages to display correctly as much as you do with as minimal bother to you as possible. This is a small step in the equal display direction.
Additionally, ditto WOSlinker, Primefac, and Legotkm's comments about can we fix anything else in this run to minimize the AFD pitchforks, and why isn't this a template we transcribe? Seems problematic that it isn't due to standard "woe is my watchlist" kerfuffle whenever corrective tasks regarding AFDs are mentioned. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Support per Zinnober9. Further to Legoktm's point, I would support adding __NOINDEX__ to all AFDs while we are at it. We discovered that our attempt to do this site-wide is not working last December, but we didn't actually come up with a plan to fix it. I think the idea of transcluding a template (maybe just add {{AFD help}} where it is not already present?) is a great one, so we can easily make updates if needed in the future. Don't want to spend time on this? You don't have to code the bot or worry about what it will do. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
In case people wonder why robots.txt does not work, from Google themselves: Don't use a robots.txt file as a means to hide your web pages... If other pages point to your page with descriptive text, Google could still index the URL without visiting the page. – robertsky (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
support per Houseblaster. Let's take this opportunity to fix several issues together. – robertsky (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Support although it should be noted that the only thing that needs to happen is "unblending" i.e. figuring out which color mixed with white in which alpha amount results in the resulting color. These are very minor but important changes to improve legibility in dark mode. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Support. I'd probably be considered a "power user", I do peruse old AFDs, and I want to use dark mode. However, I don't use dark mode anymore because too much doesn't work well in it. Anything automated process that can make the dark mode experience better, I'm all for it. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
support I like to browse old AFDs for the sake of it, and having dark mode would be useful as otherwise I'd have to use the dark reader extension. 82.32.162.149 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Support. I use dark mode for everything, and I'm an admin. Sometimes questions arise about why a page was deleted and I have to go back and read AFD archives. Or often I'm checking back to see the outcome of a discussion I participated in (it's unfortunately not possible to subscribe to these discussions). Whenever I run into a dark mode problem on a page, I feel it's my duty to preserve accessibility for other users (and my sanity) to either figure out how to fix it or file a complaint if it's too complicated. This is not something I'd be able to fix on my own and I'd have to request a bot run and...well, someone has already done that part and that's where we are now. As dark mode becomes more popular, more people will be affected and it would be nice to avoid wasting everyone's time with duplicate complaints, and just fix this now. -- Beland (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Support as a dark mode user, but I havent had too many issues with old AFDs. I have looked at a few. If it can be done, great. If not, Ill live. Metallurgist (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Support – This is automated... nothing bad is going to happen if a bot fixes such an important feature on its own. Come on... FaviFake (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. The both flag exiss for a reason, and cleaup of this sort will not affect anyone who doesn't want to be affected by it. It's constrained to a highly specific set of pages that few watchlist anyway. And a feature like dark mode should work, not kinda-sorta work some of the time. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support, although old AfDs are a Superfund site as far as regex and HTML are concerned. When I fixed a bunch of them for teh Oracle some years ago, it required a gigantic amount of manual fixing across hundreds of pages. Once you get back to the early 2000s the "bot" edits are going to be mostly aspirational, I claim. jp×g 🗯️ 05:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Replacing with a template?

Creating a separate discussion, since a lot of supports seem to be stating that I should replace the whole thing with a template, rather than just changing the CSS values. Any input is appreciated —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Neutral as original proposer. I don't have any strong views on this, and am willing to do whatever the community's view on this is. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, no one replied to this; there are a few other tasks that can be done on the journey, what's the consensus on doing those as well?

"un-subst" the template, so that future edits can be made at once, rather than on all ~495K pages
add NOINDEX to prevent indexing by search engines (because apparently robots.txt doesn't work)

If you guys have more ideas I can do on the way let me know. @Primefac, Pppery, Jonesey95, Izno, Headbomb, Thryduulf, Kusma, WOSlinker, Tenshi Hinanawi, Gnomingstuff, Legoktm, ActivelyDisinterested, Toadspike, Jcoolbro, Cremastra, Zinnober9, HouseBlaster, Robertsky, and Robertsky: (sorry for the mass ping, but I want a clear consensus on this so I know exactly what to code if this is successful) —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Support unsubst (so we don't have to do this ever again) and support NOINDEX (while we can argue about the efficacy of dark mode fixes, I hope we can agree that NOINDEXing discussions, including those about BLPs, is a worthwhile pursuit). Probably a better idea to just unsubst and then do the dark mode and NOINDEX fixes in the unsubsted template. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Support both as generally good ideas. I can see no reason a boilerplate header/footer that could foreseeably need updating should be substed every time, and these pages do not need to be indexed. Toadspike [Talk] 20:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Support switching to the template in general, I don't have the relevant context on NOINDEX so I'll abstain from commenting on that. In general I disagree with Pppery that doing some cleanup isn't worth it just because the task is significantly large (I appreciate people who are willing to take on such gargantuan tasks!). Legoktm (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I Support replacing the boilerplate with a template after a sufficient set of demonstration edits on AfDs from many different years. I have found while editing (far too many) AfD and similar pages to fix Linter errors that there are sometimes subtle variants on these bits of text that one presumes would be identical. Also, the boilerplate text sometimes gets edited after it is placed. It might take a few runs to find the variants, and a bot task might only be able to handle 90+% instead of 99+% of them. Ideally, they won't contain elements that need different template variants to replace them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I continue to oppose running a bot to make edits to every single AfD, regardless of what specific tasks the bot does. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

So are you saying that you support the unsubst that would eliminate future needs to updating AFD pages directly whenever these boilerplates need an update in future years? Or are you rejecting any and all bot tasks on any AFD page? Please clarify your ambiguous statement. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the ambiguity here; but to restate my position, I reject any and all bot tasks that would require editing all hundreds of thousands of AfDs (or pretty much hundreds of thousands of pages of any kind as a one-time run; note I also opposed the reflist bot above). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

If we were going to have a bot editing the ~half million AFD pages (40% of the namespace?), I want it to move them to a different namespace, so I can search in the Wikipedia: namespace and not have the results filled with old AFDs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

FYI, you should be able to add -prefix:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ to your search to exclude those pages. Anomie ⚔ 01:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

And I do, but I might prefer not to bother. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone know why it has been substed since 2004 in the first place? Anomie ⚔ 21:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Skimming through some very old discussion archives, I've come across a few mentions that now go against WP:Don't worry about performance and others that are similar to what Thryduulf mentions below in saying opposed to boilerplates not being substed going forwards because care will have to be taken to ensure that changes don't state or imply things that were not true at the time of old AfDs. There may be other discussions I haven't found. Anomie ⚔ 02:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Personally, so far I'm leaning towards an oppose on the unsubsted template idea based on the "historical record" point. I'm not much caring about fixing versus not-fixing the inline CSS in the archives, since I doubt both that many will care that much about old AfDs while not being able to work around the possible contrast issue and that many will be paying enough attention to the old AfDs that a bot going through them actually matters (as long as we don't get another MalnadachBot situation). Anomie ⚔ 02:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I get you kind of, but I'm not really sure any historical records would be changed, since the rendered text would be pretty much the same. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 15:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Currently the rendered text might be "pretty much" the same, but with a transcluded template there is no guarantee at all that this will always be the case. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Well, one very simple solution to that is making maybe something like {{Afd top/old}}, deprecate it for further use, protect that template and never touch it again. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

At that point you might as well just subst it. You'd have to create a new template for every change in the wording, and then get everyone to switch to the new one each time. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

But if you subst the template you get stupid problems like this later on (what if the WMF decides in 10 years they're gonna make a high contrast mode, for example?) —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 19:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that is unlikely because many operating systems have their own high contrast mode or something like color filters. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It was just an example; no one could have predicted dark mode 10 years ago. We can't predict the future, so a template could be adjusted normally, that was my point. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Although it's a bit of a side note, dark modes have been implemented long before that (though support for web browsers to automatically follow an OS setting is newer). The problem is on the web design side, where there hasn't been a standard palette established for use on English Wikipedia. To be fair, CSS variables and to some extent template styles make deploying a standard palette that can be adjusted by skins much simpler.

The purpose of substituting a template is to ensure that a specific snapshot of how it appears is captured, which is needed to help trace historical discussion. To facilitate future changes to style, in theory an outer wrapper template could set up styling and then substitute an inner template with the content. But to be honest I think the negatives of making the templates less accessible to potential maintainers outweigh the potential future positives. isaacl (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

If, at some point in the future, this same non-problem arises then we can deal with it the same way we should be dealing with this one: not fixing something when the cost of the fix is many orders of magnitude greater than the cost of the status quo. If, at some point in the future, an actual problem arises where the cost of fixing it is lower than the cost of not fixing it, then at that future time we should fix that actual problem. Until then, let's not base our decision making on vague speculation about future problems that have a low probability of ever existing and an even lower probability of actually justifying costly action. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I continue to oppose these essentially cosmetic changes to old AfD pages because the value of them is multiple orders of magnitude lower than the disruption the bot will cause (and regard this discussion following the extensive objections above to be rather tone deaf at best). I don't necessary oppose all future changes to old AfD pages, because I don't know what those changes will be, but will oppose any others that don't provide benefit to the project above and beyond the disruption. I'm weakly opposed to boilerplates not being substed going forwards because care will have to be taken to ensure that changes don't state or imply things that were not true at the time of old AfDs. For example if a new rule required everyone who had contributed to the article being discussed to explicitly disclose that, and this was added to the boilerplate, it would be misleading for that to appear on discussions from before the rule was introduced. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Well, 10 people supported and 7 opposed, so I find your accusation of being "tone deaf" quite puzzling; clarification on that allegation would be helpful. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 15:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

There wasn't any consensus that this was a desirable thing - almost none of the supporters actually engaged with reasons to oppose (which were opposed to the concept not the implementation) - so just continuing on as if doing something like this is self-evidently a good idea is what feels tone deaf. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the consensus among "support"s is "make an exclusion for MatrixBot" or "don't look at bot edits". I don't use my watchlist anyway so I'm not that familiar with how it works. Also, if there's an alternative solution that doesn't mess up your watchlist but still solves the problem(s) at hand feel free to let me know. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The solution is don't waste everybody's time with mass trivial changes to fix problems that don't need fixing. Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not support replacing '''Please do not modify it.''' with a template. There isn't much value in trying to make this particular message more legible, and with banner blindness, most people will never pay any attention to it.

I am more ambivalent about changes to specify the background colour, whether that is by introducing a template, or changing the hardcoding. In principle I think it is a good idea to make all pages follow dark mode standards. But I understand that churn to so many pages can be unappreciated by those most involved in the articles for deletion process. The gentler approach is to just continue with new discussions supporting dark mode, and at some point in the future, when the discussions supporting dark mode are the large majority, consider if a change should be made then. isaacl (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Isaacl: whilst I understand your first point, if we're going to have a template "afd top", we need an "afc bottom". We might as well do that while we're at it. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 15:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, I disagree with replacing the text at the top of articles for deletion discussions with {{Afd top}} solely for the purpose of changing how the "Please do not modify it" message appears. With regards to replacing the text in order to change the background colour, I appreciate the concerns of those most involved in the process, including how the text will no longer be a snapshot of what appeared at that time. I'm indifferent about replacing the closing </div> with the {{Afd bottom}} template. isaacl (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Support transclusions per Jonesey95. Substituting these has never made sense to me, and doubly so in regards to the ubiquitous AFD pitchforking. If someone knows why they were substituted, then I'm open to considering the merits of that reasoning. But converting to transclusion would reduce the future bother to the Afd community from the known knowns at hand so far in this AFC. I agree that variants (if any) should be identified, and any variants' adjustments retained. I'm Indifferent on the Noindexing. I don't have a grasp on the ins and outs of that at this point to have a strong vote, but I don't object. Overall I think we all agree that the AFDs should be left alone as much as possible, but how or to what point looks to be the meat of this discussion. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Thryduulf. Templates are generally somewhat problematic in archives, let's not make this worse. —Kusma (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Support per Jonesey95. Consistency is generally better here, and we wouldn't need to have another bot run to replace the text if another issue comes up with it later. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Except that consistency would come at the price of accuracy whenever changes are made to the meaning. Do you regard that as an acceptable tradeoff, because I absolutely do not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I would regard that as an acceptable tradeoff, yes. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Support. Subst:ing templates makes me nervous for exactly this reason. It would be nice to put in a template, even an archived one, to prevent having to make a huge bot run in the future just to keep these archives functional. -- Beland (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Beland. -sche (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Support both so we never have to do something like this again. I've always wondered why these templates were substituted.e FaviFake (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
They're probably substituted so that changes to the template don't introduce things like factual errors into old discussions (which is why I remain absolutely opposed to doing it now). Something having extremely high cost and trivial (at best) benefits is a reason not to do that thing, not a reason to do break something else in a way that will require another high cost action in the future to fix. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
factual errors into old discussions
What kind of factual errors could this change possibly introduce?? It just says "don’t comment anymore"
extremely high cost
?????
trivial (at best) benefits
Accessibility is not trivial at all. FaviFake (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I (and others) have explained all this in detail multiple times in previous comments, please read them. I'll answer specific questions, but repeating myself yet again is not a good use of your or my time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 14 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.

Post RfC discussion

I object to adding NOINDEX to old AFD pages on technical grounds. These pages are already NONINDEXed at a higher level: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/g/operations/mediawiki-config/+/d4bb72a6b285c137254fcfd591b6a4ae53d5cc96/robots.txt#204 –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- The behavior of robots.txt is a bit inconsistent. I am seeing a few AfDs in search results such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYRG and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Barasinski. NOINDEX is just an extra layer of redundancy to ensure that they do not show up in search. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 14:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  - If they're evil enough to index them despite being in robots.txt, then they're not going to respect meta noindex either. Google in particular deliberately will not. —Cryptic 15:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
    There probably should be a way to use regex matching to insert noindex into specific generated titles. Hmm... Aasim (話す（はなす）) 19:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
    I did some more research on this, and it caused me to change my mind. It does look like robots.txt and NOINDEX work differently. So it's probably OK to try adding NOINDEX. More details in my other comment. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Please also see Template_talk:Afd_top#Prevent_further_substitution_of_this_template? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion: Restriction on even discussing caste/community topics under extended-confirmed rule

Nope. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Hello,

I would like to raise a concern regarding the extended-confirmed restriction that applies to caste and community topics related to South Asia.

The current enforcement practice not only prevents editing by users with fewer than 500 edits but also prohibits any discussion about factual accuracy or sourcing on talk pages. In effect, even asking, “How can this be verified?” or “Where can I submit a reliable source?” is treated as a violation.

From my perspective, this amounts to a complete silencing of discussion about certain topics that are important for historical and cultural accuracy. It means that knowledgeable contributors who may not yet have high edit counts — but who have access to reliable sources or firsthand understanding — are unable even to raise questions for others to consider.

I understand that the rule was created to prevent disruption, but the current application seems to suppress genuine participation and verifiable truth. It appears inconsistent with Wikipedia’s foundational principle that anyone can edit and that accuracy and verifiability are community responsibilities, not privileges of seniority.

I would like to invite comments on whether this restriction can be refined or adjusted so that editors under the extended-confirmed threshold can at least:

Submit reliable sources for review, or
Ask factual questions on talk pages under supervision or mentorship, rather than being completely prohibited from participating in discussion.

I believe this would protect against disruption while still allowing the encyclopedia to benefit from accurate and well-sourced community knowledge.

Thank you for considering this issue and for any guidance on how such a policy change could be proposed formally. Gicarke (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The extended-confirmed restriction is an Arbitration remedy and cannot be challenged at this venue. Try requesting at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and amendment, but I would strongly suggest backing off of this for now lest you find yourself hitting Durin's Bane. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:37, 21 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.

Notice of proposal to repeal IAR policy

There is a proposal to repeal IAR policy at WT:IAR#Should IAR be overturned?. Left guide (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Error/fallo en publicar bandera fascista no constitucional española

se debe borrar una bandera pre constitucional, fascista de referencia del equipo de basket catalan Joventut. Adjunto link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980%E2%80%9381_FIBA_Kora%C4%87_Cup 93.176.153.172 (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

That would appear to be the correct flag given the historical context, also this is the English-language Wikipedia so discussions should normally be conducted in English. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@93.176.153.172: For future reference, if somebody did use an incorrect flag, you are free to just replace it yourself. You only need to escalate the issue to a discussion board such as this one if it is contentious, with editors continually arguing over which flag to use. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored - we leave it up to the end user to not view content that they think is illegal in their home country, and I don't think Spain has German-style laws on the use of fascist symbols to begin with; even in Germany the use of Nazi symbols is allowed in educational contexts. Passenger pigeon (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Ab0ut AI

I have a strong belief in changing the policies of AI on Wikipedia. I am outraged on the current policies. Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup is ok. However, it's misunderstood that not all Wikipedia AI edits are poorly written. Recent updates have made it a lot easier to make AI edits accurate. Although I do believe it still has its cons. I want justice. I want all sourced, well written AI edits to not be cleaned up. As, I feel like AI is the future of Wikipedia if we like it or not. CostalCal (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you point to any "all sourced, well written AI edits" that were reverted? AI-assisted edits are held to the same standard as unassisted edits. I certainly have used ChatGPT for copyediting suggestions. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
He's a witch! Burn him! E Eng 02:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia's singular value as a project is that it brings together the independent work of many thousands of independent, human writers from right across the globe in one, unmonetarised place. As soon as we outsource the business of writing and thinking to machines, we might as well sell the project to Google or some other corporate abomination. Wikipedia editors need to be able to think, research, and write using their own intellect. Without this basic qualification, participation in complex editorial discussions is impossible. Given that these discussions may well shape the world's understanding of events for years to come, the last thing that we should want to do is encourage participation by incompetent editors who need a machine to issue forth any coherent utterance. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 05:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
The problem is that you are adding hallucinated sources such as [1] and [2] with your edits, indicating that you are not reviewing your content after using AI. Diff [3]] Theroadislong (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
We don't have any policy on AI.
This isn't really something suited for village pump, but another big problem with your edits besides what others have mentioned is that they often add unsourced, speculative paragraphs about what "could" happen. (example: last paragraph here) This is against Wikipedia policy no matter whether an AI or human wrote it, but AI does it more than humans do. It also includes the kind of superficial analyses characteristic of AI, such as Overall, the combination of a Red Flag Warning, dry fuels, and long-term drought provided the perfect backdrop for the Wolf Fire's explosive growth here; not only is this entirely unsourced, but it's a vague combination of synthesis and opinion. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
... and just plain bullshit that a high school student makes up when he realizes his homework is due in 15 minutes. E Eng 03:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no single "AI use policy", "AI-generated content policy", "AI content guideline", et cetera. However, there exist disparate portions of policies and guidelines which are specifically and explicitly about AI-generated content. They are listed in WP:AIPOLICY. —Alalch E. 14:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

You are on a final warning for adding incorrectly sourced content. AI or not you need to ensure that your edits are supported by the correct reference. Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaviFake (talk • contribs)

Leaving programming code and substituting Anchor templates inside section headers

I feel a wider audience is needed to sort out a rather tangled and confused issue.

Back in August and September the guideline on how to insert {{Anchor}}s into section headers changed to prescribe substitution: WP:ANCHORSUBST. These changes were also incorporated into policy: MOS:SECTIONANCHOR. To me User:FaviFake is bludgeoning through a very unwelcome change, and generally acting as if this is a done deal. These changes were not preceded by a consensus-building discussion. FaviFake has repeatedly argued as if his newly made changes are the "status quo", as if a lack of consensus should be taken to mean his version should be left intact.

Substitution has a number of advantages and disadvantages. Wwhen I (and many others) reacted to one of the disadvantages (which to me is a fatal flaw); that substitution leaves ugly programming code (=== Header name ===) with the argument that we surely aren't greeting newbie users user hostile programming code right in article text (visible when editing the article), several long (very long) discussions erupted, where this disadvantage was counted to be just one out of many points to consider, rather than an immediate grounds for reversal. So now I am inviting you all to engage in whatever way you feel appropriate:

What's the community consensus on articles consisting mosly of data?

For example, Demographics of Germany (special:permalink/1318928375) - there are 23 tables in this article, 4 description lists, 3 MediaWiki charts, and countless images of population pyramids/graphs/maps/etc.

Do such articles fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory? Should data be trimmed down? sapphaline (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The answer depends on which subject you're talking about. Less than Zero (soundtrack) looks like mostly data to me (plus ~150 words in the lead), and I'd expect people to scream if I suggested that it's a WP:NOTDATA violation to have a page that is mostly a list of data (e.g., how many seconds long each song is).

Demographics of Germany, on the other hand, contains 6,293 words "readable prose size". That's not going to be any part of NOTDIR. Six thousand words is the opposite of "Simple lists (such as a list of phone numbers) that do not include contextual information showing encyclopedic merit". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not a fan of articles that consist of mostly of data dumps. Data needs text to give it context.

That said, the Demographics of Germany article does have a lot of text to give its data context, so I am not sure that is a good example to point to.

