Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
Before creating a new section, note:

• Discussions of technical issues belong at Village pump (technical).
• Discussions of policy belong at Village pump (policy).
• If you're ready to make a concrete proposal and determine whether it has consensus, go to the Village pump (proposals). Proposals worked out here can be brought there.

Before commenting, note:

• This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
• Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

« Archives, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62

Subscribing to a Draft so I'm notified at the five-month delete-warning

More than once, I've missed out on some Draft I'm interested in, because someone else created it, and they're the only one to get the courtesy notice at the five-month point, a month before it gets WP:G13ed. I want to somehow "subscribe" to, or "adopt", or template my username onto the page or something, so that when that notification goes out at five months to the creator, a copy also goes out to my UTP. Ditto upon actual deletion. (Yes, I know about WP:REFUND—assuming I realize it's gone—but I want the alert.) Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is a good idea, but one with broader applications than drafts, I think. I know I've said it before, but it would be really useful to have fine-grained notification settings on a page-by-page basis: changes, moves, requested moves, requested merges, redirects, filters, maintenance tags, deletion tags, etc. I've long wanted to be able to see notifications when obscure, hardly-edited pages on my watchlist get an edit, but not the highly active ones, for example. If there were an edit filter for the 5 month notification linking to the article, that could be something one could turn on for draftspace, for example. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• (I've also said this before, but) watch the creator's talk page. If they're very active, they probably won't let the draft get G13'd anyway; if they're completely inactive after creating the draft, it won't clog your watchlist; and if they're in the middle and created a draft you thought worth saving, they're probably worth mentoring. —Cryptic 15:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  I appreciate this tip, and I will follow it, however, I would consider this a "weak work-around", the reason being that I have many user talk pages on my watchlist, and when scanning the list at any given time, I won't be thinking, "Maybe there's a G13 warning here", it'll just be one of many items from that namespace in my list. Five months later, it's unlikely I would remember even registered username anymore, much less an IP, as a possible draft creator. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• I support Mathglot's idea but more like Rododendrites. I too have wanted to receive notifications for certain things that I deem more important to my interests than the rest of the pages in my watchlist. I would like for example receive notifications of certain pages, even just for changes of certain sections or subsections of pages. This latter would be most useful in pages with a lot of changes daily. The more individually customizable the notification system, the better. Regards,

Thinker78 (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• If the MediaWiki feature phab:T58362 comes to a pass, your mom-and-pop bot operators would easily be able to write bots that provide all of the above requested features, and even more! Approved bots would be able to deliver updates to the notifications tab – which is currently accessible only to the core software.
  Until then, we have to live with less perfect solutions, one of which is User:SD0001/W-Ping. – SD0001 (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  That looks like a very nice feature, I look forward to trying it out. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm confused by "I've missed out on some Draft I'm interested in, because someone else created it", per WP:OWN, even drafts can be edited by anyone, so you're quite allowed to improve a draft (or even move it to the main space) at any time, for any reason, whenever you want. What exactly is the issue you have been having? What is preventing you from editing these drafts yourself, improving them, or moving them to the mainspace if you believe them to be mainspace ready? --Jayron32 17:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Jayron32, sorry I wasn't clear: this request is about improving the courtesy notification system regarding automatic draft deletion defined in criterion for speedy deletion G13. Currently, the creator of a draft, but no one else, is notified at the five-month point that their draft is about to be deleted. This request would mitigate the "but-no-one-else" part by enabling a wider, opt-in notification for non-creators of a draft, so they could be notified, too. To your question: nothing is stopping me from editing drafts, and I often do. The problem occurs when I wake up one morning and fail to recall that approximately five months ago (or longer, if someone continued editing it), some draft I'm interested in was created, and is about to be deleted. A solution would alert me to the impending deletion, just as it alerts the creator of the draft. I hope this is clearer. Mathglot (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  This exchange highlights how the desire to be able to subscribe to these type of alerts aligns with the Third Pillar. —siroχo 22:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Gotcha. I thought you believed that only the creator could edit the draft. Could the notification system notify everyone who's in the edit history instead? It would seem to me to be a plausible implementation. --Jayron32 12:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Could the notification system notify everyone who's in the edit history instead? Hmm. I'm not sure I want to get alerts regarding every draft article I fixed a typo on. I think it should be something one opts-in to, not opts-out. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Edward; it should be opt-in. Mathglot (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

A bot could add the five-month warning to the draft, or its talk page. Then anyone who wishes to see it can simply watchlist the draft. Such notifications would have to be disregarded when determining whether a draft has been untouched for six months, otherwise it would sit there forever with the clock restarting every five months. Or use W-Ping. Certes (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

A tool to monitor and improve images in Wikiprojects

Hi there! I am interested in improving Wikipedia’s visual content and I built a tool that could help detect visual gaps in Wikiprojects.

