Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:PROPOSE" redirects here. For proposing article deletion, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion requests.
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts

The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.

This week's article for improvement[edit]

The new, sixth section of the main page. There will be no editing protections on the article, or at least a very low level of protection. It will be modelled closely after Today's featured article in terms of format. I believe it will bring the following benefits:

1) Create an opportunity for more inexperienced editors to participate in the project by bringing forth a visibly imperfect article, possibly recruiting future long-term editors

2) Emphasize the participatory nature of Wikipedia

3) Improve the actual article being showcased

I would appreciate any thoughts. We could have a trial run before we implement it permanently. Bremps... 00:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an interesting idea! I've heard this proposal before, but I don't really remember how it went or why it wasn't implemented. It could also be a good way to work on systemic bias in Wikipedia. Of course, there are a lot of open questions, like how the article will be selected. Maybe voting between High-importance and Top-importance articles on various WikiProjects that are lacking in quality? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC people usually object on the basis that the main page should feature our best content rather than content we know needs improving, and possibly some skepticism that positive contributions will be able to be made in the face of vandalism. Anomie⚔ 01:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also that it doesn't work: Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement/Archive 5#Failure * Pppery * it has begun... 01:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think we're wiser than 11 years ago. Wikipedia was younger and less mature then. Bremps... 02:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the rough consensus in that discussion appears to be that the TAFI trial did show promising results but that there were problems with the format, specifically that too many articles were presented each week. – Joe (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting would be a good proposal. Or it could work like OTD, where people first-come first-serve fill in upcoming slots. Bremps... 02:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First-come-first-serve would fill in extremely quickly, much more than OTD (as any article could be added any day, and people would be quite interested in having others improve their articles). And it would make self-promoting on the Main Page incredibly easy, while not necessarily guaranteeing that the articles being shown are necessarily a priority for improvement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting it is! Bremps... 02:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest having a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement regarding restoring its section on the main page, and to understand how the project has filled its queue since it was last on the main page. isaacl (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most people on the Main Page have 0 edits, meaning they don't know how to edit. Wikipedia is reader-focused and we don't really need to be encouraging readers to convert to editors on the Main Page imo. The community portal is a better place to start. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, readers will rarely stumble upon the community portal, let alone decide that this confusing-looking page is what will turn them into editors. If we want to make Wikipedia accessible as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it is only natural to encourage editing directly from the Main Page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. About the portal, I moreso meant beginner editors who want to learn more. I mean it is the first link on the main page under the "Other areas of Wikipedia". We also have the sidebar links "learn to edit" and "help". In my opinion, the "edit" buttons on every single article are sufficient to recruit readers. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The focus on new editor recruitment is why it was deemed a failure the first time. If we are going to try again (and I think we should) the focus should purely be on article improvement. Taking a poor article and making it better. Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of other reasons why a person could be capable of editing and yet not do so, I think. jp×g🗯️ 02:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an edit page option for an article for final approval prior to finalizing an edit week ,days, window of approval from editors ?The Summum Bonum (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove a word from a article[edit]

I understand that Indian courts have no jurisdiction over Wikipedia content, I would like to highlight that Wikipedia, as a global platform, has a responsibility to ensure that its content adheres to ethical standards and respects the laws and sensitivities of different cultures and nations. Article 17 of the Constitution of India explicitly abolishes the practice of 'untouchability' and criminalizes any enforcement of disabilities arising out of it. The use of the term 'untouchable' is deeply offensive and historically rooted in discrimination and oppression. I respectfully request that Wikipedia review below article content to ensure that it does not perpetuate discriminatory language. Instead of using the term 'untouchable', more appropriate and respectful terminology should be employed to discuss this aspect of India's history and social structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasi_(caste) 2405:201:300B:390E:E42A:45AE:34CC:F448 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As long as reliable sources use the term, so do we. A law doesn't blink a term out of existence. And Wikipedia is not censored. As long as an offensive term is being used an encyclopedic manner, there's no issue. If someone called another editor an "untouchable," they'd rightly be blocked very quickly, but this is a completely different things. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What, we can't explain it or put it further down than the first sentence of the lead? jp×g🗯️ 02:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a gross word for a gross practice (IMO), but it's so ingrained in sources of topics related to castes that I don't think that improves matters. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term (untouchable) truly exists it is a discriminating term and a factual statement, but we should truly recognize its meaning and existence. This establishment is not to promote hate or violence and discrimination to anyone but to freely share knowledge and information without bias and fear we hope you understand this organizations ethos/ethicsThe Summum Bonum (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum. Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two or more contributer/editorial authority procedure confirmation required prior to deletion or removal of an article/talk. A single contributor may add with references and citations but would require more than one to delete or remove.[edit]