(Note, I haven’t reviewed the text in detail, so it may be that it needs re-working to give more or better context… I am simply noting that there is an attempt to put the data into context). Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I keep thinking that we need some examples for what a "simple list" or "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics". Maybe something like:

The number of active Wikipedia editors has gone up and down over time, varying from 775,000 to 1,200,00 per year from 2009 to 2024.^[1]

The number of active Wikipedia editors in each of the last 15 years was 775,435 (2024), 812,635 (2023), 816,631 (2022), 894,812 (2021), 967,559 (2020), 940,449 (2019), 950,684 (2018), 966,961 (2017), 948,216 (2016), 995,726 (2015), 1,027,316 (2014), 955,867 (2013), 985,841 (2012), 1,112,947 (2011), 1,098,912 (2010), and 1,202,241 (2009).^[1] WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

WP does include content that will be data heavy, as like you'd find in an almanac, but as others say, it's how that is contextualized that makes that difference. If the raw data is not copyright able then it makes more sense to have that data at Commons or wiki source. Masem (t) 13:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The data on that page is a mess and much lacks context. It probably should be be trimmed down. However, that does not mean it is by itself unencyclopaedic. Appropriate subpages seem to be lacking. CMD (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

One issue we may want to figure out is how to handle data from the census for US cities. My city, Detroit, Michigan has a racial and ethnic composition table that shows data back to 1960 in the article. Why 1960? I do not know. To start with the table makes data look more comparable than it is. It claims it is giving the non-Hispanic population for each racial group from 1960 on. There were some Hispanics in Detroit in 1960. There have been Mexican immigrants and their descendants in Detroit since at least the early 1920s, and at least some Puerto Ricans since some point in the 1950s. The Hispanic line is NA for 1960 and 1970 because that data was not gathered. Mixed race is NA until 2000 because it was not gathered that year. The 1990 Asian category is actually Asian and Pacific Islanders. If Pacific Islanders was a seperate category in 1990 it would have probably been about 300 people. Yes it looks like it went down from 1980 to 2000, but some percentage of people who marked more than one race were probably partly Pacific Islander and may have marked just Pacific Islander if the 2000 census had had 1980 rules. Alternately because many of these Pacific Islanders were people of say mixed Hawaiian and European descent, in 1980 they would have marked multiple races if given the choice. The nature of the Hispanic wording has also changed over time, so the numbers are not 100% comparable. In the 1960 census people from India were counted as white, they are counted as Asian starting in either 1970 or 1980. Also before 1980 census takers were instructed to determine peoples race, from 1980 on they are instructed to let people declare their own race (there is probably cases where self determination was allowed before 1980, and where it is imposed after, but those were the guidelines, so people in talking about race listed on censuses in early 20th-century Louisiana or anywhere else have to realize that the race given can be done for lots of reasons, and is not always based on how the people feel about their race or what they want others to think their race is). While the text explains some of the ethnic and racial trends over time in Detroit, there there is no text explaining these issues that make the table complex to read. If the 2030 census ends up having the Middle Eastern category and also having Hispanic/Latino as a race and not as a designation for ethnicity with race options it will be harder to compare. Sterling Heights, Michigan where I grew up gives a similar table but only for 2000, 2010 and 2020. Sterling Heights does have detailed explanations of all the 2010 and 2000 census data, but lacks the text explaining the 2000 census data. Farmington, Michigan only has text explaining the 2010 census. Why has it not been updated with the 2020 census data? Also, is directly extracting this information from the census instead of from secondary sources the best approach? There is no reason we should just have 2010 census reports for places in 2025. The 2000 census was done 5 years ago, all the data is out. However at what point do we just keep adding census after census. Birmingham, Michigan to pick another city in metro Detroit has 2000, 2010 and 2020 data on it. This is more a reflection of when Wikipedia was created (after 2000) than of anything else. Auburn Hills, Michigan still does not have the full 2020 census report. Just a mention of the population number. A full 16 of the 31 cities in Oakland County, Michigan do not have 2020 census data included. A quick glance at articles on Nebraska cities shows that this lack of 2020 census data is more widespread. The question we need to ask is do we just want to keep adding another census report, or do we want to limit the size of these demographic reports. Should we push for more sources that have analized the census instead of direct census reports?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Systemic bias and non-English sources: request for fair review of Draft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio

Closed in favour of discussions elsewhere linked by Reconrabbit. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Hello. I submitted Draft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio supported by independent Bulgarian-language sources: a peer-reviewed article, a university textbook with page numbers and an appendix, proceedings, plus a regulated issuer’s annual report explicitly listing the ratio. I added English trans-title and short quotes, complying with WP:V and WP:RS.

I encountered two issues: 1) Language barrier / WP:Systemic bias: Non-English, yet published and independent sources receive heightened skepticism. 2) Automated LLM warnings: A generic “LLM” banner was placed on a short, neutral stub without specific, actionable feedback.

I respectfully request a content-focused review by editors with Bulgarian proficiency, with concrete pointers if improvements are needed. If the community prefers additional English metadata (archived URLs, extended quotes), I will add them. My aim is a neutral, concise entry that reflects already published academic and practical use. Thank you. Петър П. Петров (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Since you have already started threads on this topic that have received responses at Articles for Creation help desk and the Teahouse, please keep discussion there. -- Recon rabbit 14:34, 29 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.

Discussion regarding the status of WikiProject Policies and Guidelines

I have opened a discussion about the status of the recently revived Policies and Guidelines Wikiproject. I would be happy if editors would express their opinion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Policies and Guidelines. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:NCPRINCES - What to do when one loses a title

In light of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, would this fall under being a "defunct" title? I think it would be a good idea to establish the convention/guideline for what to do in this instance. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think any of the titles are defunct. Once the process is complete, it will have to be voted on in parliament (which will likely be a rubber stamping), they will just no longer apply to Andrew. Unless that is there are reliable sources saying the titles he used are defunct. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Tense on tropical cyclones

How should we apply MOS:TENSE to tropical cyclones? The standard practice has been to switch to past tense when advisories are discontinued, but @Jasper Deng has been insisting that the above MOS:TENSE overrules and insists that we seek consensus here. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

My opinion would be that the long-standing practice should prevail because it’s an objective criteria on when to define the storm as “over”, the MOS:TENSE wording risks violating WP:OR I think. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the significance of advisories being discontinued? What is the commonly accepted definition of the end of a storm in the field of meteorology? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Usually the relevant agency (such as the NHC) discontinues advisories whenever a storm has gone post tropical or has dissipated. Even if it still "exists", it is no longer being tracked as a tropical cyclone. After going post tropical, most sources do not track it (with exceptions), and defining when it truly ceases to exist beyond that stretches the boundaries of original research. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Does gone post tropical mean that it no longer meets the criteria for a tropical cyclone? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Post-tropical cyclones, while still a low pressure system, are no longer considered a tropical cyclone at that time. They no longer meet the criteria for a tropical cyclone. The only reason why a post tropical cyclone should still have present tense is if it is still causing significant impacts beyond that time. Whether or not Melissa does (which is what triggered this discussion), I dont know. But this discussion should apply to any post tropical cyclone that doesn't have meaningful impacts still happening beyond the transition. Examples of those would have probably been storms like Kirk (2024), Fiona (2022), and Sandy (2012), but those are exceptions in my opinion. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

How is "meaningful impacts" defined? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

That would be something that is really defined on a case by case basis in my opinion. But typically if there are still advisories by the NHC (they do continue advisories on post tropical cyclones in rare cases if tropical cyclone watches/warnings are still in effect) or if the storm is still being mentioned by reliable weather sources in present tense (preferably an official source), then thats a sign that maybe this storm should be an exception. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Most sources will typically define that point as the end of a tropical cyclone. I know the NHC does. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Why not describe the tropical storm portion in the past tense, and ongoing storm tracking/current impact on society/economy/culture in the present tense? That would seem to be most consistent with MOS:TENSE, which has a preference for present tense. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

That would work if only there was a way to word it like "Foo is a extratropical cyclone that was once a powerful major hurricane" or the like. But under normal cases, especially if it's curved out to sea, typically the end of advisories is the point when it is largely not mentioned by the sources. And unless someone is closely watching the surface charts, it can be difficult to define the "end" of the storm without an objective definition like "when sources stop mentioning it in present tense" Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The "is an XT cyclone that used to be a TC" approach is the one I advocate. "End of advisories" is not the same as not existing anymore and therefore should no longer be used as the criterion to change tenses. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I can settle for that as a compromise. But only if it's former status (eg. as a category 5 hurricane in the case of Melissa) is clearly mentioned in the lead. Something like "XT cyclone that used to be a historic and record breaking tropical cyclone" as a (very extreme) example. Or more likely "XT cyclone that used to be a hurricane" in a more typical case. But regardless, the former status as a TC should be mentioned in the lead regardless of tense. That has been my main concern on the HU Melissa talk page. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean, yes, we should mention the former status, and that's what I have done all along. But this is still counter to what @MarioProtIV, Drdpw, and Hoguert: wanted (pinging them for completeness sake). Jasper Deng (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

As for avoiding OR: the high seas forecasts here provide an unambiguous description of the evolution of the lows.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Directory articles

I got lots of good feedback on this proposal for directory articles at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 68#Directory articles. For the uninitiated, directory articles (DARTs) are a type of navigational list for a lot of notable things that have a common relationship to a non-notable thing; sort of like a cross between a standard list and a SIA, or a soft redirect with multiple targets. I'm preparing in earnest for a proposal RfC, so I'd appreciate any thoughts, questions, comments people have before then. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Propose Exceptions for Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

If an intro on articles like Pakistan Military Academy is being included as barred to newcomers (with less than 500 edits), it feels overly bureaucratic - focused more on procedure than on efficiency or common sense. I understand the original intent of the arbitration ruling was to manage conflict, not to block harmless copyedits on neutral, factual topics. However, when good-faith newcomers are now prevented from improving basic English or formatting in sections that don’t even discuss Indian military history, it discourages participation rather than protecting content. Hence there really should be clearly defined exceptions made for parts or entire articles that are unlikely to provoke edit wars and are generally apolitical - otherwise, the restriction stops serving its purpose and ends up penalizing constructive editing. I'd be interested in community feedback on whether a more nuanced approach could be implemented to allow newcomers to improve such sections without risk to genuinely contentious pages. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie: I realize this will sound bureaucratic, but there's no helping that... The South Asia contentious topic is imposed by the Arbitration Committee, which means that the community cannot modify its rules (short of fully amending ArbCom policy, which probably wouldn't happen for something like this). Now, at a glance, I agree that [4] probably didn't need to be reverted, even if it is technically a violation of the ECR. Editors have discretion in how strictly to enforce the ECR, and personally I would not have reverted in this case. That said, I can't say that Dreamer765 did anything against policy here. Which brings us to the question of if policy should change. If you want to request a change to the ECR rules for South Asia, you can do that at WP:ARCA, but you will have to wait till you are extendedconfirmed yourself. Which also applies to this thread, I'm afraid. Again, bureaucratic, I know, but you're really going to have to stop making reverts like this, or starting threads like this one, or that same administrative discretion will run out and someone will have to block you for violating the restriction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Tamzin, for the clarification. I reverted the edit purely because of the South Asia topic restriction which falls under contentious topics, not because there was anything wrong with the content itself. I agree the change looked harmless, but the ECR applies to the whole article. If we start making exceptions, it may set a precedent that could blur the line for other cases.

@JaredMcKenzie:,it's great that you're contributing in Wikipedia, but once you gain extended confirmed status, you will be allowed to edit these pages freely without any restrictions. It will be really worth to take time to learn the editing policies and workflows in the meantime, since that experience will makes things smoother later. My intention was only to follow the restriction of WP:CT/SA, not to discourage your editting. Thank You Dreamer765 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

No worries - I don't take this revert personally, as it doesn't seem politically motivated. You're welcome to revert if you feel it's necessary, though I'd prefer if you left it since it seems harmless. Either way, it's fine. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Retirement of Construction Templates/ Stricter enforcement of Wikipedia's neutrality standards

Hello everyone,

I am a long-time reader of Wikipedia who has created an account specifically to discuss a concern about what I see as a continuing erosion of neutrality and impersonality on the site.

Before I begin, I acknowledge that I am not deeply familiar with every aspect of Wikipedia’s editorial culture, but I have read the core policies. For years, I have visited the site—drawn by the epistemological purity and neutrality of its articles—and until recently, I had never encountered editor usernames appearing in article space.

As of late, I have noticed users placing “Under construction” templates (which allow editors to display their handles) in main article space. Examples include the pages for the recently released video game Donkey Kong Bananza and the cartoonist Charles M. Schulz. In the case of the former, the template remained on the article for more than a month without anyone taking it down, even though the template itself instructs removal after several days of inactivity.

These templates distract from the content, undermine reader trust, and arguably conflict with core policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and WP:PROMOTION. Wikipedia is a platform for knowledge, not ego, visibility, or branding (see WP:NOT).

I am also concerned that editors could misuse these templates as a means of self-promotion or soft ownership, since their presence prominently displays usernames to readers. On a related note, I have begun noticing watermarks and visible handles in Wikimedia Commons images used by articles, which raises similar concerns about the erosion of impersonality.

What I propose: • That a discussion be opened on re-evaluating “Under construction” and similar templates to determine whether they align with current editorial standards. • That Wikipedia consider retiring or reworking templates that allow personal handles to appear in article space. • That a prohibition on visible editor usernames in mainspace (including within templates) be reaffirmed as consistent with WP:NPOV and Wikipedia’s long-standing commitment to impersonality.

Thank you for reading, and I welcome community input on how we can best preserve the neutrality and facelessness that have always made Wikipedia unique among online spaces. Kirby9717 (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kirby! I love that you're looking at how to improve the project in a reasoned way. The under construction template doesn't really promote anyone or anything, it's just a way of saying someone is actively making changes. No one remembers the names of editors unless you yourself are an active editor and these are people you interact with. I've never heard of "impersonality" being part of neutrality. I like that we're open about how individuals work on the articles, as it reminds people that this is a project anyone can edit, even the reader, and that we have a wide variety of voices giving input. You're right that it's a problem if the template is there for a month, that defeats the purpose of having it, and it might be worth discussing a bot program that automatically removes it after a certain amount of time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response! I see what you mean about openness — and I understand that from an editor’s perspective, these templates feel more like collaboration markers than personal credit. My concern comes more from the reader’s side: even subtle visible usernames shift perception from “knowledge” to “authorship,” which erodes the sense of impersonality that makes an encyclopedia feel neutral.

It’s not about hiding who contributes — the history and talk pages already preserve that transparency — but about protecting the presentation layer of articles as ego-free. Perhaps a middle ground could be what you mentioned: a bot or auto-expiry system, or even a modification of the template to avoid displaying usernames in mainspace altogether, or perhaps an option for readers/editors/users to hide templates altogether in the sidebar so one can actually read the articles free of distraction.. Kirby9717 (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Added: to thebiguglyalien,

I understand the reasoning behind transparency and community visibility — and I agree that collaboration is the heart of Wikipedia. But there’s a subtle distinction here: transparency should live in edit history and talk pages, not in article presentation. When usernames appear in mainspace, even briefly, it changes how the text is perceived — it stops being pure knowledge and starts being authored.

For readers, that shift matters deeply. It turns a faceless, objective encyclopedia into something participatory and performative — more social than scholarly. Impersonality, to me, isn’t the absence of humanity; it’s what allows the reader to trust that knowledge speaks for itself, not through a name. Kirby9717 (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is participatory, and that's one of its strengths. If we keep readers unaware of that, we prevent them from becoming editors. I am glad that you got an account to engage with us here, but if the tag on Donkey Kong Bananza was enough to let you know that someone was editing it, it also lets you know (to some degree) that you, too, could edit it, even if just in removing that particular template.

I will note for the sake of completeness that the "Under Construction" tag is not the only one that indicates that there are personal hands on the article; the tags announcing that an article appears to be an autobiography clearly suggests a name, and the one warning that an editor with a conflict of interest has been editing may not call out a name on the article itself, but it indicates that there are specific human fingerprints on this article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Nat. I understand that Wikipedia’s participatory nature is a strength — it’s what keeps it alive. But I think we need to distinguish between a participatory process and a participatory presentation.

Readers come to Wikipedia not to join a community, but to learn. That’s what makes it function as a public knowledge utility, not a social platform. When editor handles or personal tags appear in article space, even indirectly, they erode that neutrality and create the impression that the text is authored, not curated.

I worry that in trying to encourage participation, we may unintentionally import the visibility logic of social media — where identity display becomes part of the content. The encyclopedia’s credibility has always depended on the opposite: anonymity, impersonality, and clarity.

And again, both you and theBigUglyAlien have not brought this up but the appearance of construction templates with editor handles in them, something that has started happening recently, is a violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:NOT

I’m not against transparency, but I think it belongs in edit history, not in the reader’s view. The goal should be for knowledge to speak without an owner’s signature. Kirby9717 (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Nat and Alien, Thank you both for your perspectives — I do understand where you’re coming from. I agree that Wikipedia’s participatory nature is one of its greatest strengths. However, participation is a means to an end, not the end itself. The encyclopedia exists first and foremost to serve readers with neutral, impersonal knowledge.

I think there’s an important distinction to be made between a participatory process and a participatory presentation. Editors should always remain visible and credited in the revision history and talk pages, but the main article space has historically been — and should remain — impersonal. That separation is not cosmetic; it’s what protects the project’s perceived neutrality.

When an editor’s handle or watermark appears directly within an article’s content (even via a construction tag), the article stops “speaking as Wikipedia” and starts “speaking as someone.” That small perceptual shift undermines the neutrality guaranteed by WP:NPOV, contradicts the impersonality implied by WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:PROMOTION, and blurs the boundary between knowledge and authorship.

Transparency does not require self-reference. The edit history already fulfills that role. Inviting readers to edit is vital — but the invitation belongs in the site’s interface, not within the text itself. Otherwise, we risk importing the logic of social media visibility — where identity and participation eclipse substance — into a space that has thrived precisely because it was ego-free.

My proposal is not to hide the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, but to reaffirm the distinction between where knowledge is built and where it is presented. Preserving that distinction is, in my view, essential to maintaining the trust that has made this project the modern Library of Alexandria it is today. Kirby9717 (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you may be simply mistaken about the history here, perhaps you just hadn't run into this template before (it's on a fraction of a percent of pages.) Looking at, say, the revision from about a decade ago, it was already listing the name of the most recent editor as part of the display. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I don't use these templates a whole lot, but when used correctly, they are very useful, particularly the "in use" template if its undergoing a major edit. When used correctly, it helps avoid edit conflicts, and also informs the readers that there are impending changes to the content of the article. That said, I don't doubt that there is a potential for those templates to be abused, and I also don't doubt that people put those up and then forget that they put it up. I once put placeholder text in a draft article, published the article, forgot to remove the placeholder text for more than a year. So I understand that there is definitely a potential for both good faith forgetting and bad faith abuse of those templates. That said, I don't think full deprecation/retirement is a good idea, because you're just trading one problem for another. But I would not be opposed to modifying the templates to remove the "who edited last" part of it. I agree that is redundant given the existence of page histories. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hurricane Clyde I agree that replacing the "who edited last" with something like "See talk page" might not be a bad idea. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Or we could us CSS to make that line invisible to ordinary readers. Having the name handy might prompt an experienced editor to see just how long it's been since that person actually made an edit. If they've been offline for a few hours, the tag isn't serving its primary purpose of preventing edit conflicts.

I would like to see a bot remove that tag if there have been no edits for 36–72 hours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that {{in use}} and {{under construction}} are different templates with different uses. The former is for avoiding edit conflicts, while the latter explicitly invites other edits. Also, it appears User:JL-Bot already does remove these when stale. Anomie ⚔ 12:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this reads like it was AI-generated, which our guidelines discourage. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just using an LLM to parse my ideas properly.. again to reiterate, (this message is NOT AI assisted/generated, written by me alone) I just really think that Wikipedia's epistemological purity is being corroded by these construction templates that allow editors to place their handles in main article main space, which shifts focus from the content of the article at hand to the editors themselves, and I think it significantly erodes trust by readers in Wikipedia as an authoritative source of knowledge.. and I think these templates and other loopholes that allow editors handles to show up in main article space (not talk pages and histories) should be changed/modified to omit their handles to better uphold Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality (see WP:NPOV) Kirby9717 (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I should also emphasize - "I have begun noticing watermarks and visible handles in Wikimedia Commons images" - even if you have only recently begun noticing this, it's long been an issue. DS (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a strange line of thought. While it's not necessary to have the username of the person who put the tag on, since you could easily figure it out through the edit history, I'm not sure anyone else on the wiki thinks it's a form of promotion. Promotional usernames are banned anyway, and a vast majority of editors are anonymous. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 19:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Clarification wanted for temporary account usage rules

"Please be aware that editing with multiple temporary accounts may be against the rules of this wiki and you could be blocked if this happens frequently."

It may be? Sounds kind of vague, which is why I am asking this. What would this mean for new users editing Wikipedia, but have their cookies cleared routinely without their knowledge? Will these editors be held culpable for accidentally clearing their cookies? Will public computers at the library or wherever be more likely to have editing privileges for that network blocked not because of any shady editing, but rather because the temporary account for the network changes regularly between multiple people?

While this feature appears to be brand new, I just want to know if editing without an account will understandably have more restrictions imposed in the future due to recent issues, and whether Wikipedia is shifting towards a more disciplinary approach towards these users.

Cordially, ~2025-31311-72 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

No. This has nothing to do with punishing users. You will be blocked only for abusively using multiple TAs. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The good news is that temporary accounts can be thanked and pinged. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

RfC notice

There is an RfC at Talk:Clayton Kershaw#RfC: 2x or 3x champ? which involves WP:LOCALCON policy concerns. Left guide (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Similarly, should Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions be demoted to a WikiProject advice page?

I cannot find a discussion on any Village Pump pointing to the discussion. The [discussion took place on the talk page behind the WikiProject page in 2021.

Support. This mostly explains existing PAGs and applies them to automobiles. There are a few errors (e.g. around capitalisation of compound units), and overly specific prescriptive guidance that make it unsuited as a guideline at the moment. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Can you provide details of where you think the capitalisation is wrong or it is overly prescriptive? Stepho talk 04:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
The page says incorrectly that compound units do not use capitals, but contradicts that statement later on by correctly using capitals in kWh and Nm. The tips section is an example text you would not find in a normal guideline. Another example is for instance 100% prohibition on variants being bold. If a variant is what the car is mostly known as for some reason, it should be bolded. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay. So there is a little rewording required. Many editors will want to use "RPM" and "MPH" when MOS says to use "rpm" and "mph". We make this explicit because most editors do not go chasing every clause in MOS - we collect the relevant parts of MOS into a single place to make it easier for new editors. As pointed out, we need to reword it to allow for SI symbols such as kWh and Nm. The bolding issue can be looked into too. I also note that MOS itself gets frequent updates in both its decisions and its wording, so neither the capitalisation or bolding issues should be a reason to demote. Stepho talk 23:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per nom. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Details? Stepho talk 04:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I agree with Femke that this is just instructions for the sake of having instructions and that if you want to make this into a community guideline you need to follow WP:PROPOSAL (at a minimum, notifying the wider community). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Automobiles have many different conventions in different countries. Some conventions are simply an overwhelming choice of options, eg, km/h vs kph or rpm vs min^-1. Sometimes these conflict in an unresolvable manner (eg US style model years vs calendar years used in most other countries). Only by setting conventions can these be easily understandable by the average reader across many countries without requiring readers to understand every possible usage in every possible country. Stepho talk 04:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
But do these conventions need to be a project-wide guideline or simply a Wikiproject ~~guideline~~ advice page? In terms of the choice between km/h and kmh, we already have guidelines to use the appropriate SI unit formatting. This page needs wider community vetting to be designated a guideline. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
The terminology is a little confusing. What is the difference between a project-wide guideline and a Wikiproject guideline? Stepho talk 23:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
All guidelines are project-wide by definition, apologies for the typo above. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

A Wikipedia:WikiProject advice page is a page written by the participants in that group and represents their advice to everyone else. The name includes the name of the WikiProject, and the group gets to control the content, just like you'd get to control a Wikipedia:User essay in your User: space. It's "just an essay", but they are often respected because of the expertise of the authors.

A project-wide guideline should (since 2008) go through the WP:PROPOSAL process. It should not name a WikiProject, and the group loses control over its contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Procedural oppose – I don't disagree that a broad consensus should be attained before promoting any page to guideline status, but I am not sure that this approach is the best one. Long-standing pages like this may have attained consensus as documentation of actual editorial practice. This proposal is premised on demotion and therefore non-neutral: its apparent goal is to simply invalidate the page without considering the specific reality of its application in the relevant topic area. I believe that it would be more reasonable to hold a neutral RfC to consider whether this page should retain guideline status or not, rather than merely attempting to force demotion. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm following the procedure as set out at WP:Policies and guidelines#Demotion. The alternative is to simply revert the inappropriately placed guideline tag and ask for others to start the discussion here to make this a (community-wide) guideline. The route I've chosen means that there is more of a status quo bias in favour of retaining the inappropriately placed guideline tag. I've reworded the section heading to be more clearly a question.

Note that WikiProject advice pages can still be cited and applied. Many essays on Wikipedia are cited frequently and (mostly) reflect consensus. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

My concern is with the way that your own project, which itself lacks any broader community-based authority, seeks to rewrite, eliminate, and otherwise 'simplify' our policies and guidelines. I do not believe that small groups of editors should be plotting to implement changes that affect the broader community. Much as you object to Wikiprojects establishing 'guidelines' that may not have been subject to a formal consensus, I object to your Wikiproject's objective to impose its own philosophy on everyone else, including content editors in specific topic areas, without fully considering the implications of those changes, or consulting those editors. This concern arose when I noticed that, upon launching this discussion, you provided no courtesy notice to Wikiproject Automobiles.

Guideline pages are intended to document actual editorial practice. Before considering whether a guideline should be 'demoted', it is necessary to evaluate whether the practices documented at the relevant page faithfully represent actual editor conduct. Simply insisting that a page must be demoted because it may have evolved informally is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:NOTBURO. I appreciate that you and your collaborators are acting in good faith. I am also much obliged that you updated the section heading. I still do not agree, however, that this is the best way to go about what you are trying to do. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

What if we make this an RfC? That way, we get more input from a wider range of editors (hopefully), without a double notification of automobile specific editors (both on the essay/guideline and the WikiProject). If the outcome is that the essay/guideline is rewritten to be in line with established guidelines and moved to Wikipedia space, I'd be happy too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I would agree that an RfC seems like a reasonable path forward. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 07:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:ADVICEPAGE talks about what happens when a WikiProject advice page becomes a guideline: [A]fter being adopted by the community, they are no longer WikiProject advice pages and have the same status as any other guideline. When this happens, the WikiProject's participants cede any notion of control over the page, and everyone in the community participates equally in further development of the guidelines. Such pages move out from under their original "Wikipedia:WikiProject Something/" path. It would make sense to frame an RFC with two options: keep as a guideline and move out from under the WikiProject, or change to an advice page and leave it where it is.--Trystan (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Support The 2021 WikiProject discussion proposed making it "an official guideline of the automobile project", so does not establish even a local consensus for making it a project-wide guideline.--Trystan (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose any changes to these long-standing guidelines without involving the editors who actually use them. These have evolved over decades and concern themselves with minor issues that are specific to automobiles. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
You call it a guideline but it is not a guideline in the Wikipedia sense of a Wikipedia guideline. Any page with some prescriptive content can naturally be called a guideline, policy, standard, etc. On Wikipedia, i.e., within this encyclopedia-building project, "guideline" has a particular meaning defined by policy. This page was incorrectly tagged as a guideline using a template reserved for guidelines when it is not a guideline. Proposing to "demote" it was the wrong framing because it actually empowers the wrong idea that the page is a guideline, since for something to be demoted from guideline status it first must be a guideline. —Alalch E. 08:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Remove the guideline tag without an RfC. This is a mistagged page. Someone put the guideline template by mistake, not understanding what the template is for. Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia guidelines (titled "Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines") says: Simply adding the {{policy}} or {{guideline}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean the page is policy, even if the page summarizes or copies existing policies. The existence of the markup for the transclusion of the guideline template in the discussed page's wikitext is a content error that any editor can correct. There is nothing to "support" or "oppose" here and nothing to "demote". A non-guideline page mistagged as a guideline is not a guideline for it to be demoted from a guideline to a non-guideline: it is already not a guideline. —Alalch E. 07:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I understand what a guideline is per WP:GUIDELINE. But I've not heard of a "WikiProject advice page" before, so what's the difference? I find that there's a description at WikiProject advice page. That's part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide which says that it's a "project content guideline" which yet another novel classification. There are too many of these labels and they are all subject to our core policies which include WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW which mean that none of them are absolute and binding. See also KISS principle and WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: I'm not saying that this is a WikiProject advice page, I'm just saying that it is not a guideline. Someone just incorrectly put up the guideline template on a page that is not a Wikipedia guideline. This discussion is like "should we phase out this banknote" and the "banknote" is a white piece of paper with "THIS IS MONEY" written on it. You will come and say "meh, this money business has become too complicated, oppose". Consensus does not form to "phase out" the "banknote". Can I go to a store and buy a gallon of orange juice with this piece of paper? —Alalch E. 18:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Bank notes are just pieces of paper with writing on them -- see paper money. Notice that the price of gold has shot up recently! Andrew🐉(talk) 19:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
So you're saying I'm getting orange juice with a white piece of paper with "THIS IS MONEY" written on it. If not orange juice, maybe bubblegum? —Alalch E. 23:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@Alalch E.: FWIW, on a trip to Italy in the 1980s the people who made money (as in mint workers, or perhaps it was the people who distributed coins, I don't know, I was young) went on strike. When you bought things, stores would write IOUs on tiny pieces of paper rather than hand you change. Near the end of our stay at a campground, me and my siblings went and bought Nutella and candy with all the little slips of paper we had accumulated, since they would be unlikely to be accepted anywhere else. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The main differences between a guideline and a WikiProject advice page are that the latter is maintained by the members of a WikiProject and represents their consensus advice. A guideline requires broad community consensus, and consequently it is not part of a WikiProject's pages and no WikiProject has any special role in updating it. A project content guideline isn't really a separate classification, it is just a guideline that deals with the content of admin pages, in the same way that a content guideline deals with article content.--Trystan (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
That's a theory but the practice is otherwise. For example, I tend to focus on the main page currently and this is effectively organised as a project for each section. And they have their guidelines such as WP:ITN/R for In the News and Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines for Did You Know? These are not "advice" – they are taken quite seriously in the day-to-day operation of those projects. This is the practical test for such pages – do people take them seriously?
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Going down the rabbithole of the WikiProject Council, I'm amused to find that there's a WikiProject Policies and Guidelines. Per discussion, its first incarnation became defunct but it was recently resurrected. Why will it be more successful this time? Perhaps I should join it and start demanding enforcement of WP:BURO, WP:CREEP and WP:IAR! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

ITN and DYK are rather exceptional cases, as they aren't WikiProjects in the normal sense. WikiProjects are entirely voluntary; they provide a forum for collaboration, using their WikiProject pages to discuss articles, generate reports, and provide advice. ITN and DYK are different, providing the only process for participating in the content of the related main page features. By contrast, a user interested in editing automative articles is under no obligation to participate in WP:WikiProject Automobiles. The question is then why would it be preferable to have community guidelines about automobiles located in the WikiProject's pages. Avoiding WP:CREEP definitely is not helped by creating confusion between community endorsed guidelines and the advice of a WikiProject's participants.--Trystan (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Both ITN and DYK are regarded with contempt by much of the general community. What happens with all such local activities is that they develop their own culture and tribal customs. The idea that there's a common community across all these activities is quite weak. And the idea that WikiProject Policies and Guidelines has some special authority over any of the other projects seems quite unproven; it seems to be just another project and not an especially successful one. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't follow. WikiProject Policies and Guidelines is just like any regular WikiProject: a forum for collaboration, discussion, and advice. It has absolutely no authority of any kind. WikiProjects as a whole have absolutely no authority, which is precisely why their sub-pages should not be marked as Guidelines, and any advice page that is adopted by the broader community as a Guideline should be moved out from under the WikiProject.--Trystan (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any sign of that group claiming any sort of authority over anything. Do you? Note that a discussion among editors that results in an individual making a proposal to the whole community at the village pump is not an example of a group claiming "special authority over any of the other projects". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Support – Doesn't look any different from similar WikiProject advice pages FaviFake (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Recall check-in

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Sorry, all, but this page is over 600K, so I've split this off to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Recall check-in. Please continue the discussion there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's recall process was largely based on German Wikipedia's recall process, but it has played out differently here than it did on German Wikipedia. Now that we've had 10 recall petitions it seems like a good time to examine the process.

Support 1 or more of the following:

Process is working well, no changes needed
There should be some way of enabling support for the admin during the petition phase
There should be fewer signatures needed
There should be more signatures needed
30 days is too long, the petition process should be shorter
30 days is too short, the petition process should be longer
Keep recall, but develop a different process than petition leading to a re-RFA
Keep recall, but do some other change to how re-RFA works
Keep recall, but do some other change to how the petition works
Recall should be abolished
Prohibit admins from !voting in RFCs to amend recall

When closing the closer is encouraged to think about overall support relative to participation in the RfA (e.g. if 5 people support Foo, 10 people support the opposite of Foo, and 30 people didn't support either but participate elsewhere, the consensus may be no change rather than opposite of Foo) and where a bartender's close may be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 21 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.

Airport destination lists - WP:NOTGUIDE?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Sorry, all, but this page was over 600K long, so I'm splitting off the biggest discussions. Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a huge problem with airport destination lists, in that they are huge, unwieldy, very dynamic and largely unsourced or difficult to source. In my, and others (Courtesy pinging @AndyTheGrump and @EEng as said persons), opinions, they fall foul of WP:NOTGUIDE, as they are nothing more than a huge list of destinations served by airlines operating at an airport. In my personal opinion, they would be better replaced with text, something along the lines of "X number of airlines fly from Airport A, serving destinations across Y number of countries." Currently, these tables are atrociously sourced, being largely unsourced, and efforts to improve sourcing over the last few months have led to no fewer than 3 ANI discussions ([5], [6], [7]), with the quite understandable result that some well-respected editors are tired of the constant back and forth - Not a month goes by that we don't get a report here of some cosmic struggle over lists of destinations reachable from various airports.[8].

In my opinion, these destination lists should be removed from airport articles under WP:NOTGUIDE, as they, as AndyTheGrump said, are arguably fancruft - but definitely not encyclopaedic. There are plenty of websites to get travel information, Wikipedia isn't one of them. If not removed, they should be seriously looked at with a view to fundamentally altering them. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:39, 5 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.

Are Wikipedia:List of bibliographies encyclopedic?

I just stumbled upon this dusty old part of Wikipedia. While Category:Bibliographies by writer (i.e. lists of works of a particular writer) have some merit, I am concerned about Category:Bibliographies by subject, ranging on more esoteric (Bibliography of hedges and topiary) to major topics like Bibliography of Canada or Bibliography of World War II. There are dozens (hundreds) of articles in the form of "bibliography of Fooian topic", and they are pretty much random laundry lists of books/articles/etc. related to Foo. The criteria are pretty loose; virtually all lists that I checked at best have claims saying "we list only important works" (as decided by who?). Some larger topics (like countries) cannot be reasonably scratched by a single list. Most don't have any criteria (failing WP:LISTCRIT. This reminds me of MOS:TRIVIA and the dreaded "list of mentions of Foo in popular culture" that we have been steadily deleting at AfD for many years now (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture...); it is just that instead of works of fiction that "foo" concept appears in, here we have a list of works of non-fiction. Other than that, it's the same principle (see also: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:IPC, WP:NOTTVTROPES). I think these kitchen-and-sink lists are now-useless relics of the past (when we weren't sure what Wikipedia's scope is) that we need to, well, delete. An RfC may be in order, but perhaps we can judge early consensus here. PS. I checked AfD logs; such articles are AfDed with random outcome. Deleted (hard and soft): Oakland, Californi, Tirana, psychology. Kept: Thomas Jefferson, American Civil War Union military unit histories, books critical of Islam. There were the fist six results in my search, and the outcome is very much no consensus (3 deleted, 3 kept). Sigh. (I have a feeling that more recent outcomes may be more deletionist, as our standards rise, but I haven't run the data...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I think most bibliographies should be merged or deleted. Articles are welcome to have modestly sized Further Reading sections, but when the list is quite long, as you say, there is no clear criteria for what should be included. We are not an indiscriminate card catalogue of any book in the library. If a book is significant, it should be cited or listed in the main article, but beyond that if there's no indication why a reader should care about a particular set of books that one could find in a variety of search engines and resources, it shouldn't be a standalone article. — Reywas92^Talk 15:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
It's possible that there are some notable collections of works about a particular subject, but in those cases there should be some prose about the collection that establishes why it is notable and the selection obviously won't be made by Wikipedians. The article title is also less likely to be "Bibliography of <subject>" Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The only relevant bibliography I have to draw from in this subject is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grmoščica bibliography, which explicitly looks at WP:NLIST (that the collection of works about a subject has to be described as a group independently to meet this notability standard). That seems like a reasonable standard. In this case the criteria is fairly narrow (there are only so many works about this Croatian hill) but I can see this being applied to a larger subject (e.g., "bibliography of the economy of the Maldives", where we might expect to find multiple metatextual works that examine the works examining the economy of the Maldives - review articles?). For an example that actually exists - would it be considered appropriate for an article called bibliography of work-related injuries to exist citing this article? -- Recon rabbit 16:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
@Reconrabbit Regarding that example, this is a literature review. Most acadademic papers do it, through they are almost never throughout. We can find lit reviews on many topics, but I don't think they should be sufficient to say that bibliographic lists are notable. That said, I could see a compromise, where each work on our list is cited to a secondary source of that type (a lit review, etc.). As in "criteria for inclusion on our list is being cited in a relevant secondary work". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, literature reviews obviate the issue of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRIT. Katzrockso (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how this has anything in common with trivia sections. They are not any more indiscriminate than any other kind of article content on a broad topic is. They're books about a topic, it's more like further reading than anything, or categories. The fiction is not analagous because to be included it should the sole or main part of the work, not at all similar to those lists of individual tropes or what have you, more like genres (which we do have lists for, e.g. list of dystopian literature). I would strongly oppose deleting them unless there is a extra problem with the subject (e.g. it's about a topic that is itself non-notable, the group is not discussed in sources (so, e.g. any topic where the group of books about it has been the subject of discussion would pass, which is extremely common for any topic; when looking for sources, I have never found one topic with enough books to sustain a bibliography that did not have some kind of meta aspect on the general circumstance of books about the topic and what they're like), or it's about a topic that has too few writings on it to sustain a bibliography), because they are very useful and I don't see the problem. Bibliographies are regularly part of print encyclopedias on specialized topics, so yes, it is inherently encyclopedic. Why should we be different than print encyclopedias in this regard? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

+1, this is my thought on the matter as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we can find sources for some subjects. For example, there is a Bibliography of World War II, and a quick trip to my favorite search engine finds sources such as "The 19 World War II Books That Experts Trust Most", 30 Best World War II Books That Examine Every Angle, 25+ Best WWII Books to Broaden Your Perspective, Best books about the Second World War. I assume that if I did a serious search, I'd find high-quality reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars begins with the statement that "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". I believe that some specialized encyclopedias include lists of recommended works; therefore, these pages are at least potentially "encyclopedic". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a fundamental problem with bibliographies but individual pages may need some attention. Along the lines of what others have said, I can see the utility for somewhat specialized topics where the literature is not extensive but starts to get too long for a typical 'Further reading' section. I do question the selection criteria, especially for enormous topics like Canada. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Including any book, even if it's only books related to a specific topic, is indiscriminate and a violation of policy. If we're going to have articles that are just lists of books and they aren't split out bibliographies of an author who is already notable, then we need those lists of random books in a topic to meet one particular criteria to make it a discriminate list. They need to be notable books that have an article already. That should be the criteria we're working with here. Silver seren^C 00:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
No, it is not. It is not any one of the things listed at WP:INDISCRIMINATE, any more than literally any notable list about any topic that has ever existed on Wikipedia is. Per the list guidelines there is no strict need to limit list contents to notable items unless there is consensus to do so. Also the individual entries being notable would not make any difference about it being indiscriminate, at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
If we're making them "lists that reliable sources have also made lists about", that seems just as uncontrolled and random. And, even in such a case, such articles don't follow that requirement anyways as it stands. WhatamIdoing above points out reliable sources on lists of best WWII books. So, we should reduce that bibliography of WWII article to only those listed books, about 50 or so, correct? Should we also WP:SYNTH in any other books that has ever been on such a list ever? Is every list of books on a topic ever made in a reliable source now subject to having a bibliography article made on it? Is just a single reliable source list good enough? Is there a threshold now? What exactly is the criteria being used to claim inclusion on such a bibliography article? As it stands now, the criteria is none and all books ever, it seems. Silver seren^C 01:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
It's just as uncontrolled and random as notability is, because notability is determined by the whims of the media and academia. Doesn't mean all notable things are indiscriminate. It is not synth to put a book that says it's about world war II on a list of books about world war II; by this logic, what is not synth? Would it not be equally synth to use that book as a source if another source did not say it was about WWII?

"Is every list of books on a topic ever made in a reliable source now subject to having a bibliography article made on it?" Is every notable topic subject to having an article made on it?

No, it is just to determine the notability of the list. We do not only have to use notability-proving sources content of the list, per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Or, would you argue that to require we put someone on "list of French poets", they be included in "top 50 french poets"? Or "list of [geographical feature] in X"? Ludicrous.

The guideline is, like any other list, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, which includes bibliographies already in its list type. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
List of French poets still requires actual secondary reliable sourcing on someone being a French poet, however. Or it's subject to removal per WP:V. And, no, using the books themselves as a primary source to themselves is not appropriate. Silver seren^C 01:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Why not, if WP:V is your concern here? The book is certainly verifiable for that. Of course, you can limit it to only notable works if there is consensus for that, and so it may be useful on broader topics, but per the list guidelines that is not mandatory. And our coverage of books is abysmal; most books people use as sources or in bibliography listings are notable, they just don't have articles yet, because our coverage is terrible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not true that List of French poets still requires actual secondary reliable sourcing on someone being a French poet. A secondary source for that would have to do some kind of analysis ("Is this person really French? Is their work really poetry? Did they do enough to be called a poet, rather than a writer who sometimes writes a poem? Analyzing it according to the P.O.E.T. model, this paper concludes that this person probably is a French poet...").

In general, we take any reliable source (not just true secondary sources) for this kind of content, and even fairly low-quality sources are enough when the list really a {{Navigation list}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe they are. I'll agree that some bibliographies should be merged. Especially shorter ones for which WP:GNG "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" cannot be met. But The rule for a standalone bibliography article is simply that bibliographies of the same scope must have been published before. Bibliography of works on Georges Méliès for example, a featured list, cites two annotated bibliographies of Georges Méliès to establish precedent. Not all bibliographies have bothered establishing precedent. For example, articles like List of bibliographies of works on Catullus, another featured list, do not, but that article could be considered split from Catullus bibliography for space reasons, so it doesn't necessarily need to. Some bibliographies, such as Bibliography of works on Madonna, another featured list, don't establish notability but easily could with a few added lines (it already cites Cowden but not the chapter "Madonna"). Raymond Chandler bibliography, another featured list, establishes notability by citing the monograph Raymond Chandler: A Descriptive Bibliography. Josephine Butler bibliography, another featured list, doesn't bother doing so, but a quick search reveals more bibliographies of Josephine Butler have been published than any of the aforementioned except Catullus. The same goes for Agatha Christie bibliography, another featured list. Other featured bibliographies (for the curious):

As you can see, they are all author bibliographies. But there are many subject-specific bibliographies whose notability is supported by even more sources. See Bibliography of World War II#Bibliographies, for instance, which is a very incomplete list of bibliographies of WWII. Bibliography of Italy doesn't cite it, but there is a book, Bibliotheca bibliographica italiana (1889), with a 27 page chapter, Bibliografie di bibliografie, devoted entirely to bibliographies of bibliographies of Italy! Any Wikipedia bibliography article with a matching chapter in A List of Bibliographies of Special Subjects (1902) meets WP:NLIST. Bibliographies of many specific topics have also been covered in more than one encyclopedic aspect, such as the "History of bibliography of Subject X", i.e. A History of Bibliographies of Bibliographies (1955). Once a bibliography grows large enough, it can be split into multiple bibliographies, as happened with the Bibliography of WWII. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 02:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:OPENWIKI needs clarification, and proposal to amend WP:ELNO to address content quality

To date, I've been of the understanding that non-WMF open wikis such as many of those on Fandom, Conservapedia, and RationalWiki, are almost never appropriate in external link sections, but there is a key loophole in that those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. The problem there's little to go by as to what constitutes a substantial history of stability. For example, I'm inclined to think many popular Fandom sites like Wookiepedia, the Marvel Database, The Sims Wiki (Fandom version), as well as maybe Nookipedia.com might fit the bill in that they're wikis with a lot of specialized content that would never pass for inclusion at Wikipedia, they have active communities, and there's not a tremendous amount of in-fighting or external attacks. RationalWiki, Conservapedia, Metapedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and poorly maintained wikis on Fandom, on the other hand, seem like sites that should never be included in an external link section with the exception of the articles on those subjects, due to a history of serious in-fighting and serious external attacks from vandals and worse on the WP:OPENWIKI side in addition to questionable content quality. I've found my removal of the latter sites challenged at least twice, and I think the main reason is disagreement of what a substantial history of stability looks like. What looks obvious to me apparently is not as obvious to others, or I'm just wrong in interpretation.

On the other side of this, I've noticed the content quality side of WP:ELNO leaves a little to be desired. For example, point number 2 would seem to exclude the obvious such as deprecated sites and obvious fake news sites, but what about a link to a page about Chuck Schumer on GOP.com on his article, or a page about Donald Trump on Democrats.org on his article? What about a link to RationalWiki on Clarence Thomas's article? WP:OPENWIKI aside, is seems like common sense for an encyclopedia adhering to WP:NPOV to NOT link to RationalWiki on any article other than the site's own article and possibly one about rationalism if there were consensus that it passed WP:OPENWIKI, just as it seems like it would be common sense to not link to sites owned by political parties except for those parties' own articles and possibly articles directly related to that party's members, yet there is nothing in WP:ELNO addressing bias or any other quality factor other than not to link to sites that publish blatantly bogus content or personal sites such as social media, and it seems like addressing this directly could reduce disputes over the matter (and not just in consideration of RationalWiki).

So to both points, I'd like to propose we amend WP:OPENWIKI to clarify exactly what constitutes "significant stability" and also add a new point addressing non-neutral external links, not necessarily requiring external links to perfectly follow WP:NPOV as we do, but to address sites with an obvious agenda to push, such as GOP.com, democrats.org, moveon.org, sites related to the TEA Party movement, RationalWiki, Conservapedia, Planned Parenthood's websites, etc. Obviously there are places where links to those sites are appropriate, but in my opinion their use should be limited. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Life is too complex for rules to be able to dictate what should happen in every circumstance. What is best for the encyclopedia has to be argued over for individual cases. I haven't looked at what RationalWiki has to say about Clarence Thomas, but I assume it would be an obvious fail of WP:EL. At any rate, there can't be a good definition of what external links are suitable other than what is at WP:EL. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@PCHS Pirate Alumnus, why didn't you ask this question at Wikipedia talk:External links?