To whom it may concern, It is sad to say that some individual contributer are trigger happy of their power/privileges on denying new edits on article/talk without checking the facts on the edit. I'm promposing that one contributer can add but cannot delete or remove voices on Talk. Denying/deletions of article/talk or removal of an article / talk should be verified by at least one or more contributer process. This would limit the frustration, time and effort of anyone who worked hard on the research and simply be denied due to bias on the original authors article/talk or for unknown reason without explaining and confirming that the references or citations are indeed known relative fact from all know legal form or law on publishing such phrase, statements and or quotes. I'm proposing also that the privilege/power of denying an edit on article/talk should only be possible with a two contributer or more editorial editor processe confirming false statement or factual unless a publication is false or link to an article was null ie. References/Citations without ISBN or Link page etc. can be edited by adding only to an article/talk that it is null but can not be deleted unless confirmed by more than one contributer/editorial authority procedure, Respectfully (The Summum Bonum (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific talk page item that you are unhappy about? In general, WP:TPO already prevents users from summarily deleting others' talk page comments. There are of course limited exceptions, but I'm not quite sure that we're solving a problem here that our policies and guidelines don't already address. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m humbled on your replies and truly appreciate your response, I don’t believe in lynching and my intentions are not to point on some instances but merely proposing a more standard approach to promote a more trusted way of decorum among contributors, vandalism ie.. anonymous users included notifying that decision was not bias and was not decided by a” single person alone” but a professional group of individuals. Thank you everyone (The Summum Bonum (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my endless campaign to get people to start linking WP:SUPERHAT etc etc jp×g🗯️ 03:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think you should give examples of where you think it is wrong. I remove talk page entries where they are duplicates, vandalism, attacks, spam, created by spambots, or trolling, or perhaps created by banned editors' socks. If not in scope for the talk page, eg forum-like posts, I may respond instead of delete to see if there will be an improvement suggested. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to guess from this user's 16 prior edits, they had a talk page edit reverted as promotional, and are unhappy about it. The mainspace concerns seem to similarly stem from an inappropriately created draft that duplicates an existing article getting rejected. I don't think a proposal for a new policy is the correct solution for this editor's problems. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like what I was saying it was on the Talk an additional information I was mentioning and I was reminded not to attach the link of a site considered as promotional and I replied professionally and yes I admitted my mistakes I’m am not perfect The Summum Bonum (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion/citations and giving us an example why I’m proposing this additional policy. It I believe in facts not wrong not correct, technical issues are itself a different proposal and new users should be guided and supported to experience more with more welcoming organizations rather than being judge by a newbie mistake a sponsorship would highly recommend rather than looking down on me. Again Thank you on your morally motivating remarks on my new proposal and hopefully a great experience as a contributor to this organization(The Summum Bonum (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
l The Summum Bonum (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much I m not in a position to say it was wrong or it was right, simple adding “ See also “ at someone else articles or additional citations or maybe a sentence or pronouncing words in specific languages are also important part of an information to a topic or articles. And the assurance that a or the deletion was made by not a single person but by a team truly (The Summum Bonum (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a contributor adds something to an article, and another contributor removes it, the onus is on the one wanting the change (ie, the one adding the material) to get consensus. From there on, it can be discussed on the talk page (see WP:BRD). Reasons for objecting to an edit aren't limited to it being factually incorrect, and can also include WP:DUE, WP:NPOV or simply being unencyclopedic. If we remove people's ability to revert other edits, it will heavily skew the balance in favor of inclusionism, and leave unwanted material in the article even if there isn't a consensus for it.
Regarding talk pages, it is already strongly discouraged, and considered inappropriate, to remove or edit someone else's comments without their permission, even when they are factually incorrect or unsourced. WP:TPO provides an overview of what is allowed, which mostly consists of unobjectionable cleanup and/or reverting vandalism. Waiting for several people to agree to this wouldn't necessarily be more helpful as the existing guidelines are already things no reasonable person would disagree with, and would only slow down things like reverting vandalism. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Swatjester example of lack of decorum his opinion is a prime evidence his statements are based from 16 actions of my failure to get it right doesn’t mean my intention was vandalism or improper it was more on the technical issues rather that producing the facts of the article (The Summum Bonum (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC) p.s. users page reliability[reply]