I agree with Johnuniq. I don't think we should officially clarify exactly what "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" means, because there needs to be an element of editorial judgement involved. Here's how it works:

Our goal: Send readers to pages that contain content that will interest them. Do not send readers to pages that will be worthless, a mess, defunct, usurped by that gambling company, etc.
First decision: Are you linking a single page (https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Darth_Bane to go in Darth Bane) or the whole site (https://starwars.fandom.com/ to go in Star Wars)? If the first, make sure that the individual page is worth reading. If the second, make sure that the landing page is good (e.g., informative) and that the site contains information (e.g., pictures) that you think a reader would be interested in. Don't send our readers to lousy pages. Every external link in every article should be justifiable, regardless of whether it's a wiki or some other kind of page.
Second decision: Is this a site you can trust to be in good shape in the coming months and years? Some little place that nobody's editing is not (e.g., because low participation means spam or vandalism isn't likely to get caught quickly), and we don't want to send our readers to a page that's at risk of being vandalized or spammed without anyone noticing. Consequently, we're looking for "a substantial history of stability" (if they've managed to keep good pages for a while, they'll probably manage in the future) and "a substantial number of editors" (more eyes on the wiki = lower risk of spam and vandalism going unreverted).
If it looks like a good page and a solid site, then consider linking it. Otherwise, don't. And when editors disagree about the specifics, then consensus is king.

If you personally need numbers, then look for a wiki that has been open for couple of years (no brand-new groups, because the failure rate is high in the early days; no groups that were obviously taken over by another recently) and edits in Special:RecentChanges (or the equivalent for non-MediaWiki software) from at least 30 registered accounts in the last 30 days (=at least one person a day). But I hope you can use good editorial judgement instead of simplistic numbers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Your question about non-neutral links is answered at Wikipedia:External links#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view. External links don't have to be "neutral". WP:ELNO#EL2 is about links to pages that are wrong "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research", not just biased.

For example, in The Call (1985 World Series), we could have:

a webpage arguing that the umpire's call was correct and the Kansas City Royals deserved to win and
a webpage arguing that the call was wrong and the St. Louis Cardinals should have won,

but not:

a webpage arguing that secret government research caused a wormhole to open up the multiverse and the umpire's call was correct in an alternate universe.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles understandable § RfC: Amending the guideline text

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles understandable § RfC: Amending the guideline text. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

One question has been split off from the original for additional discussion: Should "Introduction to.. " articles be retired?. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:+1 and WP:NOTVOTE

I noticed a weird trend on this page and at ANI. Recently a bunch of people started using +1 and Like. I thought we weren't supposed to vote? ~2025-31597-25 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You're correct that discussions aren't strictly votes. When people use templates like these, or simply type "+1", what they're saying is something like "I second the sentiment in this comment" or perhaps "I would have said this, but they beat me to it". You'll generally see these in open discussions where people are simply talking things out and expressing their thoughts. They're not as common if it's a formal poll where people are indicating whether they "Support" or "Oppose" a proposal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes this. Some other Wikimedia wikis have things like Template:Support and Template:Oppose; we don't. Graham87 (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes it's better to do it like that than spend unnecessary time saying the same thing in different words just for the sake of fostering discussion. Katzrockso (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 Rolluik (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and academic consensus

Suppose there is a clear academic consensus on a topic - all the academic sources agree with a certain position. However, there are no sources that state that this is the academic consensus such as literature reviews. What can and cannot Wikipedia say about academic opinion in this situation? Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC. Unless the consensus is explicitly stated Wikipedia should not state it Andre🚐 18:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

But if there is no descent on the matter, it should just be stated as a fact - no need to include whether it's the academic consensus. If no sources say that planets are flat then Planet just says "A planet is a large, rounded astronomical body ..." So it will depend on the specific situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

What if there's no dissent in academia but there is in non-academic sources generally considered reliable?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

That's likely to specific a question, and best discussed at each articles talk page. Is it misreported in a news article due to not understanding the complexity of the issue, or do non-academics disagree due to an issue with language (academics tend to use language very specifically, at times that can conflict with common usage), or one of many other issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

That dissent has not been expressed doesn't it mean it doesn't exist. When there isn't a positive attribute of "scientific consensus", there are better ways to word things that don't invoke a consensus that falls afoul of WP:RS/AC. Katzrockso (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

If everyone says something is a fact, then state it as a fact. To do otherwise would be against basic NPOV. Absolutely don't say that something is the scientific consensus if no sources say that, instead just state it as fact if no dissent exists. If something doesn't exist in reliable sources, because dissent has never been expressed then to iinclude or balance content based on something that doesn't exist in the sources is not NPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

That's is exactly how we get in trouble with neutrality (and there's a very recent issue that this would apply to). We should not be trying to arbitrate what the truth is, particularly if what's at stake is still on going or very recent. Even if all reliable sources only say one stance, we shouldn't assume that's the truth and treat it as a fact until well after the dust has settled, we can review sources far distance from the event, and make a better judgement. Just because no RS discuss opposition to an idea doesn't mean the opposition doesn't exist, and in the short term we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions, particularly if we know that there is such opposition to some degree that is not covered in RSes.

In the hard sciences, there can be theories that there is no disagreement among all reliable sources that the theory is true, but we still present it as a theory and not a hard fact if its clear there still other possible explanations or that they cannot absolutely prove the truth but have found nothing to deny it. This type of attitude needs to apply to the rest of our coverage. Masem (t) 13:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

If something does not exist in a source then including it in content, or in weighing content is not neutral. Arguing that we should say that some sources that that planted are round is nonsense.
By including something that doesn't exist in sources editors are injecting their own opinions on the TRUTH. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, if no opposing view exists in RSes to discuss it, we can't include it, but the absence of that type of information does not automatically make the view covered by RSes the truth to be said in Wikivoice, particularly if it is something that cannot be proven or is highly subjective and contentious. Documenting the prevailing view outside wikivoice (with attribution) when we as editors see that it could be taken as contentious (like, in the midst of an ongoing event or in its immediate wake) does zero harm and keeps us neutral.

The "flat earth" issue is not a good example, because we have decades/centuries of proven evidence that the earth is spherical and thus can readily justify the use of Wikivoice to say its round and not flat. That's a clear case where FRINGE applies, and the documentation of "flat earth" is mainly due to coverage of groups that insist that. On the other hand, the origin of COVID is a prime example. The prevailing theory is that it did not come from the lab, the lab theory rejected by the bulk of reliable sources, but yet we still report COVID being zootrophic in nature as the prevailing theory. Maybe it will take a decade, or a century, before we can flip that to being factually the zootrophic origin, but we can't do that now, and thus take it out of Wikivoice. Masem (t) 14:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

But I've not argued for stating more than what exists in sources, if the sources states it as a theory then follow the source. But if all sources state it as fact, then not stating it as fact is against NPOV. Stating it as fact if all sources state it as theory is the same. The flat earth argument works for the former, the zoonotic origin of COVID the latter. But in each case stating something that is not in the sources is bullshit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Taking something out of Wikivoice and adding some type of attribution is not "stating something that is not in the sources", its simply writing from a far more distance neutral tone, and requires common sense to consider, not blind adherence to the sources and nothing else. Masem (t) 14:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

That argument is saying that we should attribute the earth being round. Absolute adherence to 'everything must be attributed' is not sustainable as an argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Depends on the article… in our article on Flat Earth, where we are comparing the claims of various flat earth proponents to the scientific consensus, it does make sense to attribute the various viewpoints (so readers know who says what). In our article on Earth, we can omit the fringe claims of flat earth proponents and simply state that the Earth is globular in Wikivoice. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Also it is not always more neutral. Adding attribution, when no source states it as anything but fact, is not more neutral - it is adding your own opinion. It's not about blindy following sources but rejecting your own feelings about a subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I assume this is related to Talk:Grooming gangs scandal#Can anyone find any academic sources saying it's not a moral panic? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Per RS/AC, it shouldn't be stated in Wikivoice that there is an academic consensus on a subject if there isn't an RS stating explicitly that. However, if there is no dissent or countering claims in RS and all of the available RS, particularly in academic sources, state one position, then you can (and probably should) state whatever the fact is in Wikivoice directly. To prevaricate on this sort of thing and to make it only a list of such and such says opinion statements is absolutely not a proper way to showcase NPOV on whatever the subject is. No RS dissent means you can state the thing as a fact. Because it is a fact. Because there is no RS statements to the contrary. Silver seren^C 22:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing - yes, that is correct.

@User:Silver seren - the issue in this case is that all academic sources say X, but not all non-academic RS say X.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Generally, academic sources 100% trump news sources, which can be reliable for general information, but not if they conflict with what all of the academic sources say. We wouldn't, for example, use news sources that are credulous toward anti-vaccine stances to then claim there isn't a 100% stance of safety on the subject of vaccines, as the academic sources represent. I feel like if we're ever in a situation where all of the academic sources that exist have one stance and there are news sources claiming otherwise, the news sources should be counted as discredited on that specific topic. Silver seren^C 01:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that holds for hard sciences, on questions for which there is generally one correct answer and the others are false, but in other situations, we really need to look at whether an "academic only" rule improperly excludes viewpoints in violation of WP:YESPOV. Particularly in the social sciences, it's possible for academic sources to disagree with (e.g.,) political sources or financial sources, and since those non-academic views have real-world consequences, it would be non-neutral for the Wikipedia article to report only one viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why political or financial topics would be any different. If a political or financial event is covered in academic sources as meaning or representing one particular thing and some news sources claimed otherwise, we'd still consider the news sources to not be superior to the academic sources. In fact, we'd be likely to consider the news sources to be actively and likely purposefully biased in their representation of the topic because of that contradiction with the academic sources. News sources, on a whole, are both not experts on topics, they're also often misinformed, credulous, and focused on breaking news rather than factual analysis. We use them in the interim when they are the best sources available, but once academic sources are made on a subject, they supersede those news sources completely. As is appropriate, because random news journalists do not trump actual academic analysis of factual reality. Silver seren^C 03:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is when academic sources don't cover a significant viewpoint. In the best-case scenario, we have:

Scholarly sources talk about their abstract viewpoint ("This will produce valuable social benefits")
Scholarly sources talk about the political viewpoint ("I oppose this because I want to be re-elected")
Scholarly sources talk about the financial viewpoint ("This could cause many small businesses to fail")

But sometimes we only have this:

Scholarly sources talk about their abstract viewpoint ("This will produce valuable social benefits")
Political sources talk about the political viewpoint ("I oppose this because I want to be re-elected")
Business news talk about the financial viewpoint ("This could cause many small businesses to fail")

In that latter case, it's not always reasonable to exclude significant viewpoints (which YESPOV says we need to include) just because the peer-review cycle hasn't gotten around to describing those non-academic POVs yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing on this particular article in question based on the talk page discussions, the academic sources do address the "is it just a moral panic" question though. They frequently and often do and all state that, yes, it is a moral panic and not substantive in terms of being a real thing. That is addressing the political viewpoint. Just because political news sources would like to claim otherwise doesn't mean the academic sources very clearly all stating the opposite don't count on that aspect of the topic. Silver seren^C 03:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers such a broad range of topics that it's hard to state any one-size-fits-all rules. Generally speaking, as WP:BESTSOURCES states, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements, and as WP:SOURCETYPES says, When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Putting those two together, if a topic is thoroughly covered by academic sources, the Wikipedia article on that topic should be based on those sources. So if you can write a whole article using only academic sources, ignore other sources. Take, for example, topics like quantum mechanics, democracy, or climate change: it really doesn't matter what non-academics have to say about any of those topics; the academic sources cover it.

If all the best sources say X, then Wikipedia should just say X, as WP:WIKIVOICE explains: Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example 'the sky is blue' not '[name of source] believes the sky is blue.' Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Putting it all together, to answer your original query, if all the academic sources say X, and non-academic sources say not-X, Wikipedia should generally just say X, directly in Wikivoice, and the non-academic sources should be ignored. If not-X were a significant minority view, the academic sources would cover it; if they don't, it means the view is not significant.

Of course, as always, there will be exceptions. The most common is breaking news: academic sources may become outdated, sometimes suddenly, in which case we must rely on non-academic news sources to keep the article current. There were times in history when all the academic sources would have said that the USSR existed, or that no one had ever stepped on the moon, and they all would have been wrong, because they would have been superseded by recent events (until new academic sources were written).

There are also some topics where academic sources really don't cover the entire topic well or in an up-to-date manner even though they are available (e.g. video games, professional wrestling, music, film, sports, art, etc.). In such topic areas, academic sources may not be enough. That's why you need human editors to make case-by-case judgments. But, generally, prefer scholarship over non-scholarship. Some people say scholars shouldn't be weighed more than, say, governments or political commentators, but those people are wrong. Scholars will be the most reliable sources for almost every topic covered by scholarship. Levivich (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The phrase if a topic is thoroughly covered by academic sources is the key one. Most topics are not thoroughly covered by academic sources, and sometimes editors seem to call for 'academic sources only' for the purpose of excluding POVs they disagree with. It's all well and good to say that 'only academic' voices matter for Climate change, but politicians and businesses, rather than professors, are the ones who control how bad it gets. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Silver seren, to put it bluntly, I agree with you. Academic sources are frequently and explicitly written with political intent and are not neutral observers. Pretending that they are and regurgitating their politics creates issues. But it looks like the consensus says that's what we must do, so I have rewritten Grooming gangs scandal accordingly.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion on this page doesn't apply here: [9]. We've got a topic, that originally hit the news when the first criminal case lead to a conviction, and news coverage was criticized AT THAT TIME by academics as 'it almost never happens, so people's concern is out of proportion to the event'. You're arguing to go against WP:LABEL and put "moral panic" in the lead, in wiki voice, not the content of what was said in those articles: [10]. Over the years, as the convictions have increased, more widespread coverage has happened, multiple government reports were written, the topic went international, academics wrote that the previous academics were wrong (which I provided evidence for), academics don't describe it that way any more (like the book from Oxford University that describes it as a failure of government), and those early academics moved on to new topics and just stopped writing about this one. I absolutely reject these changes and challenge the logic you've used to to get there. Denaar (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The change in academic sourcing over time that you describe is why we have WP:AGE MATTERS. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

2025 BBC editorial bias allegations, Contentious Topics Reality Check

Just want to get a reality check on this. Basically there's been a kerfuffle involving the BBC and it's now covered in the article above linked. It already had a controversial talk page notice but I've just thought about it and given the allegations are very specifically around:

Footage of Trump's speech before the January 6 United States Capitol attack
Coverage of Israel during the ongoing Gaza war, with allegations it was deliberately pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel.
Coverage of trans issues within the UK, with allegations of suppression of "anti-trans" stories.

I'm myself convinced it's very much within the scope of CTs WP:CT/AP, WP:CT/AI, and WP:CT/GG so I've now put the appropriate template on the talk page which displays the ArbCom remedies as better safe than sorry. Obviously given how stringent those remedies are (particularly due to WP:CT/AI) can I just get the thoughts of some other experienced editors as to the suitability/appropriateness of this, lest it be considered overkill by the community. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I think we're at right result, wrong procedure here. I think you have to be an admin to actually add restrictions to a page under an AE case, and not a normal editor who has involved themselves on the talk page. That said, what's there looks sane, so ideally a passing admin takes it over, logs it at AE, and we all move on with our day. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be an admin to put the templates on because they're already restrictions in being (i.e. even on a page without a warning, if you edit material that refers to the AI area you're bound to those remedies). Basically from how I understand things to be it's a bit like "signing the Official Secrets Act" in that you don't actually need to sign it before being bound to it, simply that signing it signals you were consciously aware of its restrictions.

I would obviously however need to be an admin to add further positive remedies to it (i.e. EC protection to the article). Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Rambling Rambler in that the restrictions have already been enacted for all pages within the scope of the contentious topic in question. Anyone can post a notice that a page is within scope. There can be disagreement, though, on whether or not a given page (or portion of a page) is within scope. If there is a dispute and a community discussion cannot reach a resolution, then it can be raised at as a clarification request at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, we're pretty obviously in-scope on this one, so I'll stand corrected on the procedure. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

CSD U6 implementation details

Going to self-close since the end result is uncontested:

A bot (presumably AnomieBOT ) may tag pages that are unambiguously U6-eligible] (0 non-userspace edits by user & 0 non-bot-flagged edits in past 6 months). It will tag however many pages newly meet that standard as of a given day, plus 150 old ones. All other details can be sorted out at BRFA.
The bot will use a a |bot_timestamp= parameter in {{db-u6}} (sandbox diff) for all taggings. This will add the page to a day-based subcategory, with deletion if still tagged after 7 days.
I will update WP:U6 to confirm the provisional guidance that humans are discouraged from mass U6-tagging by script. Human tagging behavior is otherwise unimpeded; there is no 7-day wait for these taggings.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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

"User subpages of users who have made few or no edits outside of user space, which have not been edited by a human in at least six months, excluding redirects, .js pages, .css pages, and Wikipedia Books. Promising drafts may be moved to draftspace by any editor as an alternative to deletion."

— CSD U6 (wording as of 14:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC))

An RfC has closed with the enactment of CSD U6 and U7, which replace U5 for the handling of userspace material by non-contruibutors. With U6, which calls for procedural deletion of most such pages if they go 6 months without being edited, there are two implementation details I'd like to follow up on. I'm not making this a formal RfC, because no major new consensus is needed here, but I'll make subheadings below for the two questions I have. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

U6: Bot tagging of unambiguously eligible pages

There is some room for variation in interpretation of U6' "few or no edits outside of user space" rule and "human edit" rule, so some pages will need manual review to see if they qualify. However, in cases where the user has no edits (including deleted edits) outside their own userspace and there are zero edits in the past six months except by flagged bots, a bot could easily tag such pages with near-zero risk of error. I propose a bot to do just that; it would also check that the page is not a redirect, that its title does not end in .js or .css, and that its wikitext does not start with {{saved book}}. Per U6' wording, reviewing admins (or anyone else monitoring the category) would still be able to draftify in lieu of deletion. The bot would ignore pages created before May 2025 (6 months prior to U6' enactment); see below for other pages.

Does that sound reasonable to people? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I put together some bot code for this and the "old pages" task just below, on the assumption that this plan will get consensus. Rather than "ignore pages created before May 2025", though, I'm having it treat any page last edited by a human in May 2025 or later as being a current page rather than an old page. I also decided to exclude .json subpages (there are 12 that would be eligible), as those seem likely to need more human attention in case they're loaded by a ,js page or something. And rather than running this under AnomieBOT, I'll probably create a separate bot account for this one. Anomie ⚔ 03:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we should engage in systematic (bot- or human-) tagging of these articles. This should be a viable option for a page that an individual human editor happens to encounter and believes that keeping the article would be undesirable for a reason specific to the page's contents. For example, please delete (i.e., hide from non-admins' view) a page with insulting content, but don't waste time deleting simple test edits. "Leaving a test page alone" is better than "Test edit page + another copy to tag it (every edit makes a separate copy on the servers) + admin time to verify that it's eligible + log entry hiding ('deleting') the pages". I think the most value we could get from a bot is one that removes bad tags, especially if it can see deleted edits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
We just had a monthlong RfC resulting in consensus that these kinds of pages should be procedurally deleted (with the option of checking for draft quality but no obligation), so I think any attempt to say that that shouldn't be enforced systematically is a nonstarter. I respect that you disagreed with that proposal but I'm hoping we can keep this thread focused on implementing the consensus that the community reached. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Did the RFC actually develop a consensus that it's important to delete a couple hundred thousand old User: subpages, and that we should do so as expeditiously as possible, or did the RFC merely provide an "optional option" that could be applied to as many or – importantly – as few of the eligible pages as we choose to tag? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The RfC explicitly framed this as a procedural mechanism that would apply to all non-contributor subpages with no edits in six months (minus a few excluded categories). "Procedural" was in the name, and my opening !vote included the sentences The logical solution to this is to make the deletion of unmaintained pages in non-contributors' userspace procedural, the same as it is for unmaintained drafts in draftspace. This means that the vast majority of U5 cruft will be deleted without anyone needing to assess it on the merits. (emphasis original). I do not think there was a single participant, for or against U6, who interpreted it as something optional that would only apply ad hoc. But I'm happy to ping SilverLocust if he'd like to comment as closer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin, I've just searched through Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#RfC: Replacing U5 with a primarily procedural mechanism. I did not find the word "bot" anywhere in the RFC. (Give me a link if I missed it, of course.) The RFC does not demonstrate consensus to run a bot to tag these articles. How did we jump from "a procedural mechanism" to "I wanna run an automated bot to tag thousands of pages"? These are not the same thing. (Ping me; I'm not watching this conversation closely.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: The entire premise of the RfC was that U6 would be modeled on G13, which is primarily enforced by bot. Furthermore, RfC-level consensus is not needed to authorize a bot to enforce existing policy. This implementation thread, in which you are the only person opposed to this being done by bot (or one of two if one reads Blueboar's "why" as rhetorical), should suffice as consensus for BRFA purposes. You're of course welcome to raise the matter at BRFA when it's filed, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
If the entire premise was that this would be enforced by bot, why didn't the word bot get mentioned by anyone, ever? It seems like if the goal were to have a bot to tag 161,000 pages for deletion, then someone would actually mention that, at least once. Since nobody did, I question whether editors who were supportive of being able to delete these were actually supportive of this kind of bot-based mass CSD tagging. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
If you want to get particular about it, there was at least one comment explicitly about automation. I couldn't tell you why no one specifically used the word "bot", but I think everyone at WT:CSD knows what G13-style procedural deletion looks like, and it involves bots. You are welcome to contest this with the closer, in a close challenge at AN, or in a follow-up RfC at WT:CSD, but this is the thread for implementing the RfC consensus, and procedurally cannot overturn its outcome. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

U6: Handling of old pages

By my estimate, about 13% of the 2,014,835 non-redirect subpages in userspace are eligible for U6 deletion, and in about two-thirds of those cases the eligibility will be unambiguous (per the same definition as used above). It would place an untenable load on admins were someone to go and tag all ~161,000 unambiguously eligible pages. At the same time, deleting them all in one fell swoop would make it unfeasible for people to go through and rescue salvageable drafts, as U6 allows them to do.

So what I propose is this: On the first of every month, a bot will generate a list of the 1,000 oldest U6-eligible pages. The pages will be tagged with a custom version of {{db-u6}} specifying the one-month timer and putting them in a distinct subcategory. People will then have a month to look through those pages and draftify anything salvageable. At the end of the month, the bot will run a second time to remove any listed pages that are no longer unambiguously eligible and then update some template that will flip the relevant CSD tags from "pending" to "due for deletion" and move them into a different category. An admin can then mass-delete.

A note would be placed in U6 advising users not to tag pages from before May 2025 with U6 if the page is unambiguously eligible. People could still manually U6-tag old pages whose eligibility requires human analysis. After ~~about 3 years this would become obsolete once we catch up with May 2025~~^{incorrect, see below}; we could make it faster by picking a higher number than 1,000.

Thoughts on that? The other option here is just allowing for all ~161k pages to get mass-tagged, which I don't think would be the end of the world, but I do like the idea of leaving some room for draft salvage if people want. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC), ed. 07:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I like the 1000/month proposal. If any single human edit makes the page ineligible for deletion, then the custom U6 template can simply state that if someone believes the page should be kept but not moved to draft space then they should just remove the template. Perhaps a log-only edit filter (or some other method) could track such removals by the owner of the userspace so that a human can review and take it to MfD if they think it needs to be deleted. This seems like the fairest solution for everyone. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, a single edit would remove them from that month's list, but would just restart the U6 timer. Since the idea is for this to be like G13, which is exempt from the no-retagging rule in cases where the six-month window lapses anew. But someone having removed a U6 template should probably keep a page from being tagged by bot, as discussed in the subsection above, since human review may be needed to determine if the removal is "Shouldn't be U6'd yet" or "Categorically ineligible for U6" (e.g. it's in the userspace of someone with significant contributions on another account). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

significant contributions on another account has just made me think of the one question I had during the RfC, but didn't ask. What about significant contributions on another Wiki? Like, say, an foreign language Wikipedia admin who admin who makes a edit notice for their enwiki talkpage, or an editor who tries to start translating one of their articles to enWiki by dumping a few sources into a sandbox? Would these be categorically ineligible? (I dug up a couple examples of pages like this, then promptly lost my notes

) GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 17:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't love the "few or no edits" wording, to be clear; it's a holdover from U5 because we couldn't find a clear better alternative at VPIL that wouldn't risk tanking the proposal, but I'd support changing it to something else. In the case where someone has edits on another wiki, well, they'd be subject to U6 by the letter of the policy, but note that anyone can decline a CSD if they don't think deletion would be non-controversial (excluding a few special rules like G4 and G5). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

{{db-u6}} currently has a "contest this speedy deletion" button. Should it be changed to the {{db-g13}} format (If you plan to improve this subpage, simply edit this page and remove the {{Db-u6}} code.) plus mention moving it to draftspace as a possibility? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a great idea! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Relatedly, we're going to need to either update or duplicate Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13. (I've changed my mind over which would be more appropriate several times now, so I'm just going to throw up my hands and foist the decision off on everyone else.) —Cryptic 19:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I think just making it "/G13 and U6" is the past of least resistance. Or "/Procedural deletions" if we want something more forward-compatible. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion § Requested move 1 November 2025. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Done Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't like 1,000 in a single batch. If we were going to do this IMO unnecessary and time-wasting thing at all, it would make more sense to do 250 per week, or even 33 per day. And maybe have the bot check the size of the category, and only top it up to the limit. That way, if admins decline to bother with these, the bot won't keep dumping new entries on top of the old backlog.

OTOH, I think we've just found the perfect solution for WP:INACTIVITY: Just go delete a handful of User: pages, and now you've "used the tools". Less-than-ideally-active admins should remember that everyone needs to share, so please limit yourself to about 10 of these deletions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The 1,000 per month idea is okay.—Alalch E. 15:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

"Oldest" by latest edit timestamp or first edit timestamp? Either way it's going to be very slow. Sorting by current page length, on the other hand, is practically instant. Currently-longest page for zero live non-userspace edits and less than a thousand edits total; there are 17819 such with length 0, i.e. blanked. (I'd post the query but suspect we'd wake up tomorrow to find that every hit had already been meatbot-deleted, with no checks for alt accounts, viability in the draft namespace, etc.) —Cryptic 17:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The code I've put together takes around 15 minutes to scan all pages for matches, querying the database for batches of 1000000 page IDs, so not too bad. I wound up sorting the results by latest human edit timestamp in post-processing. Anomie ⚔ 03:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I did some querying and found 319306 User-namespace pages that seem unambiguously eligible by the criteria described here, after filtering out all subpages of User:UBX and all flagged bots. Looks like another few hundred could be filtered out by excluding a few unflagged bots operating under WP:BOTUSERSPACE, which pretty much by definition will have zero edits outside of their userspace.

Also of note is that 246726 of the subpages (77%!) are "/sandbox", 12256 are "/Sample_page", 4403 are "/TWA/Earth", 3299 are "/TWA/Earth/2", 2886 are "/be_bold", 2882 are "/Sandbox", 520 are "/citing_sources", 386 are "/Editnotice", 346 are "/Enter_your_new_article_name_here", 250 are "/new_article_name_here", 214 are "/sandbox2", 213 are "/Evaluate_an_Article", 182 are "/About_you", 160 are "/test", 148 are "/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject_Women_in_Red", 146 are "/sandbox/", 143 are "/citations", 130 are "/UserProfileIntro", and 106 are just "/". Anomie ⚔ 18:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, there are 237 pages that have never been edited by a human per the definition used here. Most seem to be sandboxes created by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RagesossBot 2. Subpages of User:StatusBot (those only edited by Chris G Bot 3 before it stopped that task) are another good-sized chunk. The page with the oldest most-recent human edit is User:Burkhold/MyBookMarks, dated 14 November 2003. Anomie ⚔ 18:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for crunching the numbers, Anomie. Presumably (almost) any bot, flagged or not, will be operated by someone who does have non-userspace edits, and "user" in policies like U6 and U7 generally refers to the individual, not the account (although in practical terms keeping track of alts is hard and the occasional mistaken U6 will probably happen on that basis; fortunately U6s can be speedily reversed, like G13). Anyways, point is, can probably safely just have the old-U6-listing bot sort usernames containing bot into a separate list for manual review; once a username is flagged as a bot or other alt, it can be added to a list and the listing bot can ignore it in the future. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

What's the rationale for deleting (i.e., not removing from the servers and not saving any disk space, but just hiding from ordinary non-admins) the pages created through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't strongly object to exempting those, if you want to propose that at WT:CSD. I'd weakly oppose, though, on the basis that adding exceptions complicates enforcement, and there is some small increase in vandalism potential by having unwatched pages sitting around. Neither would be a reason to make specifically those pages eligible for a CSD, but taken together IMO are enough of a reason to not exempt them, given that the pages are entirely value-neutral (i.e. while they don't cause a direct harm, there's also no harm in deleting them). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

After about 3 years this would become obsolete once we catch up with May 2025 I think the math is off on that estimate. At 1000/month, 3 years would only take care of 36k backlogged pages. The estimated 161k pages would have taken about 13 years, and the actual 319k will take 26 years at that rate. OTOH, 1000/week would get though 161k pages in about 3 years, and the 319k in a bit over 6 years. Anomie ⚔ 20:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if it would make sense to do something like "tag 1000 more when the category gets to <10 entries" instead of 1000/month. That way if people work through them quickly, they won't have to wait for a new batch. And having reviewers delete or mark-for-deletion as they go, versus trying to flip any left-overs at the end of a month, could save some duplicate work too. Anomie ⚔ 03:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It is possible that a sleep-deprived Tamzin, in xyr haste to post this promptly after the RfC closed, thought that there are 52 months in a year. I like where you're going with this rolling-window proposal, but I worry it leaves too much room for an admin just steamrolling through the category (as was infamously a problem with U5), since they will all be deletable at admin's discretion. What if we had the old-U6 template work like a PROD? One-week window for someone to rehabilitate the page (including by just removing the template to kick the can six months), and at the end of the week the page is deleted if still tagged. Every time the category drops below 900, the bot can add another 100. This also avoids the overhead of having to have a page where everything's listed, because things will just either be in the "will be deleted after a week's pendency" subcat or the "can be deleted now" subcat. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

That'd be a long year! Or short months. 😀 I don't think I'd want the bot to do the deletion automatically (which I don't think you're suggesting either). I can code "if it drops below 900, add 100" as easily as any other numbers (there'll be a cap for internal reasons, but not one likely to be hit unless someone is steamrolling), and I can have the bot put pretty much whatever tag-wikitext we want.

Beyond the bot part, I don't spend much time doing deletions (speedy or otherwise) so I don't have much of a strong opinion on how exactly they're handled by human admins. Wouldn't a prod-like process have similar issues to the steamrolling admin though, with things getting deleted without really being reviewed? Anomie ⚔ 17:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Anomie: Well my thinking was that the one-week PROD-like window (or make it a month or something else) would provide the window for review by admins and non-admins alike, ensuring that even if the deleting admin doesn't look closely, there's been some chance to salvage drafts and pages that should be preserved for any other reason. Part of my thinking here is based on the idea that, with undeletion being as cheap as for G13, and most of these belonging to accounts who will never edit again, and most of these pages not being salvageable drafts but rather mostly being worthless, the cost of the occasional misfire across 300k pages is not as high as for, say, incorrectly deleting a new article as A7. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd maybe support an exception here for manual tagging the more problematic U6 candidates. Vandalism-adjacent stuff for instance, like a lot of this kind of thing, which would be unambiguous if it weren't in userspace. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

If it's G3 or G10 or something, you can go ahead and do that as always. And personally I'd think a normal amount of manual U6 tagging would be ok, particularly if you're looking at editors who've ever edited outside their own userspace (which the proposed bot here won't handle). The thing here is more that we don't want people to decide to tag thousands of easily identified pages (semi-)automatically, it makes more sense to have a bot do it at an agreed-upon rate. Anomie ⚔ 03:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought G3/G10 were for non-userspace? Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

No, that's WP:G1 and WP:G2. Hoaxes/vandalism (G3) and attack pages (G10) can be speedily deleted in any space. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah OK thanks for the clarification! Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that editors should feel free to U6-tag pages that wouldn't be tagged by the bot, and that limited manual tagging of pages that would be tagged by the bot should be fine. I could see doing that, for instance, for a page that has BLP issues (but falls short of G10 or BLPDELETE), rather than waiting for it to wind its way to the front of the bot's queue.

The policy wording I'm picturing here is something like A special process exists for pages created before May 2025 where the creator has zero non-userspace edits and there are zero edits in the past six months except by flagged bots. It is generally not necessary to patrol such pages, and editors should not do scripted mass-tagging, but it is permissible to tag one if you encounter one. For all other eligible pages from before May 2025, editors may tag as normal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. Let me know if tagging on my part is too much.

For what it's worth, I think manual triage is probably a much better way to tackle this, where vandalish stuff is at the top and drafts are at the very bottom. I don't love the idea of indiscriminate random bot tagging for older pages -- feels like there's too much possibility to sweep up useful drafts and edge cases, when there are probably lots of pages that couldn't possibly be interpreted as useful. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

How about indiscriminate sequential bot tagging? 😀 Seriously though, this part of the bot is more intended as "delivering the backlog for review in smallish chunks". If humans want to specifically search for drafts to rescue or vandalism to CSD-tag, that's fine. We just don't want a meatbot deciding to tag 319000 easily-identifiable pages all at once, or a meat-admin-bot blindly deleting them without actually looking at them. Anomie ⚔ 17:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Why do we (apparently) feel a need to hide these pages? How about "don't create a bot, don't worry about it, and just do everything manually, when and if you see a page that really shouldn't be kept"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I second this question… WHY? Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to take a look at my argument for creating the criterion and my analysis of 20 U6-eligible pages, finding that about 40% of the sample posed some harm in keeping, and 0% had a realistic chance of ever becoming useful pages. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Your definition of "harm" seems to be more expansive than mine. Sure, User:Ozaloy/sandbox is the kind of thing people should post on LinkedIn instead of on Wikipedia. But it got just five (5) page views in the ten years(!) before you complained about it last month. I rate this as zero harm.

But even with your definition, by your own admission, most of these pages pose no harm in keeping. So why bother deleting them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Added extra parameters pending=yes, due=yes and date=October 2025 (example values) to {{db-u6/sandbox}}. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I support a proposal for 1k/week, or a similar rate that doesn't take more than 3 years to complete. FaviFake (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I won't stand in the way of this, and I know enough to know I may well be proven wrong in the long run. However I strongly suspect we are fooling ourselves if we operate on the assumption that there is a rate of deletion that will both result in careful review of every individual page and clear the backlog on any kind of reasonable time scale. Yes some drafts will be rescued, but the input-to-output ratio is going to be rather unfavorable. I can see good arguments supporting both the tag manually as encountered and delete everything via script positions, but I think that in trying to split the difference we are going to end up reducing many of the advantages of those two approaches while incurring a new drawback in the form of a guaranteed workload in addition to the inherent disadvantages of both that are retained. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

(To avoid doubt: I have an account, but I haven't logged in for the previous ~2 weeks. I am posting this logged-out, because right now, I have neither time nor energy to go through my watchlist, notifications, etc. I will maybe respond to comments when I log in.)

Firstly, I don't like the recurrent month-long cycle of nominating, reviewing, deleting pages. I dislike the recurring deadline for checking all the month's pages. I would say that if we want to salvage prospective drafts, one month for reviewing 1000 pages is not always enough. (SD is a niche area. There a wouldn't be any feedback telling us which pages have already been checked and deemed deletable.)

Secondly, here is my counter-proposal:

Anytime, any (sufficiently priviledged) editor could carry out any of following actions on any page deemed eligible under U6 criteria:
- delete it
- draftify it
- mark it as "endorsed for deletion by a non-admin" (This would be equivalent to adding a SD template to that page.)
Anytime, an admin may mass-delete (without review) pages that simultaneously:
- have been marked as "endorsed for deletion" for an amount of time (This time could either be fixed (e.g. 2 months), or decrease based on number of "endorsements" of that page.)
- meet the unambiguous criterion mentioned above ([...] where the [creator] has no edits (including deleted edits) outside their own userspace and there are zero edits in the past six months except by flagged bots [...])

Point 1 ensures that there is always enough work available to do for everybody. Point 2 ensures that the backlog of endorsed deletions doesn't accumulate (when there is too much admin work to do). If the varying-time variant was chosen, it would encourage editors to supervise others rather than to exacerbate the existing backlog.

—~2025-31176-26 (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Relevant to this is the stale userspace drafts backlog; many of these would meet the criteria for U6. Should we notify WikiProject Abandoned Drafts about this discussion? (Also, whatever you do, please don't delete userboxes with at least one transclusion unless they are problematic, unless you really like ugly red links all over userpages.) OutsideNormality (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

General U6+U7 Discussion

There is just one problem: what about the main user pages of contributors whose pages violate WP:UPNOT? I guess when it is a spambot we can delete under G11, maybe other general criteria apply for other cases, I don't know. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 14:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Correct. If any G-series criterion applies, a top-level userpage can still be deleted under that. And per the newly-added wording at WP:UPNOT, if a top-level userpage would be eligible for deletion under [U7] if it were a subpage, it may be blanked by any editor. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin: What, exactly, is the difference between U6 and U7 if they both apply to subpages of non-contributors only and need a six-month waiting period? I've read the policy page and can't find any. Initially I assumed that U7 might also apply to main userpages but when I read the new templates that seems to not be the case. With a few exceptions the main thing I used U5 for (on its own and not alongside G11) was lengthy profiles on main userpages of non-contributors that were obviously autobiographical, very resume-like, and would require a complete rewrite to be published (if we're going to WP:AGF and assume that the person is both notable and has misplaced a WIP draft), and I think that self-promotion of this nature should still be deleted. Passenger pigeon (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
@Passengerpigeon: U7 is measured relative to creation, not most recent edit, so it still applies even if the user is actively maintaining the page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
In spirit, the effect is that U6 is more similar to G13 (have all abandoned userpages expire so we don't have to worry too much about edge cases), while U7 is to deal with the more problematic cases that would be a problem even if they are still "in use". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Should we have a similar limit as the above section per U7? Checking for U7 requires more triage than U6, but based on a few test search queries, there are probably a lot of eligible pages. (For comparison, there's an analogous speedy criterion on Commons, and that category sometimes gets up to a few hundred per day depending on whether anyone's working on the backlog.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think a limit is urgent. Most of the pages now eligible for U6 weren't speedy-deletable before; everything now a U7 should have previously qualified for U5 (but not vice-versa). —Cryptic 21:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
For reference, how are you searching for U6 and U7-eligible pages? Passenger pigeon (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
other U7 question -- what exactly qualifies as "personal life"/"creative writing" stuff? doing a trawl currently, a large amount of it seems to fall in a gray area between U6 and U7, such as this or this. Then there's stuff that would probably fall under (c) but is pretty short, like most of the stuff here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, both of those would count as U6 to begin with. Part of the idea with U6 is that we get to be agnostic as to the merits of the page, only needing to decide if it was inherently problematic in the event that a user requests undeletion. To these specific examples, the first one can be deleted under G3 (might be on the margins, but it's within discretion IMO) and the second is valid use of a sandbox for testing, so should not be deleted. U7 would only come into play if either of the pages was being actively maintained such that U6 couldn't apply, but I don't think either meets any of the U7 subcriteria. And short personal content like "I love my friends" is intentionally excluded from U7 because "limited autobiographical content" is permissible under the userpage policy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Got it. Trying to stay really conservative here (a lot more conservative than my similar edits on commons, certainly) but of course it's not always easy to calibrate that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
@Gnomingstuff: Regarding some of your recent taggings: There's nothing in U7 saying it can't be used on a page that is U6-eligible, and I don't think there needs to be, but just speaking as one admin, if you tag a page for U7 that would also meet U6, you'll probably find me deleting it under U6, for the simple reason that it's much easier for me to check whether it's eligible. In the event the user tries to REFUND it, the reviewing admin can always make the determination then to decline if they think U7 also applies. So you might find it easier for both yourself and CSD admins to tag such pages as just U6. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Good call, thanks. Was probably going to stop with the U7 anyway, it seems more harmless. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I've taken a crack at starting Wikipedia:Replacement of CSD U5 FAQ. I'll drop a note at WP:AN and WT:NPR about this to hopefully reduce the rate of mistaggings. Courtesy pings @Cryptic, Anomie, Pppery, HouseBlaster, and Thryduulf as the sorts of people who might like working on this sort of infopage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
If you're working on it, I'll add that the U6 and U7 templates are now set to only work on user subpages, and show up as a warning banner otherwise, so there's less risks of mistagging. Cryptic also envisioned an edit filter for that matter, I'll drop a note at WP:EFR and you could add that to the FAQ if it goes through. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

U7 Template

There is nor a U7 template nor a template message. I have no idea what wording should be used in one so I can't create it myself, but I feel this was a massive oversight to not have it ready first. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

If a page has been around for 6 months it can wait another a few hours for someone to create {{db-u7}} (if one didn't want to use {{db|u7}}), as was done while I was called away by IRL things. Nobody has yet tagged a page for either, though there was one non-test deletion (that happened to be incorrect) via the dropdown menu. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

(Someone's tagged at least one U7, which also didn't qualify for any part of U7 except that its creator had few edits. (Just like they used to for U5!) I speedied it as G11. —Cryptic 17:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC))

Simplified solution

Looking above at §§ U6: Bot tagging of unambiguously eligible pages and U6: Handling of old pages, I see no opposition on the former, and on the latter I see a rough consensus for doing something to prevent runaway mass-tagging, but not for my own original proposal in particular. Usually when that happens and then a thread dies down it's because things are too complicated, so here is my simplified solution, which requires no tracking page or anything like that:

A bot may tag pages under U6 in cases where no subjective assessment is required
A |bot_timestamp= parameter will be added to {{db-u6}}, to be used both for old U6s and new ones. When specified, it will add the page to a day-based subcategory, like with CAT:PROD, and the template's wording will say something like "Any user may remove this tag to restart the 6-month window, or may move this page to draftspace. Otherwise, it will be deleted on <bot_timestamp+7d>".
The bot's priority in tagging will be: first, all pages that hit 6 months on that day; then, a number of older pages not to exceed a total of 150. Further prioritization can be left to the bot op / informal consensus.
None of this changes how human tagging works, except that humans are discouraged from mass U6-tagging by script. Things in the main CAT:U6 work like any other CSD. The fact that a human made the decision to tag the page supplies the level of review that the 7-day window for bot-tagging is meant to encourage.

Would that work for people? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This sounds like the best possible solution! I like it. FaviFake (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Works for me! I've updated {{Db-u6/sandbox}} with this proposal! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Updating my bot code. Anomie ⚔ 20:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: then, a number of older pages not to exceed a total of 150 150 each day, or 150 total bot-tagged? Anomie ⚔ 23:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Anomie: I had the latter in mind when I wrote this, but I was actually just thinking as I went to sleep last night how that could seriously delay what's already looking like a 6-year process, depending on the volume of new bot taggings. So I think each daily subcat should consist of however many are newly eligible as of that day, plus 150 old ones. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

"Newly eligible as of that day" would potentially be unreliable, if e.g. the bot is down for a day. I liked the earlier definition of "tag any with a last-human-edit after May 2025", although we may want to shift that to the day the bot gets approved instead of May 1 to avoid dumping a month's worth (currently around 600, IIRC) all at once. BTW, looks like the per-day numbers for the first week of November would have been 58, 54, 60, 42, 70, 83, and 77. Anomie ⚔ 13:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that works for me. So basically: The bot tags any eligible pages it can find that were created more recently than <six months before its BRFA approval>, plus 150 pages from before that date. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

BTW @Tamzin and Chaotic Enby: It would be useful to create a template to use when creating the daily category, so the bot can create it with something like {{Db-u6/daily bot category|bot_timestamp=2026-06-01}} before starting to populate it. Anomie ⚔ 01:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Done, although I made the parameter {{{timestamp}}} for conciseness. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

My main concern is whether people are actually going to go through these after the initial burst of activity in the first few weeks or so. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff: For the most part probably not. But Wikipedia is a volunteer service and there's nothing we can do to make anyone do anything. I think what matters is giving people the opportunity if they want it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

With three days since I suggested this, three supports, and no opposes, I'll suggest that if no one has any objections in the next day or two, this whole thread can be closed, with any remaining details to be sorted out at BRFA, and an explanatory note added to WP:U6 including the discouragement of human mass-tagging. WT:CSD can of course change any of the implementation in the future, likewise without need for a full RfC since none of this changes the core of the criterion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Works for me! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me FaviFake (talk) 20:15, 11 November 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.

Evidence that suggests the common name of the People's Republic of China is anything but the "People's Republic of China"

Dear WikiCleanerMan, the Government of the People's Republic of China, as you probably know much better than me, was proclaimed in 1949. The name "People's Republic of China" has been widely accepted by other governments, and the PRC was admitted to the United Nations under that name in the early 1970s. In my specialist field, invariably the references are to the "People's Republic of China", including Category:Military units and formations of the People's Republic of China. For example, the US DOD publishes a document known as the "Military and Security Developments involving the People's Republic of China."