I'm sorry, what? My analysis of your *very short* editing history is not an example of "lack of decorum", and I made no statements about your intentions. I'll thank you to remember to assume good faith, engage civilly with others that are criticizing your proposals, and to stop casting aspersions at those who don't agree with you. You're really not helping your case here. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said my intentions was not to edit the article but to request to add an information on the article excuses my newb ability to edit that I personally apologized you showed us my faults and some contributers/editor personally send me information how to fix it and showed my mistakes. Critique on my proposal is a Positive Feedback meaning it make sense. It may take a little longer to verify some facts but at least we got right and team work verification is a positive outcome reducing bias opinions of some contents openings discussion on the topic due to the fact that what you know on a topic other informations are also available that everyone should know. I’m not even aware of someone disagreeing with me I saw your comment as lack of explanation to why disagree with the proposal by simply because an editor made a mistake or the contributor mistakes or failure to properly format an edit or article are are automatically disregarded not qualified to edit or doesn’t have the voice to submit a legitimate proposal. My example was my User page reliability. Example you worked hard on article then some user without any information regarding who he is or he is expert on something decided to delete his work just because the user was offended. Again my proposal is to eliminate those power of just because someone’s opinion but to verify the facts by a team not buy a single person alone; Thank you again on your feedback on this proposal The Summum Bonum (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal was based on my experience of accountability and I truly appreciate your response, I have experienced the meaning of “slow is fast, fast is slow” in Naval Terminology it simply means doing the right way properly the first time and verifications of multiple times is the key to a successful sailing. Thank you(The Summum Bonum (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to imply that your edits were vandalism. However, if you wish to discuss whether your previous edits were appropriate, here is not the place for it, and I'm afraid that ship has already sailed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal should should also include reverts of what is considered Vandalism with specific reference from the rules stating reason for reverts with a statement not by just inserting the 1000 words of the rule itself. Not all easy way is the right way. The Summum Bonum (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it permitted to adjust the indentation level on a different editor's comments? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what indentation type to another type.? I suggest requesting your voice or intention out on talk of the article for a voting in respect to the original author. Confirmed by a contributor plus you equals a team. And would be a yes. The Summum Bonum (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding or removing ":"s in column 1 to indent comment one tab to the right of the text the comment is responding to, or adding a {{od}} in front of a comment. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A programmers edit should be included on my proposal so your question regarding what you do and what you cannot visually to an article applies to visual editing ie…spelling spacing heading etc…but doesn't apply to this topic , but a policy to limit any including source editors for a secondary confirmation of removal or deletion of an article/talk intentions, a programmer who edits through source not through visual Is a matter of option of what the article visual or proper grammar/spellings fonts etc… should be considered a topic on itself on talk prior to confirmation of changes/edit with more than one contributor including the editor. You can add/ change alone but 2 contributors to delete/ remove an article/talk. A repeat offender of vandalism is punishable under the rules. Hopefully it clears your dilemma and I quote “wrong questions equals wrong answer.” Don’t expect someone’s answer to your question to be the same as your answers, and there is no “stupid” question. My flowchart maybe different from your flowchart but our output should be the same and we both agree that your flowchart was more efficient. From” {}” to indent to : or indent (). a.b. C. [] ? CMOS,APA, AP types made by the original authors should be respected. A matter of taste?
The Summum Bonum (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Unnecessary line on fundraiser banner[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Unnecessary line on fundraiser banner. It is about a controversial line in current fundraiser (putting invitation here as it is kind of a proposal to remove it). –ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 14:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A profound emotion of acceptance It’s privilege to be invited on this matter but my familiarity with the topic is pretty much kindergarten level, but I would try my best if I can to be of service for the cause of of this organization spreading facts and knowledge of false/correct informations and understanding of both information’s existence. Thank you for the inviteThe Summum Bonum (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you using an LLM to generate your answers, or are you writing in a language other than English and using a translator program? Donald Albury 17:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like an LLM. They are either translating, or are a new user trying to be very well language(d), reminding me of myself when I was new. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 13:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried removing unnecessary lines on my comment then learned that it is considered an act of destroying the context of a non private conversation, within minutes I changed it. I would have just said a simple "thank you for the invitation but Im not qualified on the topic I was invited to."(The Summum Bonum (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
productive criticism? or Assuming Im not human?am I invited or nil?The Summum Bonum (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is my name Intimidating? that your curiously asking me if I'm using an LLM. "I find your lack of faith disturbing"- Darth Vader. lol. now I sound more like an A.I.. The Summum Bonum (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:CSD § F8 and keep local[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:CSD § F8 and keep local.-- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi Wikipedia users and admins!