You have started to try and change a large number of categories involving these terms. Before I start an RfC and/or an ARBCOM case for what appears to be a massive exaggeration of the commonality of the term, would you kindly like to present *why* you believe "China" has now been widely enough adopted as the *common* name of the People's Republic of China? Should say, I do not believe that having the main article as "China" creates enough precedent to change all the terms associated with the People's Liberation Army. Kind regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

All involved in this dispute should probably read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about where you work, but most English-speakers refer to the PRC as China... Lazman321 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

"China" = 2 syllables

"the People's Republic of China" = 9 syllables ― Tosca-the-engineer (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

"would you kindly like to present *why* you believe "China" has now been widely enough adopted as the *common* name of the People's Republic of China?" You're trolling us, right? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Revisiting micronational flags in infoboxes.

I think that Micronational flags should be reinstated due to the fact that

Micronations usually take pride in their flag
Micronations technically do declare themselves to be sovereign by the Montevideo Convention.

So I dont really understand the reason why Micronations dont have flags in their infoboxes shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Well the Montevideo Convention is something that only states in the Americas ever signed up for. Not the rest of the world. And the majority of micronations are not in the Americas. Plus micronations are not recognised internationally as states. And most micronations don't meet the criteria in that they don't have their own territory or population. A couple people coming out to live temporarily in an area does not constitute a population. At the end of the day micronations aren't really a thing, just the fantasies and creative fiction of some people. Canterbury Tail talk 19:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Some do, like Molossia, they technically own their area outside of Dayton, Nevada shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

They own the land, like I own my land. However it's still part of the country it resides in. I can call my land whatever I like, but doesn't make it separate to the country its in. Canterbury Tail talk 21:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Not all micronations have a single flag that is recognised by reliable sources as representing that micronation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

List of micronations shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't disprove my comment - Westarctica and Kingdom of Redonda both seem to have multiple different flags reported in sources. I didn't look any further down the table than that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The Principality of Sealand and Molossia both have their flag flying in the images provided in the source

Source for Sealand: source

Source for Molossia: source

Both sources have the flags flying, I think I can find even more

Slowjamistan's flag: source

Austenasia's flag (held up by one of the citizens): source

Talossa's flag: source

And I think there is many more shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

There are many micronations with their flags flying in images taken by reporters or people interested in some micronations shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

You're arguing against a strawman. Just because some micronations have a single flag that is recognised by reliable sources as representing that micronation is not at all relevant to the point I made. That photographs exist showing a flag of a micronation does not prove that reliable sources agree that that specific flag, and only that specific flag, represents that micronation. It's clear that some micronations have one or more flags that some or all reliable sources agree represents that micronation, but that doesn't demonstrate that my statement is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia care in the slightest what 'Micronations' (i.e. almost nobody) wants? This isn't MIcroWiki, and we don't tailor content to suit the wishes of random fantasists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

If you want to revisit an issue, it would be helpful to link to the RFC that led to the current state of affairs: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 191#RfC: micronation infoboxes. -- LWG ^talk 19:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

"Micronations usually take pride in their flag" So? This isn't something we need to take into consideration. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. If I take pride in something it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should have an article about me, or, even if we do, include the thing I take pride in in its infobox. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Question: Request for help

Hello, editing is about learning new things, my many medical issues stress my brain out, their worsening to the point it takes 10 minutes to comprehend something and it makes me not the right person for this even though I'm so young its not fair. But before I went into SVT I did intend on dealing with sockpuppetry/vandalism of Cheyenne mountain complex, I have taken wiki breaks to allow the sockpuppetry to continue to prevent a edit war or edit conflict. Can someone do something? Tokeamour (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I can comprehend it if it was explained to be honest unfortunately but will try to help. Tokeamour (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I know this isn't the right place but I really not their anymore and really am trying to navigate it correctly. Tokeamour (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

A better place to ask might be WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Just a question

Are helpful proxy edits permitted? ArionStar (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked.

Yes. —Rutebega (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC) editing to clarify that ArionStar originally linked to WP:PROXY, apparently by mistake, leading me to misunderstand their question. They retargeted the link after my comment. —Rutebega (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Context: I'm indefinitely banned on Commons and several users warned me not to discuss edits to Commons files here on en-wiki. ArionStar (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like good advice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

A commons ban does not apply on this wiki. It's possible you may be putting other commons users at risk if they proxy for you on commons - I don't see anything in their blocking policy, but then I'm not too familiar with the nuances of their policies. You / they would need to ask there. It's a bit of a suspicious question, so I'd advise not taking the mick. We like to get along with commons admins, and cross-wiki disruption can be um disruptive, but as far as enwiki goes there isn't an inherent problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Evolution and ending

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 85 § Evolution and ending

– ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Fringe theories and synthesis policies - contradiction?

Is there a contradiction between two core policies, NPOV and OR? WP:FRINGESUBJECTS says "Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included", while WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

Obviously there's no problem with reconciling the two in the main article about a fringe topic, but where fringe theories are discussed in the context of another article it may get trickier. Example: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Reform UK. A section of Reform UK discusses their climate policies and views, which are fringe. The discussion is about balancing the presentation of Reform's side with mainstream reactions. I thought that should be done using reactions in reliable sources specifically about Reform to avoid improper synthesis, but it has been suggested that sources that don't mention Reform could be used to satisfy NPOV. Is there a clash and, if so, how can the policies be reconciled? Fences&Windows 21:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It is common practice on Wikipedia to identify pseudoscience/misinformation otherwise many fringe-focussed articles would be given a 'free hit' to expound un-countered misinformation. For example for the propaganda film Died Suddenly, it is pointed out that COVID vaccines don't suddenly kill you contrary to the film's narrative. Likewise if a view in an article is being aired that climate change somehow "isn't real" (be it Reform UK or anywhere else) it should be indicated that this is not the scientific consensus. There may be an discussion to be had about whether this is WP:NOTSYNTHESIS (probably it is), but it would be moot since NPOV is explicitly the non-negotiable policy pillar. I'd have no objection adding an explanation to WP:SYNTH to avoid any possible confusion.

Wikipedia is not in the business of "balancing the presentation of Reform's side with mainstream reactions" as this would be textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. We are obliged to describe fringe ideas "in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world" for NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

When confronted with this question in the past I generally point to Wikipedia:Does deletion help? Moxy🍁 00:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

And indeed NPOV does give the option with fringe content: EITHER omit it OR ensure it is qualified with mainstream context. Bon courage (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, like it or not, that's 100% synth. It's better just to leave fringe content out if there are truly no suitable sources to refute it. Remember that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

SYNTH is not policy, it's part of a policy against original research. And that policy states:

when incorporating research into an article, editors must provide context for this point of view by indicating how prevalent the position is and whether it is held by a majority or minority.

The problem is bad drafting, which encourages editors to view SYNTH in isolation. Which is probablty why WP:NOTSYNTH exists, and band-aid exhortations like "Because these [core content] policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another". Bon courage (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

If a major organization holds an official stance, it is okay to state that they hold that stance. Simply stating "_________ has stated that they believe Russia is not a real place" is fine. You could link the page for Climate change, but as long as we aren't using Wikivoice to endorse their stance or refute it, there isn't a contradiction. If a source later comes out and refutes the claim the organization made specifically, we could state "_________ has stated that they believe Russia is not a real place. _______ has described these views as "out of touch with reality"." We've seen this ALOT on the Martin Kulldorff page. Specifically, the text:

In December 2021, Kulldorff published an essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he argued against children receiving vaccination against COVID-19, falsely claiming that influenza was a greater risk to children than COVID-19. In a critical response published in Science-Based Medicine, Jonathan Howard noted errors and factual inaccuracies in Kulldorff's essay, pointing out that while influenza was responsible for only one child death in the 2020/21 season – while public health mitigation of COVID-19 was in place – COVID-19 killed more than 1,000. In addition to this, Kulldorff's essay omitted that children who are infected with COVID-19 are at risk for rare but serious conditions, such as MIS-C, with 8,862 confirmed cases of children with MIS-C by March 2023.

The original text read:

In December 2021 Kulldorff published an error-laden essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he falsely claimed that influenza was more hazardous to children than COVID-19, and on that basis illogically argued against children receiving COVID-19 vaccination. In reality, influenza had been responsible for one child death in the 2020/21 season, while public health mitigation of COVID-19 was in place – COVID-19 had, in contrast, killed more than 1,000. In addition to this, Kulldorff's essay omitted that children who are infected with COVID-19 are at risk for rare but serious conditions, such as MIS-C, with 8,862 confirmed cases of children with MIS-C by March of 2023.

I argued that the original was using Wikivoice inappropriately and I think the updated version is better, although perhaps not perfect. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The trouble is that stating fringe ideas (like why the Holocaust was a hoax, or how black people are less intelligent than white people, or how tylenol causes autism) and just waving them through without comment, is a violation of NPOV and NOR. Which is why it isn't done on Wikipedia, Similarly for the MAHA crew's many erroneous statements about human health, as with Kulldorff. However since for Kulldorff there is good sourcing that focuses on his errors, it is really irrelevant to the issue at hand here, which is about when corrective sources are not specific to the named topic of the article. Bon courage (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I had to fight pretty hard to get that section to focus on the corrective source. Stating "___________ has stated they believe the holocaust is a hoax" could link the page Holocaust denial, which will likely do a fairly good job of contextualizing it. We don't have to avoid saying that a person or organization thinks wrong things, we just shouldn't endorse or refute them with Wikivoice. Excluding the wrong thing that a person or organization thinks is a form of Wikiturfing. Readers can conclude that the person or organization spouting Holocaust denialism is factually incorrect, but not stating they believe the thing might make them appear more reasonable. In Kulldorffs case, "In December 2021 Kulldorff published an error-laden essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he falsely claimed that influenza was more hazardous to children than COVID-19, and on that basis illogically argued against children receiving COVID-19 vaccination" was uncited, and therefore it was Wikivoice stating the essay was error-laden, making false claims, and employing illogical arguments. In the updated version, we rely on Jonathan Howard to assert that the claims were in fact false. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Per NPOV, "The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such" (my underlne). Any editor removing such qualifications about Holocaust denial I would expect to be sanctioned for fringe POV-pushing. Again, Kuldorff is irrelevant to this case but it's good neutral writing to point out people's fringe proclivities in Wikivoice; that David Duke is a conspiracy theorist who promotes holocaust denial is not in doubt, and Wikipedia duly asserts it, to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Giving context in an article is not SYNTH, but simply part of writing an article. You shouldn't put the entire history of the England into the article of one of it's villages. But you could include a sentence to give context to it's founding if it's historically relevant. If it was founded in 1140 due to the devastation of several other villages, a sentence giving the context of The Anarchy would be appropriate and not SYNTH. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

There were similar discussions recently, WT:NOR#Context and WP:NORN#Context in articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how this would not be synth. You are using sources unrelated to a topic to say things that no RS has ever said about the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Generally, if no RS about the article topic says "X," Wikipedia shouldn't say "X." If no RS writing about the topic thought that "X" was necessary or helpful context to include for its readers, then "X" is unlikely to be necessary or helpful context, and Wikipedia editors who think that "X" is necessary or helpful context are almost certainly wrong. Wikilinks can be used to provide additional context to readers. This general rule should be open to case-by-case exceptions (WP:IAR), particularly for barely-notable topics where there are scant RS. But if 1,000 reliable books have been written about "Topic A" and none of them mention "Fact X," then the Wikipedia article about Topic A shouldn't mention Fact X, either. That's what WP:No Original Research is all about. This is a hallmark of "forward editing" ("here are three RSes about the topic, let's summarize what they say") vs. "backward editing" ("here's what the article should say, now let's find RS to support it"). Levivich (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Climate Change as an article doesn't need the Reform UK's point of view on it. This is what the guidance about Fringe is all about. The Reform UK's article should have their point of view on Climate change on it (assuming it's a significant part of their platform, has drawn media coverage and discussion, etc), and GeogSage provides good guidance on how it should be done. Denaar (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Anne drew, Parakanyaa, and Levivich. If an editor pulls from sources that don't even mention the article's subject, they're effectively deciding that they know better than the sources on what to include. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. The "subject of the article" isn't always the subject of the paragraph. If the subject of the Wikipedia article is a book, and the subject of the book is a false claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, then sources discussing HIV/AIDS are fine for placing the book's subject in context. You don't necessarily need a source that says "The exact book HIV is Harmless and Doesn't Cause AIDS by Ima Dummi is wrong to engage in HIV/AIDS denialism by saying that HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS". You cannot present Wikipedia:Fringe theories without providing appropriate context. The appropriate context in that case is that HIV isn't harmless and actually does cause AIDS. If you can do that with a WP:PARITY source that mentions the book by name, then great! And if you can't, then do it with the best source for the statement that HIV denialism is scientifically stupid that you can get your hands on. If you need to call this "common sense and the occasional exception" to feel like it's justified by the rules, then do that. If you need to remember that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a policy equal to all others, then do that. But don't set up barriers to appropriate, encyclopedic, accurate content: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I?, and before writing appropriate, encyclopedic, accurate content, editors do not need to be endlessly asking "Policy, may I? May I really do what's right by the reader and the article?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

"Ditto marks" guideline?

Referencing the table at Doctor Who series 13#Soundtrack here. I've implemented the usage of "ditto marks", to indicate "as above" in the case of a repeated episode. Do we actually have any guideline that suggests the use of ditto marks? For reference, the alternate options could be seen at Doctor Who series 12#Soundtrack (no entry, leaving duplicate cells empty), or Doctor Who series 11#Soundtrack (repeating the previous cell, without linking). -- Alex_21_TALK 07:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know of a guideline. I prefer repeating the content to using "ditto marks", to help readers who may be unfamiliar with that symbol, but both are acceptable to me. I think leaving the cell blank is a terrible idea. Though I can see how this would make sense to a TV editor (because the tracks are in chronological order), it was not obvious to me that blank cells matched the preceding episode, and I fear many readers will be similarly confused. Toadspike [Talk] 11:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Originally the tables for formatted as such at Doctor Who: Series 12 (soundtrack), but the track listing template does not allow for rowspans. The thought behind the blank cells is fair enough. -- Alex_21_TALK 01:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There's plenty of albums that use 11-style formatting for contributors. It's less ambiguous than ditto marks. Omnifalcon (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

True, but 1) other articles using a particular formatting doesn't always make it the most valid option, and 2) the example provided allows for minimalism, e.g. linking Max Martin and Oscar Holter at their first occurrence, then simply listing them by their surname afterwards; that's not available for episode title names.

Either way, I don't believe there is a guideline for or against the use of ditto marks. -- Alex_21_TALK 01:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not aware of any guidance regarding ditto marks. However:

You have not actually implemented the usage of ditto marks. You have used a double prime template {{''}} which produces ″ (←yes, that was it). The second sentence at the ditto mark article to which you linked tells us, The mark is made using a pair of apostrophes; ... the symbol " (quotation mark)..., but the double-prime template produces a teeny, black, slanted blotch that inspires me to clean my display. The template you've used is for displaying a number of minutes.
I had to zoom up my display to verify that there were two strokes there. As such, it is not recognizable as a ditto mark.
My preference to even actual ditto marks ( ", for example) would be the style in use at Doctor Who series 11#Soundtrack (repeating the previous cell, without linking). It's the only one that's clear.

— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I would think that ditto marks may present an accessibility issue, as it may not be clear when read by a screen reader which data it is referring to. We could have a template that adds the original text as an HTML attribute, but I think just repeating the text is clearer. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. Ditto marks simplify visually, but a template could provide the data for a screen reader. Substituting "(same) as above" may be the best and simplest option, especially if the dittos are original to a source listing. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Implementing rowspans into the track listing template would also prevent the need for ditto marks or repeated information, and are still accessible to screen-readers. -- Alex_21_TALK 21:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I prefer dittos for simple cases, not for complicated ones (like that Weeknd album). They affirm the list was checked and something belongs there. Dittos can prevent file bloat and errors (like accidentally copying to the wrong row), while making things easier to understand at a glance.

Blank fields should be reserved for actually blank fields in a mostly blank list. "Music Inspired by Doctor Wot" could have all original music, except for tracks 17-21 being suites from an Episode. The table would be all blank except for 17) Flying Tarragon of Vega, followed by dittos for tracks 18-21, and then a return to blank space until the end of the listing (incidentally, "vega" is a flying eagle). --Edwin Herdman (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think “ditto marks” should ever be used. There’s enough confusion between curly/non curly quotes and apostrophes Dronebogus (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

"WP:Writing articles with large language models" is now a Guideline

Per a successful RFC, Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models has been promoted to a Wikipedia Guideline. qcne (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Obvious a good thing to have, but shouldn't this also address what to do when one sees a likely LLM based content, as well as any possible advice where LLM could be used at as only a starting point for writing out by hand? Feels unnecessary fir literally a one sentence guideline when much more can be written. Masem (t) 14:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

These very obvious, crucial deficiencies are among the reasons I and others opposed making this a guideline. The close does note among other strong caveats that In particular we need community consensus on (a) How to identify LLM-generated writing and (b) How to deal with it when it does occur. and it has to be construed conservatively and narrowly for the time being. Until the community has decided on a test of what constitutes an LLM-generated contribution, the threshold is consensus; and this means that we have to treat an edit as human-generated until there's consensus otherwise. (emphasis in the original). Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Was that related to this help desk question? --Edwin Herdman (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I was opposed to it. You could drive a bus through it, as it's so badly written that most editors who decide to use LLM's in a professional manner (UPE's) will completely ignore it, even though at same time, they are following the stricture exactly. It is early days though and it will be expanded soon enough I'd imagine. scope_creep^Talk 01:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

One can only hope. I was delighted to hear that there was a new guideline addressing this dire problem -- I'd say that over half the threads on the noticeboards now are LLM-related -- until I read it, and shook my head at how weak it was. So as long as the LLM edit isn't a new article creation, it's just dandy? Ravenswing 15:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Technically it doesn’t even ban that; the lack of clarity about what “from scratch” means you could easily interpret it to mean that creating a new article with an LLM is perfectly fine so long as you feed it information first. In other words, you cannot ask an LLM to generate an article “from scratch”. ~2025-37989-52 (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This guideline is the way it is because more nuanced proposals kept getting ~~stonewalled~~rejected, so eventually things got boiled down to what was effectively "AI yes/no?". With that said, there is currently RFCBEFORE in progress on promoting Qcne's proposal to a guideline, as well as many potential expansions/improvements to WP:NEWLLM, if any of you are interested. :) -- LWG ^talk 15:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The proposals didn't get "stonewalled", they got rejected or ended up as no consensus because they were flawed in some key way. Its incredibly disheartening that the same wasn't true of the NEWLLM discussion despite how clearly and frequently all the flaws with it that are now causing problems (and some that haven't yet) were pointed out before it was adopted. Writing policies and guidelines is hard at the best of times, and the issues with LLMs that are not simple violations of existing policies and guidelines are hard to actually define (and in some cases hard for people who see such issues to explain why they are actually problematic). Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, perhaps stonewalled was too strong a word. I do understand and respect your position in these discussions, even though I think your refusal to allow the bulk of the community who prefers a different path to move forward is a big part of what got us to WP:NEWLLM. -- LWG ^talk 05:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It's far from just me who regard badly written policies and guidelines that have a very strong likelihood of consequences like biting newbies as worse than using existing policies and processes that can and do do the job without requirement for unnecessary subjective guesses about whether AI was or was not used. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Well sure, there's near unanimous agreement on everything in that sentence up to can and do do the job, at which point you are firmly in the minority as far as I can tell. -- LWG ^talk 16:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately for newcomers who don't know, the community's prevailing attitude towards LLMs appears to be "kill it with fire". I think the best way to keep newbies from being bitten is to explicitly warn them that a large portion of this community despises LLMs and LLM-generated content and will remove it on sight. I have made comments like these before (example) and I feel they are more helpful than a standard {{uw-ai1}} template. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

We appear to have different views about what constitutes a minority then. I agree that there are a lot of vocal editors in these discussions who want to kill everything even remotely related to AI with fire, but regardless of whether that is desirable or not it is simply not practical and doesn't represent a consensus of editors - otherwise there would be a policy or guideline to that effect already. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I think "Anti-AI" viewpoints often appear to be the majority because people holding them are more likely to speak out. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the vocal minority (why is that a redlink?) is often a thing and nuance often gets lost when it is. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Changes to implement on Wikipedia:Global rights policy

I have a few suggested changes to discuss before implementing them on the global rights policy:

Should we add images of global user groups within their respective sections? Some sections can be excluded if they do not have their own user global user group image such as staff, system administrators, ombuds, etc. The Chinese Wikipedia's global rights policy had done this before.
Should we add a short introduction for some of the global user groups (of what they are and what they do)? One example is located below.
For global user groups that are allowed to view temporary account IP addresses globally, should we add a new sentence provided they comply with the WMF's policy? It would be: In addition, [global user group members] can view temporary account IP addresses and use the IP Information tool, provided they comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
I propose that we add a section for abuse filter maintainers:

Abuse filter maintainers are users who are permitted to view, and where appropriate, modify edit filters on all wikis. By default, they may use their rights on the English Wikipedia, provided they have not previously had the administrator or edit filter manager right removed involuntarily, other than procedurally for inactivity. If such a removal has previously occurred, they must request and be granted administrator and/or edit filter manager access locally prior to using this access. Furthermore, any English Wikipedia administrator can ask an abuse filter maintainer to stop using their global privilege if what they deem to be misuse occurs, and the abuse filter maintainer must comply with such a request. Such a decision by an administrator can be appealed to the wider community.
On the English Wikipedia, abuse filter maintainers can only perform non-controversial maintenance to edit filters, such as making changes to prevent a filter from breaking due to upcoming changes to the AbuseFilter extension itself. Notes should be left in the filter description explaining why the change was needed, and listing the relevant Phabricator tasks if applicable. It is recommended that abuse filter maintainers should inform the edit filter noticeboard before or after making changes to filters.
In addition, abuse filter maintainers can view temporary account IP addresses and use the IP Information tool, provided they comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.

Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

All of these changes sound sensible. The images would be especially helpful for folks from other projects who may not know the English terminology to identify the sections they're looking for. Toadspike [Talk] 09:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Toadspike, it's been almost five days and there seems to be no objection (aside from your comment), would it be okay to implement this bold change? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd be okay with it, yes, though personally I'd let this sit for at least seven days before claiming we have a silent consensus. Toadspike [Talk] 18:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Doing per WP:SILENCE... Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Done, see Special:PermanentLink/1325746684. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:NoDisclaimers - rationale, purpose and exceptions?

WP:Disclaimer highlighted instances of unacceptable disclaimers, and provided the following reasoning:

"All articles are already covered by the Wikipedia disclaimers [... and in every] Wikipedia page [there] includes, right at the bottom, a link to the [general disclaimer]" "...Warnings are often redundant with the standard Wikipedia disclaimers. Were they to be permitted, they could create a false sense of security, by creating a misleading impression that all potentially problematic content is flagged, and therefore that articles without disclaimers are inherently "safe"."