I am a new user on Wikipedia. I have made more than 10 edits and I need to edit some pages that are semi-protected or first level protection and also create some new pages on Wikipedia, without having to create them as a draft first. Please can you unlock the feature of semi-protected pages or first level protection pages on my account and also make possible for me to create some pages directly, without having to create them as a draft first.

Thanks AdamSala1991 (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AdamSala1991: You just have to wait one more day and your account will be autoconfirmed, then you can do all of those things. – Joe (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlisted. ——Serial Number 54129 13:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Khmer Wikipedia appears with the letters in Bold[edit]

Hi Wikipedia editors and admins!

I am a new user in Khmer Wikipedia and I have a concern. I have seen that this Wiki appears with its writing system in Bold (dark letters), which previously didn't appeared. This is seen on the language list where the Khmer language appears, when viewing articles on the Khmer Wikipedia and on the search results on Khmer Wikipedia. Can you fix the issue and make the Khmer Wikipedia to appear in normal letters, in all its forms (where the Khmer language appears, when viewing articles on the Khmer Wikipedia and on the search results on Khmer Wikipedia), like the other Wikipedia editions are?

Thanks Cheni001 (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editors here at the English Wikipedia cannot do anything regarding issues on any other wikis, you will need to ask for help on that Wiki (I don't speak or read Khmer so I can't advise what the best location is, but based on Google Translate km:ជំនួយ:មាតិកា is probably a good place to start looking). However, my guess is that it might be a font issue, you should be able to check that by looking at the entry for Khmer at Help:Multilingual support (Indic). If that is the issue some of the other information on that page may resolve your issue. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allow everyone to move pages in draftspace[edit]

I'm proposing that moving a page that's in draftspace to a target also in draftspace be an action that doesn't require being autoconfirmed. This is so if a draft is created in the wrong place by an IP, they can fix it themselves without going to RM, which they probably don't know exists. An example where this would have been useful is Moshe Mizrahi (basketball) which, according to its history, was created at Draft:Moshe Mizrahi ( basketball), moved to mainspace by an AfC reviewer at Moshe Mizrahi ( basketball) and only then moved to the correct title. This left behind a useless mainspace redirect that I had to RfD. If the IP could have moved the draft to the correct title, there is a good change they would have done so and the useless mainspace redirect would not have been created in the first place. Nickps (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC reviewers should and usually do correct the titles of drafts when they move them to mainspace. If and until that happens, what they're called in draftspace doesn't really matter. – Joe (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, I agree that allowing anybody to move a draft to a different draft title would be fine. The problem is that (as far as I know), the MediaWiki permissions system isn't flexible enough to allow non-autoconfirmed moves only in specific namespaces, and the effort required to add that capability wouldn't be justified by the benefit. RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, similarly to how editors don't have to worry about performance, editors shouldn't worry about how easy or difficult something is to implement either. I'll take it to Phabricator and let the devs worry about it. What we need to figure out is just whether there is any reason not to do it. Nickps (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please post the phab number here when you get one. RoySmith (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, before I do, are you sure that's right? We can limit who moves a page like we do with Files and Categories. Is there a reason we can't go the other way around with drafts and lift a restriction? Nickps (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now I just asked VPT to come here. Nickps (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that moving a page requires the "move" user permission. The Files and Categories namespaces are special-cased by the movefile and move-categorypages permissions, but I don't believe there is any general-case ability to apply the move permission to arbitrary namespaces. RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a solution in search of a problem. A non-autoconfirmed editor who notices that a page is misnamed and successfully moves it will be a rare creature indeed. Meanwhile, any regular editor can move a draft page to the correct name in Draft space, and AFC editors should be checking the name. It's right there in step 1 of accepting an AFC: "Select an appropriate name". – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are mostly correct. However, a) AfC reviewers don't always do that as my example demonstrates and b) even if we ignore that, I believe that we should be providing as much freedom to users as possible. Locking actions behind user rights should be done only when necessary, not merely because it's convenient. Restricting moves in mainspace makes sense because move vandalism is disruptive. In draftspace that is way less of a problem and if necessary, move semi-protection exists. Nickps (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith phab:T370471 has now been opened. Nickps (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1235335398"