Which... is like saying (1 "we're doing our bare minimum to fulfill our legal duties", and (2 "it's the users' responsibility to find and read the disclaimer, which is available as a hyperlink among the legal-fineprints at the bottom of the page". Which I find to be absurd. We designed our website in a way that visitors are unlikely to ever stumble across the disclaimer, ever, (I never did,) even in scenarios where it is important to show it to the reader - articles containing traumatizing and egregiously graphical depictions of violence, for example, the Japanese war crimes where IP users complained about being disturbed by the article.

I struggle to understand what we risk of losing by having a disclaimer upfront here. The aforequoted "to avoid the harm of giving a sense of security, we never warn about any harm" rationale might stand in some cases, but does it overweight the cons in all cases, when on the other side of the table sits a bunch of nightmare fuels?

To bypass the "false sense of safety" problem, how about this for a disclaimer: "This article contains graphical depictions of violence." A statement with less subjectivity. Or that we create an alternate Wikipedia header that puts the disclaimer link on the top of the page - and have the relative sections highlighted. (Jeez typing out this sentence made me feel like a corporate ars_[censored]).

iris, 2:40am, edited 2:44am. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 18:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Saying "This article contains graphical depictions of violence." doesn't bypass the false sense of security for other articles where there is no such notice. If you read five articles which do have that notice, then Japanese war crimes which doesn't for whatever reason, it would be reasonable to assume there are no graphical depictions of violence in that article. You would need to make sure every article has a disclaimer covering all breaches of all cultural norms and maintain that full coverage at all times. ~2025-37040-20 (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

And that's assuming you can find agreement on what constitutes "graphical depictions of violence" - for example which of the articles Ducking stool, The Itchy & Scratchy Show#Origins, Circumcision surgical procedure, Mousetrap#Jaw mousetrap and Phan Thi Kim Phuc contain graphic depictions of violence? Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to debate the scope of "graphical depictions of violence", but I also think there's a line beyond which all contents are unambiguously graphical / violent by mere common sense. E.g., "We can't clearly define the boundary for underage exploitation materials, but some definitely is." 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 11:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You still have to decide where to draw that line, and you will get complaints from people who would draw the line in a different place. For example if was decided that the mousetrap example above was not a graphical depiction of violence (perhaps because the subject of the violence is not human) but the others were. Then you get complaints from a reader who is angry/upset/appalled/whatever that they (or their child or school class etc) were exposed to a display of what they regard graphic violence because there was no warning - especially when they found that something as (in their view) completely harmless and non-violent as a medical procedure was preceded by a warning. A reader with a different religious and/or cultural background, even in the same part of the same country, could very well take the exact opposite view about what is and is not "graphic violence" and would complain in exactly the same terms if a different decision had been made.

It's also worth point out here that graphic violence is easier to define than something like nudity (another commonly requested category). Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

But even then, so what? It's not like by ignoring the problem less people are going to get offended. And extending this all-or-nothing rationale vice versa ad absurdium, a person can reason that "Wikipedia never warns me about any offensive materials, therefore all of their contents are potentially dangerous to me".

Just because we can't put a landmine warning in front of every mine fields doesn't mean we don't place them anywhere at all. By not providing a false sense of security, we're instead providing a false sense of danger - that behind every wikilink may be a source of mental distress, and that it's better not to navigate the Wikipedia. 7:37p, edited 7:41p 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 11:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia never warns me about any offensive materials, therefore all of their contents are potentially dangerous to me. This is correct, see the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer which starts with a big, all-caps heading stating Wikipedia contains content that might be objectionable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I know. I know that this is legally good-enough as a disclaimer. But if we're really asking the users to take it literally, we will stop being such a popular site.

And shouldn't we apply this way of thinking to the "do add content warning" argument, too? That "we never promise that all content that may be objectionable would receive a warning, so don't expect we protect you from everything". 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 12:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia became a popular site using this approach, so I don't understand the claim that this approach will suddenly make it unpopular. (Of course, I don't understand the mindset of someone who goes to an article on war crimes and is surprised that the information and images are upsetting either.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

There are euphemistic styles to cover a topic, and we don't do that here. But we might want to point out this fact, up front, sometimes. It's unlikely that a new user would stumble across WP:Euphemism.

I was almost going to suggest a Cookie-based first-time pop-up containing TLDR of Wikipedia's disclaimers. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 18:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but anyone complaining about an article on war crimes depicting war crimes should just be laughed at.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A lot of people laughes at a lot of people, indeed. People have expectations about Wikipedia, some of them wrong. It's just through what method we tell them they're wrong - upfront or by the harsher way. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 18:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is that content warnings don't work. In some contexts (though perhaps not reading a website), a small number of readers are actually harmed by these content warnings (e.g., because they take the warning as evidence that the contents are so scary that they're not expected to be able to cope, and they live down to the expectations [idiom meaning: they behave worse than ordinary, because they think we expect or want them to behave poorly]). Also, banner blindness is a thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand.

I'd say we should try to do something about these articles; we're kind of at analysis paralysis here because we deem all solutions so far not good enough.

After the discussions, I'm thinking about "Showing new viewers (since we have temporary account and cookie now) a pop-up with a TLDR for Wikipedia's content policy" instead. And we include "WP is not censored" there. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 09:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

We shoudl try to do something see the politician's syllogism, just because some people (and in this discussion that's basically only you) think there is a need to do something that doesn't mean that every possible something is a good idea. Specifically regarding popups, the more popups you show people the less likely they are to read them. The longer the popups you show people the less likely they are to read them. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

... You're right.

Thank you to everyone here, I get the point now.

iris (unsigned-in) ~2025-38382-08 (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The solution here is to write image captions that accurately describe the images, then concerned users can use one of the options here to selectively view only the images they want to see. -- LWG ^talk 14:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems much more nuanced than a pop-up.

But just one last question, should we put a small option to hide images at the top of the page instead of having the reader to go to settings themselves?

But in any case, I see the point now. Thank you all for the comments. :)

iris (unlogged-in) ~2025-38382-08 (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's probably fine to let the few people who want this feature find it and set it up themselves rather than clutter up the interface for everyone. -- LWG ^talk 06:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Status of WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions

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

There is a clear consensus for alternative B. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 12:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Should WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions be:

Moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Brussels) and confirmed as a community-wide naming convention guideline?
Moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Brussels) and made a supplemental information page of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), commonly known as 'NCPLACE'?
Kept at its current title and marked as a Wikiproject advice page?
Marked historical as unneeded, unenforced or lacking consensus?

If C or D are adopted, the following guidance at WP:NCPLACE#Belgium would be removed: The Brussels naming conventions should be used for articles related to Brussels.
If C or D are adopted, a discussion would be opened to determine the status of the Brusselsname talk page template.

Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Introduction

This page was marked as a guideline 2009 by Oreo Priest after discussion on the talk page and a much more substantial discussion at Talk:Brussels-Capital Region. For those who are not familiar with the subject matter, Brussels is now a majority francophone city, but historically was Dutch-speaking. Place names in the city are thus the subject of controversy. As shown in the discussion, this topic area seems to have been subject to a substantial dispute on Wikipedia prior to the creation of this page. More than a decade has passed, and the dispute is mostly forgotten. Recently, two editors have removed the guideline tag, saying that it should be properly situated as a Wikiproject advice page. To come to a consensus about what we should do with this page, I have opened this RfC. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Survey (Brussels)

B – This page is useful, and served to quiet a long-standing dispute over place names in Brussels. However, the page itself is not suitable as a standalone guideline, because it provides no original guidance. Instead, it explains how editors came to a consensus in this topic area based on our other policies and guidelines. It is not suitable as a Wikiproject advice page either, though, because it is currently referenced at the WP:NCPLACE#Belgium guideline, which specifies that editors should follow its guidance. Therefore, I think the best option is to retain the page, break it off from the Wikiproject, and make it an explanatory supplement to NCPLACE. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
B – An INFOPAGE is reflective of both its content and its unclear level of consensus. It might be worth looking at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, which only has the main category for guidelines and a subcategory for proposals, so doesn't provide a place for supplementary pages.--Trystan (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
B per RGloucester. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
B - looks like a useful page, and reasonable enough to extract it from the WikiProject and refactor it into a WP:SUPPLEMENTAL page to WP:NCPLACE. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Option B – sounds good to me FaviFake (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Option B Abaciscus (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Option D its a solution for a problem that isn't needed. We are already supposed to use English names or the names used in English WP:USEENGLISH so we don't need another policy that largely states the same thing but with an odd caveat that objects without Wikipedia articles should ignore that and instead use a dual name. We already have too many pointless precise guidelines when general guidelines already suffice. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Option B per RGloucester. The page is marginally helpful, not too long, and its content is not entirely too-obvious.—Alalch E. 00:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Brussels)

This page was marked as a guideline 2009 by Oreo Priest after discussion on the talk page and a much more substantial discussion at Talk:Brussels-Capital Region I cannot see discussion about marking this page as a guideline on either of those talkpages; could you link to an actual discussion rather than an entire talkpage? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
This was an informal process of consensus making, which is why I linked the whole talk page, though sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the most relevant. The page was drafted by a variety of editors from WikiProject Belgium in 2009. If you are asking for a specific discussion that resulted in the guideline tag being added, that would probably be the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions#In conclusion section, which was immediately followed by Oreo Priest's action. If you are looking for a discussion that meets the current expected standard, i.e. WP:PROPOSAL, there is none. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 12:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Which is to say, there was no discussion about marking it as a guideline. There were only comments from people who assumed that of course it was going to be a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:NCPLACE#Belarus also says editors should follow a specific page, but the linked page is a dormant proposal PositivelyUncertain (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) is not a Wikiproject advice page, but an information page, outside of any Wikiproject's control. It is not normal for a guideline to prescribe that editors should follow Wikiproject advice without any obvious consensus, because Wikiprojects are not rule-making organisations, per WP:PJ. Guidelines may sometimes link to Wikiproject pages as a reference, but that is different from prescribing that one should follow a given project's internal strictures.
Keep in mind, the removal of the guideline tag in this case was premised on 'simplifying our policies and guidelines'. Think of a random editor that encounters the guidance at WP:NCPLACE, or the talk page template above, which prescribes that one should follow the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions, but then, one arrives at the page and encounters a template that says that its contents are the mere 'opinion' of a Wikiproject that has not been vetted by consensus. This is beyond confusing, and one will be left wondering, should this guidance be followed or not? This is the opposite of simplification, it is confounding. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Nope. I removed the {{guideline}} tag, and I did so not out of any desire to 'simplify our policies and guidelines', but solely because tagging it as a guideline was a violation of both the WP:PROPOSAL policy and the WP:PROJPAGE guideline.
It's true that I found the list of violations over at that WikiProject's talk page, but that was only a matter of where I happened to see it; I'd have done the same thing no matter when or where I found out about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I see. What I would point out to you again, as I have done before, is that merely removing or changing a tag without considering the impact of that change on adjacent articles, guidelines, and policies is not very helpful, if the end result is to make our guidelines even more confusing. The point of this RfC is to tidy up what is admittedly a mess, and ensure that there is a clear consensus for any result. No matter which option is adopted, the end result will be a simplification, a clarification, and that is something I think that even you should find laudable. I long for your constructive participation here, as your many years of experience in the topic area will be of great value in reaching a well-reasoned consensus. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
What I would point out to you again, as I have done before, is that changing this tag has no effect whatsoever on any guidelines or policies.

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content says "Policies and guidelines may contain links to any type of page, including essays and articles". Almost nobody is actually confused when they see that a guideline has linked them to an essay page, probably because almost all experienced editors have banner blindness, and those who don't are used to our practices.

For example, the introduction to WP:V has links to two essays (both of the "supplement" variety), and its first section has links to two "information pages" that "may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting". The next section has links to four ordinary Wikipedia articles and two essays (one ordinary and one of the "supplement" variety). This happens in almost all of our policies and guidelines, and people are not confused by it. If you're genuinely confused by it, then you're confused by basically every policy we have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
As for reaching consensus: I don't actually care what the page's title ends up being or what it gets tagged with – so long as it isn't a {{guideline}} that implies it's WP:OWNED by any WikiProject.

IMO the only actual {{guideline}} that can have "WikiProject" in its name is WP:PROJGUIDE, and that's because WP:COUNCIL is a bit more like a weird meta-noticeboard for people trying to organize groups than like a real WikiProject. (Even then, if PROJGUIDE got moved to another title, that wouldn't break my heart.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree with you entirely that Wikiprojects should not have any control over any guidelines, and this is a position I have consistently held in any discussion on the subject. However, there is nothing to be gained from narrowly focusing on the title of the page or procedural concerns without considering the page's actual value or function. As for 'links', yes, many guidelines and policies link or reference essays, as I said above. The issue is not a link or reference, but the guidelines' current prescription that editors should follow what is now tagged as a 'Wikiproject advice' page. This is clearly irregular, as it is basically delegating rule-making authority to a Wikiproject, something that is out of line with WP:CONLEVEL. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
It is appropriate and helpful to take corrective action and remove the guideline template from any page which is not a guideline. Recognition must be denied to the status quo to begin with. That is because a lack of consensus to "demote" the false guideline is not an acceptable outcome. Instead, the falsehood that a given page is a guideline needs to be addressed, and then the same page may be made into a guideline, or it may not become a guideline, and both of these outcomes are acceptable—whereas maintaining the falsehood that a page that is not a guideline is a guideline because of a lack of consensus to correct the falsehood is not acceptable. —Alalch E. 13:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Alalch, and I add that it's not "clearly irregular" to recommend good advice, no matter where it's found. For example, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles recommends advice pages from three different WikiProjects, and the absence of the exact word should in those sentences in no way lessens the recommendation about where to find the specialist advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
If a guideline tag has been stable for more than ten years, that in and of itself is a form of consensus, per WP:EDITCON, though as WP:PROPOSAL says the tag itself does not grant guideline status. Whether the community wants the page to actually be a guideline or not can only properly assessed in an RfC, and that is what is being done here. This incredibly narrow focus on the tag itself is bizarre, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You say that it is not 'irregular' to recommend 'good advice', but have not bothered to consider whether this page actually is 'good' advice, never mind that the page is written as if it were a guidleine, and never mind that an actual guideline references the page not merely as a recommendation, but as almost mandatory, excluding the usual IAR exceptions, and that numerous Brussels-related pages currently have a talk page template that specifies that editors should follow this page. I understand what you are trying to do, but please consider the impact on actual articles. This is an encyclopaedia, and these sorts of pages don't exist in a vacuum. They only exist in as much as they help us build an encyclopaedia, and that is where your thoughts should go, not to some legalistic understanding of the meaning of the word 'guideline'. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The word should does not mean "almost mandatory".

I am not particularly concerned about whether this page offers good advice. I assume that it does, but I don't really care whether it does, and I will not spend my time figuring out whether it does.

What I care about is whether the process for tagging the page was improper (answer: yes) in a way that misleads ordinary editors into thinking that it was actually vetted by the community (answer: yes) instead of being advice put together by a small group of editors (answer: yes). I fixed the misleading and procedurally improper parts. You may find it better to describe my focus in this process as bureaucratic rather than bizarre.

If you want to make a WP:PROPOSAL or otherwise pick an arrangement that is procedurally proper and results in a non-misleading status for the page, then be bold! But my chosen role doesn't extend to that point. I'm here for the "not wrongly marked as a community-wide guideline" part. What it ends up getting marked as is not important to me, so long as the result is not wrongly marked as a community-wide guideline.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 3 November 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.

Automatic counter-vandal bot

Hey listen, if you're getting followed around wikipedia and hounded by the same IP user who keeps ban evading to delete everything you've added anywhere, see this thread[11], and you have free license to revert them as many times as you want because they're a banned vandal, but they keep popping up and the admins have neither the time nor energy to keep up, would it be a violation of any policy to deploy a bot to do that? Because I just had Claude write one, and I'm eager to give it a go. Snokalok (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It would be against Wikipedia:Bot policy at the least. Anomie ⚔ 19:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Just report them to AIV, wait for them to be blocked, and then ignore them. Do not feed the trolls, it gives them what they want (recognition). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Snokalok, we have several anti-vandal bots already; the problem with them is that they have occasional false positives even with their strict definitions of vandalism. They run only because stupid, basic vandalism is so common, and the community prefers occasional errors over requiring humans to do all the vandalism reversion. Even aside from what Anomie and SPM9167 say, it would be a bad idea because of the much greater risk of false positives. Even if the bot reverts any edit if (1) it's made by an unregistered user, and (2) it consists of reverting an edit you made. Imagine that you accidentally make a small edit that needs to be reverted (e.g. you're confused and change a correct spelling to an incorrect spelling), and a different unregistered user comes and correctly reverts your change; the bot would revert that edit, even though obviously it should stand. Nyttend (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like the proposal is an automatic edit warring bot, for this scenario:

Snokalok makes an edit.
An IP reverts their edit.
Snokalok wants to have a bot re-revert their edits back in.

The problem is: What if the IP isn't the banned user? The bot would be edit warring with all IPs that revert Snokalok's edits, not just ones that are probably the banned editor. What if the edit really should be reverted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Abuse

Off topic, OP was referred to the correct venue. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Doniago

is abusing me

Piñanana (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

This page is for discussing policy; if you feel an editor is abusing you, then please take it to WP:ANI instead.

I would say, however, that an editor asking you on your talk page to use edit summaries and not post random external links isn't abuse. Nil🥝 04:20, 3 December 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.

An Insignificant Content Dispute

I think I know the answer to this question, but would like to confirm it. Are there content issues that are not worth the volunteer time that will be spent in resolving them? The dispute in question is about which unit of measurement should be listed first. The MOS and various guidelines say that, except with articles having strong ties to the United States or the United Kingdom, metric units SI should be primary. The issue is whether a pressure should be stated in bars followed by pascals or in pascals followed by bars. I am aware that the pascal is the SI unit of pressure. However, it is my opinion that a dispute over which unit to list first is not worth the time required to resolve the dispute. Does that make sense? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

It's up to the volunteers which disputes (and which matters in general) they choose to invest their time in. Me, I do a fair number of MOS:LQ fixes, which I'm sure other editors would not feel were worth the time. As such, I don't see much point in coming to an agreement as to what matters are not worth another editor's time; editors who do not feel it is a good use of their time are free to bow out of the dispute. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The principles of WP:EDITORTIME and the one below that ("Maintaining perspective") deal with this question. I am inclined to agree with Robert that some disputes are fairly pointless. Toadspike [Talk] 10:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

In relation to the original dispute MOS:UNITS already provides guidance for unit order, which is basically SI united first but with some exceptions such in non-scientific article with strong national ties to the US. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Removing the GS authorization for United Kingdom systems of measurement. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I usually see the pressure of an atmosphere or gas in the context of meteorology or astronomy, and in those contexts I usually see it listed in bars and millibars rather than pascals, but if someone's very passionate for pascals I wouldn't bother to fight them over it.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

It likely depends on the specific topic. If dealing with a article on low pressure or vacuum conditions, pascals would likely be used by sources over bars, while for high pressure applications, I'd expect to see bars over pascals. Should follow which form is used by the RSes in that topic area Masem (t) 14:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

This is subjective, of course, but I'm inclined to say that yes, some disputes aren't worth the effort. You can see a list of them at WP:Lamest edit wars. Here's a particularly famous one. As for the unit order, that depends on the article, but it probably doesn't matter. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Amending administrator recall

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Support for this proposal reached 60%, so I think it has rough consensus. Supporters felt it would streamline the bureaucracy, and treat all desysopped admins fairly and not limit their options due to an accident of timing. Opponents generally felt it was OK to use the regular thresholds, and one even wanted to make a 6-month desysop period mandatory.

A substantial number of supporters asked that the deadline be changed from 6 months to the next election. This future-proofs the deadline in case there are changes to the election schedule, and makes the deadline to choose RRFA or election the same for a given candidate. Then there was discussion that bad timing could mean someone is permanently desysopped and miss an election window all in the same day. A sensible fix was proposed, to make the deadline "30 days or the next election, whichever is later". A couple of participants had divergent suggestions, but if there's no objection from the majority of supporters who didn't express a preference between 6 months vs. the next election, I'll incorporate these amendments in the close. Therefore the language to be added (which I clarified in response to questions asked in this RFC) is:

"Administrators retain the right to run in a delayed RRFA or administrator election with the reduced thresholds described below until the time of the first admin election after the 30-day post-close window (whether they choose the election or the RRFA). They will be desysopped upon declaring such an intention or at the end of the 30-day post-close window. After this longer period expires, thresholds for re-gaining adminship become the same as for new candidates."

And removed:

"; they may grant slight extensions on a case-by-case basis"

Let me know if I messed up that re-wording or you really did want a hard 6-month deadline!

-- Beland (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I propose to amend Wikipedia:Administrator recall, specifically the first paragraph of the section on requests for re-adminship, as follows:

Addition: "Administrators may choose to further delay running in an RRFA or administrator election by up to 6 months after the recall petition is closed: they will be temporarily desysopped in the interim upon declaring such an intention. The temporary desysop will be reversed if they retain adminship within 6 months by the means described below: otherwise it is made permanent."

Removal: "; they may grant slight extensions on a case-by-case basis"

Sandbox diff for clarity.

19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Additional background: A recent recall petition and the administrator's subsequent request to be allowed to run in the next administrator election, which would start outside the 30-day window specified in the policy, led to this extensive thread at the bureaucrat's noticeboard. I see no clear consensus there ~~as to whether the specific delay in this instance is permissible, or~~ as to how to handle this situation in the future. Rehashing this conversation for each subsequent recall seems to me to be undesirable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC) Addendum: it has been brought to my attention that in this instance there appears to be 'crat consensus to permit an extension. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Survey

Support, as proposer. As I noted at BN, the community clearly intended for administrator elections to be a path for retaining adminship. However, only offering it to those admins recalled within the arbitrary window of 30 days before each call for candidates feels inequitable. Given the tendency for regular candidates for adminship to choose EFA over RFA, I suspect this matter will come up again, and we will have further lengthy discussions about how much delay is permissible, which this proposal will eliminate. It also gives recalled admins more time to choose their path and reconsider their approach before asking to retain the tools, while simultaneously restricting them from taking bad admin actions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Noting that the emergence of 'crat consensus to allow UtherSG an extended timeframe to run in the coming admin elections only strengthens my desire to enact this, because it highlights the potential for difficulty with longer delays, and creates the possibility that an administrator's popularity will affect the community's perception of the delay. Obviating the need for an extension is the most equitable solution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. I made a similar proposal in the "check-in" but it got lost in the noise. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per the maxim Justice delayed is justice denied, it seems best to act expeditiously rather than spin things out. Six months seems quite a long time and I don't like the idea that an RfA candidate would retain the right to a discount on the % required for success for so long when other candidates, who hadn't given cause for complaint, were not given this advantage. If someone is too busy to attend to an RfA then they can just resign and try a regular RfA later at a time of their choosing.

Note also that there's a procedural problem with this RfC. WP:RFC states "There is no technical limit to the number of simultaneous RfCs that may be held on a single talk page, but to avoid discussion forks, they should not overlap significantly in their subject matter." This RfC obviously overlaps significantly with the Recall check-in RfC above. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose I supported reconfirmation by election to avoid the confusion of an admin that preferred WP:AELECT needing to resign to access it during their temp desysop. However, like many expressed in the initial approval of this option, we should not extend the admin's lenience at RRFA and AELECT just to ensure an election occurs within their limbo. If someone really prefers elections, they can pursue it like any other user. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Mostly support. Recall only works when it is fair to all parties, and allowing someone to wait until the next admin election is fair. Allowing crats discretion to extend is fair. Sticking to rigid arbitrary deadlines is not - why would we penalise someone for starting an RFA on the 31st day vs the 29th day due to personal circumstances? Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak support (prefer 3 months) I understand and don't oppose the general idea of giving an admin some additional flexibility around the timing of their RRfA. That said, 6 months is a long time; I would support a shorter window for this extension as a first preference. 2601:540:200:1850:CC47:61C6:19C6:6028 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
If the goal is to allow admins to use the election process to RRfA, perhaps that could be spelled out as an exemption to a 3-month limit: "The temporary desysop will be reversed if they retain adminship within 3 months by a Request for Adminship (RfA) or at the next regularly-scheduled Administrator Election, regardless of date: otherwise it is made permanent." 2601:540:200:1850:CC47:61C6:19C6:6028 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair concern. I chose 6 months to ensure the window would always encompass an admin election. EFAs are supposed to be held every 5 months, plus some wiggle room with scheduling. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Support, prefer "until the next scheduled election" to the 6-month limit.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Support for 2 reasons. First the community has been uniformly happy with giving administrators the option to reconfirm via election. This proposal prevents that from being an empty option 4/5th of the time. Second, it gives an admin the option to step back, address a concern, show some personal growth from the process and then reapply for adminship. The current system of a RRFA in the immediate shadow of a petition-generating controversy feels difficult to pass, and transforms 25 signatures from a statement of concern to a de facto permanent desysop. As a pleasant side effect, this should also give clarity to the crats, who would otherwise have hard decisions anytime a candidate wanted an extension for running in an election.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Support, though I agree with S Marshall that "until the next election" is probably the better way to phrase this. We should make it as painless as possible recalled admins, and this is a step towards that goal. The admin is desyopped in the interim, so there is no chance of further misconduct with the tools. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Although I agree with S Marshall and House that until the next election is the better wording. This is a reasonable proposal that will enact the communities will to allow ALECT for recall by giving more flexibility for Admins to stand at the next election. GothicGolem29 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Six months is a long time on the internet, and would allow whatever issues that led to the recall petition to quietly fade from memory. They of course would still be welcome to run in an election, they would just have to follow the same rules as us normal folk. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Support, for either RRFA or AELECT, with the temp desysop. Worried that the petition makes admins do RfAs at an inconvenient time? This solves that! Worried that the petition was started by a bunch of bad faith socks? Now you've got potentially 6 more months to prove that, bring the evidence to the community, and watch some SPI blocks get dropped before they show up to RfA. Worried that your favourite vandal and sock blocking admin had gotten too jaded and wish there was an option between having them ignore community concerns and removing them permanently? Then Vanamonde's administrative leave plan may be just the thing you're looking for!
More seriously, I do get the concerns around giving somebody desysopped for cause more time for the community to forget (lol, we're Wikipedians, we dig up books from the 1930s about abandoned settlements for fun), and I really do understand that there's an inherent unfairness in turning away a potential new recruit who hit 65% approval rating while letting somebody who was desysopped for cause 180 days ago sail through at 55%, which I really don't like, - but at the end of the day, I don't actually want to desyop admins. I want good admins. I believe that incentivizing a long period of reflection and a period of time without tools, where you have to run every single admin action past your peers instead of cutting corners, can only be a good thing. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 04:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Support for both RRFA and AELECT. This was proposed in the earlier discussion, and I wholeheartedly endorse this. This proposal retains accountability for the admins (they lose their bits) while reducing the "temperature" of RECALL. If an admin is sufficiently flawed, the voters will inevitably bring out their mistakes anyway. But this allows any good admins having a "bad time" to have a gap to improve their behaviour and prove themselves to the community. If passed, I also think this should retroactively apply to every admin who resigned instead of RRFA in the last 6 months. Soni (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
support – it'd be great to have this as an option. Also see my comment about it above. Graham87 (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Very weak support for AELECT I agree with S Marshall that it should be "until the next election." I oppose for RRfA unless it's only 2-3 months, in which case it would also be a very weak support. fanfanboy (block_talk) 05:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Weakish Support - This feels like tinkering around the edges of a bad system, but anything is better than nothing in this case. This definitely should not preclude other changes or indeed getting rid of the whole mess of an RRFA system. FOARP (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per many others, especially GLL. I'm not sure if the "next election" wording is better than a hard limit (6 months), since the former varies with time, which is a criticism of the current system. It would also mean the time limit for an RfA and AELECT could be different, which is odd. Toadspike [Talk] 02:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Musing on your final point, does it matter if the RFA and AELECT deadlines are different (this is genuine question)? You've also got me thinking about the minimum times between petition closure and the stand/don't stand decision deadline. I'll put my comments about that in the discussion section below. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. I think there probably needs to be some tinkering after the fact to make it more concise and flow better with already there since it's weird to say you have 30 days and then at the end of the paragraph say that actually, it's effectively 6 months (presumably if declared within the 30 days?). I would honestly just make it opt-out instead of opt-in if the point of this is to make it easily for recalled admins to "rehabilitate" themselves to use a criminal justice term. It gives the admin time to schedule a potentially busy week for an RFA/admin election so they can put their best foot forward on how to address the inevitable questions and allows sentiments to cool off for both the admin and by the community. It also allows the admin time to continue to edit and show that they're addressing the issues raised in the recall (e.g. tagging and declining CSDs properly if overzealous CSD deleting was an issue). Maybe if memory is an issue, just make it a link to the recall petition mandatory. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support principle but not for 6 months until RRFA. It's reasonable to allow the re-appointment discount for a little longer, giving the admin time to consider what happened, whether they want the bit and how to go about it. But per S Marshall and others, only until the next election if choosing AELECT and only for 3 months, not 6, for an RRFA. We do, after all, want memories of the events, discussions and petition to be reasonably fresh and comparatively accurate (which may favour the candidate or may not). Three months also happens to be a little more than the average time from a petition passing to the next AELECT, on current timing. NebY (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
See my comments below about "until the next election" - that could be just under 6 months away, it could be minutes, it could be anywhere in between. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I'd seen those comments. That's three months on average, but I also note Vanamonde's comment above, "EFAs are supposed to be held every 5 months, plus some wiggle room with scheduling.". NebY (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"On average" is fine in the abstract but not when it comes to an individual administrator. What matters then is how long there is until the actual next election - if nominations close imminently that's very very different to the next election being 2-5 months away. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps you haven't read my full support comment. I do support allowing the discount at the next AELECT. However, I don't support allowing the discount for an RRFA for up to 6 months and support up to 3 months instead, for the reasons I stated. I then noted - and it's regrettable if my noting it misled you as to the previous points - that 3 months is also (a little more than) the average discount period created by allowing the discount at the next AELECT. NebY (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I have read your full comment, and I still think that you're missing the point that I'm making. I cannot think how to say what I've been saying any differently though, so I'm just going to hope someone else can. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I view this as largely academic (since starting with 25 opposes dooms a RRFA from the start, and I suspect that's by design); but it doesn't make sense for there to be a longer possible wait time if you choose to use the venue that, so far, has always resulted in much less scrutiny. —Cryptic 16:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Tazerdadog. This gives all recalled administrators the option of running in the next WP:AELECT rather than being forced to go use WP:RFA as their reconfirmation process unless they get lucky, and it also lets both the recalled admin and the community take a step back, reflect, and approach the RRfA after some introspection, rather than being forced to do it immediately after some controversy. Mz7 (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Woudn't a election after recall be a REELECT rather than a RRfA? GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
You're right, to be more precise I should have written "re-election/RRfA" instead of just RRfA. Mz7 (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

To avoid confusion regarding whether or not the admin is being elected or re-elected when their first request used the open viewpoint process, personally I suggest staying with the term re-request for adminship, which can proceed either through the open viewpoint process, or the election (or secret ballot) process. isaacl (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I would say the best way to avoid confusion is to have REELECTS the term for admin elections and RRFA be the term for RFA. This is because it matches each process better with RRFA referring to the process involving RFA and REELECT referring to the process with the Admin Elections. GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't see a need for this. The "temperature" is primarily generated by those opposed to recall. If a recall is rubbish then the election or RRfA should pass easily. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Iggy pop goes the weasel By all accounts even fairly uncontested RFAs are stressful and time consuming for the candidate Mach61 02:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but that isn't a compelling reason to reduce accountability. RfA will be difficult whether it happens sooner or later. Delaying it only serves to remove it from the reasons Recall was initiated and certified and those reasons should be a key component of those processes. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
those reasons should be a key component of those processes. Yes and no. They should be a component of the processes, but only in the context of their adminship as a whole. "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship" is an oft-repeated principle at arbitration, but finding 25 signatories to a petition in the immediate aftermath of an isolated controversial decision is likely going to be very easy, so there needs to be a period to allow tempers to cool and ensure that the ReRFA is a fair reflection of the admin not just of one incident. However, it is equally likely that the cause for a petition is ongoing chronic inappropriate adminning (with or without an easily-pinpointable final straw), and in that case there shouldn't be too long a gap between petition and ReRFA. This means that the timescale needs to be a balancing act between these competing directions and also remain fair to both petitions and the admin. I don't think 30 days is long enough, but contra WAID I do think a year is too long. If admin elections were not a thing, I'd probably be suggesting 3 months, but admin elections are a thing and the community consensus was strongly in favour of both a 5-month schedule and allowing admins who are the subject of a certified recall petition to choose to stand in an election. We cannot control when petitions are certified relative to the admin election schedule, so to ensure that the community consensuses are respected without unfairly forcing admins to stand immediately after a petition closes we have to allow the election interval plus circa three weeks, which in round numbers is 6 months. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Nothing under the current system prevents the context of their adminship as a whole being discussed or taken into account at RRfA or AElect, two processes by which all are able to identify their support or lack thereof. The discussion sections of Recalls have proven this. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
It's correct that nothing currently prevents that, but it does discourage that. The discussion sections of recall are irrelevant by design. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - six months is too long, and enough with coddling troublemaker admins. They can run for RFA anytime they want, and they can stand in any election. 30 days at a reduced threshold is already a lot of leeway. Nobody else whose perm gets pulled gets this kind of indulgence. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I am proposing a window of up to 6 months during which the admins will no longer be admins. That's not coddling in any sense of the word. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
It's coddling because they get the benefit of the lower pass thresholds six months later instead of just 30 days later. I appreciate that the proposal would prohibit tool use during the six months, I think that aspect is good of course, but still, six months is too long. If an admin wants to run six months after their recall petition is certified, they can just do so, at the normal thresholds. I think it's coddling because you're giving them a six month window for a full community review of their actions while enjoying the lower threshold privilege. Nobody gets this. I didn't get to delay any of the arbcom cases where I was a party by six months to a time that was convenient for me. The last one happened over Christmas and New Years, nobody gave a crap that this was bad timing. I get having a little leeway like 30 days, but I don't see why admins should get so much leeway as six months. Imagine an ANI thread and the reported editor says "can we talk about this in six months? I promise not to edit the article in the meantime." Nobody gets this privilege on Wikipedia, no reason to give it to admins. Levivich (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
It isn't accurate to say nobody gets this "privilege": I can think of at least three admins who received similar grace periods, when desysop cases were opened by ARBCOM and suspended until such a time as the admin chose to resume them. It's not accurate to say we don't extend the privilege to editors either. We have certainly closed noticeboard reports based on a voluntary commitment to stay away from a particular conflict. Now maybe you think that's coddling too, and I won't argue with that. But there's certainly precedent. And I will emphasize for anyone following along at home that the "privilege" is only the lower passing threshold, not a retention of the mop. Indeed the proposal will likely reduce the length of time that an admin can hang on to the tools after a successful recall petition, by obviating the scenario we just had and limiting that grace period to 30 days plus the length of RRFA/AELECT. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose If there's a six-month delay, that should be normal pass numbers, not the reduced RRFA ones. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I don't believe that AELECT has proven itself to be fit for the task of the recall system. It produces admins, but I don't really think the evidence is there that the marked lack of scrutiny isn't a problem. Affixing two new systems to each other isn't a good idea. Stick with 30 days for an RFA. Parabolist (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@Parabolist: AELECT is already an option. But only if the 30-day window after the closure of a recall petition overlaps with the call for candidates of an AELECT or - as happened this week - the bureaucrats grant a discretionary delay. I am seeking to abolish that discretionary delay, which is primed for inequities. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Right, but extending this window essentially guarantees the choice of AELECT. The inequity is that poorly timed (by my personal standard) recalls can allow for less scrutiny in how the tools are reconfirmed. So this solution does solve that, but by making everyone have the worse outcome. For the record, I'm against the crats allowing the extension they're allowing in this case, so I'm at least consistent! Parabolist (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Acknowledging that our data about AELECT is still limited, I genuinely do not think admins would necessarily choose to participate in AELECT over RFA. As I see it the major difference is in voter anonymity. It's an open question whether editors would be more likely to support a recalled admin if they are anonymous. I suspect it depends on the popularity of the admin and the nature of their transgressions. You're entitled to your opinion of course. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Support mainly because if I had had the chance, I'd have chosen an administrator election instead of the classical RfA process, and because I'd prefer a re-election to a re-RfA. Whether this can be discounted as a biased vote with a conflict of interest, or given additional weight as one made with experience others lack after having experienced both RfA and ACE, I don't know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. A desyopping is a desyopping, "temporary" or not. If an admin gets recalled, and wants to wait to "re-run" at an election instead of a RRFA, then they can do so right now under the current procedure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
If they want the lower threshold for success that the community consensus says they are entitled to, then they can only do this if an admin election happens to be scheduled within about 30 days of the petition being certified. As elections only happen every 5 months, that's only a (very approximately) 20% chance. Thryduulf (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
It is not only within 30 days as there is some discretion afforded to the Bureaucrats according to the current system(albeit there will be a limit to how far that goes.) GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 16:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Hence I very explicitly said "about 30 days". Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok fair enough apologies misread that. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 16:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Though given the level of discretion hasn't been said fully as far as I know that does mean the 20% figure you gave could change a fair ammount(to the point where I would say there isn't a percent even very aproximately given the level it could change.) GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 16:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The level of discretion is not formally bounded, but given the comments at BN regarding the current case I'd be very surprised if it were extended much further. For the sake of argument, if we assume that the crats said an extra 20 days was acceptable but 21 days was not (I think this is more generous than it would be in reality) then that gives a 50-day window during which admins can nominate themselves for AELECT with the reduced threshold. The duration of the nomination window is not specified in the policy but it has been 7 days every time so far. So the 50-day and 7-day windows need to overlap, and let's generously assume that every part of the 50 days is equally useful (in reality it won't be due to real life commitments, not having prepared a nomination statement in advance, etc). The 50 day window can occur at any time, the 7-day window occurs only once every 5 months - so a maximum of three times a year.

If my maths is correct (and I'd really like someone to double check if it is) then there are 414 possible 50-day windows with at least 1 day in a non-leap year. Only 21 of those overlap with a nomination window, which is actually very slightly over 5% - and thats with very generous assumptions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Very fair points. Though the reality given the fluidity could be beyond what you said depending on the circumstances where the crats are ruling on it which could increase the percent. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 18:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose and propose instead that any admin who receives 25 signatures for RECALL is immediately desysopped, and prevented from running for admin again until 6 months has passed, after which they may run again for admin (with no reduced pass threshold). Tewdar 15:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I like that. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 02:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem with this idea is that 25 signatures is a very low threshold for an immediate desysopping, especially when there could potentially be hundreds of other editors who disagree. I think it's the perfect compromise to have a relatively small number of editors be able to *trigger* the recall process, but then give an opportunity for an RRFA or AELECT. While I acknowledge its shortcomings, the current arrangement is far superior to your suggestion, in my opinion. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Levivich. The current system does not need amendment. If a former admin wants to request re-adminship after 30 days, they are welcome to do so at RfA (under the regular thresholds). Ajpolino (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. If you prefer AELECT over RfA, then you can wait, just like everyone else. If not having admin rights for a few months is unacceptable for you, then you should not be an admin. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien Under this proposal, admins wouldn’t have rights longer than they currently do after a petition Mach61 16:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I could've been clearer. My opinion is that a desysopped admin, even "temporarily", is just a regular editor and I've yet to be convinced that special considerations need to be given. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Are you generally opposed to different thresholds for RRFAs? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Support One of the pluses of RfA is you can choose when it happens. RfA is one of the most stressful things I ever did (on par with taking the bar exam). This is a volunteer project afterall, and we are struggling to recruit and keep editors. Giving folks a little more leeway to choose a time that fits their life best is humane and sensible. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Levivich and The Bushranger. Mztourist (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Andrew and Levivich.Katzrockso (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I find it a little weird that whether admins get to run in an election with the lower threshold depend solely on whether they happened to be recalled at the right time. While I'm not suggesting anyone has done so, it could easily lead to concerns an editor has chosen to start the recall precisely at a time to prevent an admin chosing election. More significantly, one of the concerns expressed by those opposed to the way recalls are currently working is that a successful recall means that the admin is going to be permanently desysoped in part because their chances are already low and in so much as they might have a chance with the reduced threshold, the stress of doing so when the former admin is effectively required to run an RRfA in an emergency rather than at a time of their choosing means the reduced threshold is basically pointless. Frankly, I'd prefer an immediate desysop upon successful recall and the admin then getting 6 months to decide whether to try to confirm their adminship than the current system (by which I mean they have to start an RfA or enter an election). While I appreciate even under the proposed change if the timing is off an admin might still have to run an election in an emergency which isn't ideal it strikes a decent balance although I wouldn't be opposed to extending it to 9 months to give an admin the chance to not have to run for an election in an emergency. Although I appreciate this does mean memories of the problems with an admin will be less fresh, I still feel it's a decent balance noting also most recalls seem to have been for longer term problems. Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Support to avoid more time wasted in the future. FaviFake (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Allows admins an additional choice in how to proceed. If actions that led to a recall petition are very problematic, there are other options we have as a community. --Enos733 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Having an explicit procedure in place for the extension is better than the approach used for the most recent recall petition. I prefer 30 days or the next admin election, whichever comes later per Mr. Starfleet Command below to a blanket six-month period. md m.b la 02:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

We talked about a similar idea very early on in the RfC above[12] - not just in terms of AELECT, though. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 04:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
As Stifle pointed out, specific proposals got a bit lost there, as tends to happen with a general temperature-taking exercise. This proposal isn't limited to AELECT though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
yep, and given that the thread had both the best argument I've seen against the proposal, and I used a different numbering scheme, that's why I linked it! GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 18:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't fully understand the implications. Are admins that have been defrocked by recall barred from future RfA if they are not re-confirmed within the time window? If not, what would be the purpose of the additional phrasing regarding temporary etc.? It sounds needlessly complicated. ~2025-31522-63 (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
It's not that desysopped admins can't stand at RfA after the thirty-day window, but if they do during that time, they're subject to a lower pass threshold than usual. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for elaborating, Mr. Starfleet Command. I read your comment below and on reflection, with every compassion I have, I'm increasingly leaning towards what I said above - let me elaborate further: that (1) recall should be solidly designed in such a way that (2) we don't feel we need to give failed admins soft landings, and (3) we, as a community, commit to promoting admins that can act and communicate better than the ones that have been recalled. Perhaps more importantly, incentivising quick re-application takes away the time for reflection that the recalled person may need. ~2025-35544-03 (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Next election as the deadline

In the voting section, several editors have commented about setting the next admin election as the deadline for an admin who is the subject of a certified petition to decide whether to initiate a new RFA/AELECT with the reduced passing percentage versus a fixed deadline (whether that is the current 30 days or something longer). The next election could be as long in the future as almost 6 months (nominations closed just before the petition is certified) or as short as (in theory) minutes but more realistically a few hours - all of which could be in the middle of the night in the subject's timezone or during some other period where they are unable to look at Wikipedia. This means an admin could go from being in apparent good standing to desysopped with little or even no warning at all.
Obviously in extreme cases the crats would uncontroversially use their discretion and not insist on the literal meaning of "next election" (doubly so if there was any indication of gaming the timing of the petition or its closure). However given the ongoing discussion about discretion in UtherSRG's case, if we're going down the movable deadline we need to put some guidelines in place for the minimum time before the deadline. Hopefully even those who see nothing wrong with the current system can agree that 5 days or less is unarguably not fair on the admin, but what if the close of nominations is 29 days after the petition was certified? If those choosing RFA get up to 6 months, does that mean that's the minimum someone choosing AELECT gets? With the possible exception of those opposed to any recall procedure in principle, I can't see anyone agreeing that 11 months (6 months minimum, plus up to 5 further months for the next election) is within the spirit of the process. Where in the middle of the extremes does consensus lie though? It needs to be long enough to enable the admin to make a considered decision and, if they choose to stand, to write a good nomination statement but not so long that an admin who is actually and actively causing harm to the project can be reasonably curtailed.
I should stress that this is explicitly not trying to influence consensus either way regarding this option, I'm literally just surfacing questions that need answers before it could be implemented. Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It is largely to avoid these sorts of questions that I proposed an unchanging six month window that should always encompass an admin election that's more than a few hours after recall. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

AELECT is too young a process to know how often it will end up running over time.

Thryduulf, I might be able to support a year-long window. It might be nice if de-sysopped folks took a little while to reflect on what went wrong and whether they want to re-commit to a community that just rejected them. A decision made while emotions are still running high might not be the best for anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Small point: it might be better not to frame recall petitions as rejection by the community; formally speaking at any rate, that would come at an RFA or AELECT. Seeing a petition that way might even be making emotions run higher. Otherwise yes, taking time to take stock should be encouraged, assisted and if possible normalised. NebY (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

How about this: the deadline is 30 days or the next admin election, whichever comes later. That way, an admin is always guaranteed at least 30 days time to initiate an RRFA, but also has the option to stand for AELECT if they so choose. Desysopping would still occur after just 30 days. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I can get behind this idea. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I would accept this idea over the status quo, but it's still more complex wording than what I suggest, and has the effect of making the timing of an RRFA contingent on the timing of an EFA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what this would accomplish: since the editor would be desysopped after 30 days, they'd be a non-admin editor entitled to run during the next AELECT like any other editor even without this change in wording. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: The difference would be that, with this wording, they would be able to run with the lower passing threshold, whereas otherwise they would be subject to the normal threshold. Whether this is desirable is a separate question, and IMO should be the main topic of discussion here. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't catch that subtlety, @Mr. Starfleet Command, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

No problem! :) Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 03:08, 20 November 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.