I called it Visual Content Assessment Tool, or simply VCAT.

A working version of VCAT can be found at VCAT-dashboard, you can try it using one of the samples of data I already extracted, or you can extract data for any Wikiproject using the extraction tool, a command line tool I created for this purpose.

Some of the actions you can do with this tool are:

• Monitoring the visual content coverage in a Wikiproject
• Detecting articles needing images (eg. articles without images)
• Detecting low resolution images to improve (eg. raster diagrams to be vectorized(

What do you think? Could it be a useful tool? MingoBerlingo (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Damn! This is cool! I like it :) SWinxy (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I am still improving it, expecially the extraction which is quite tricky. If you have any suggestion please tell me. MingoBerlingo (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@MingoBerlingo: Very nice! One comment, in the "Low resolution images you can improve" section, I think you should remove the "Contribute" button, and make clicking on the image itself link to the file description page.

I don't know anything about Wikitech, but can you/are you planning to host it on Toolforge?

Also, do you plan on making the extraction tool available on the web version? I know basically nothing about programming, so I don't know if it's even possible.QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 14:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I'd like to use Toolforge, but I am not familiar with it. Maybe I could contact someone who's more into it and ask for advices. And also maybe with Toolforge I can move the extraction tool online, making somaething similar to PetScan MingoBerlingo ^💬 08:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@MingoBerlingo: Also, another thing: I saw that there's no licensing information in the Github repository and video guide, so maybe it's a good idea to release them under a free license, since that's in the spirit of Wikipedia? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 14:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, good idea! Do you know any source or guide where I can learn more about this? (I'm still a newbie here) MingoBerlingo ^💬 08:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@MingoBerlingo: Well,

• For GitHub open the repository, click Add new file → Create new file → Name it LICENSE → Click Choose a license template, then pick one. I may be biased, but I would publish it under a permissive license like MIT or BSD, but you should do your own research as to what fits you best. You should absolutely not choose a non-commercial license, however.
• For YouTube see this support page. You should click on Edit video → Advanced → License and rights ownership → Creative Commons - Attribution

If you need any more support, I'm always happy to help . Also, please {{ping}} me and other people when you reply to them! QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 15:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka: Thankss! 🙏 MingoBerlingo ^💬 14:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Selection criteria for lists involving subjective categorization

There is a broad issue with lists that involve subjective categorization being breeding grounds for WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE violations. To address this, I have been work shopping a new section, based on WP:DUE, that would be included at WP:Stand-alone lists, and I am bringing it here for further work shopping:

Selection criteria for lists involving subjective categorization

To comply with core policies on neutrality and original research topics should only be included unqualified in a list involving subjective categorization, such as List of video games considered the best or List of massacres in France, if the view that the categorization applies is the view of the majority, substantiated with references to commonly accepted reference texts. If the view that the categorization applies is held by significant minority then the topic can be included alongside appropriate qualification that makes it clear that its inclusion is not the majority view.

This is particularly important when the category is covered by MOS:PUFFERY or MOS:LABEL.

The intent of if the view that the categorization applies is the view of the majority, substantiated with references to commonly accepted reference texts is to make it clear that WP:DUE applies, but the exact wording to do so likely needs further work and comments on that aspect in particular would be appreciated.

Previous discussions can be found at NPOVN and SAL. BilledMammal (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand entirely what this proposal is...er...proposing:

1. By "topics" do you mean articles? If not, then what do you mean?
2. What do you mean by "unqualified"? Are you suggesting that it's okay to include items on a list without reliable sources that support their inclusion?
3. What do you mean by majority, and do you mean to imply that a majority should take precedent over a consensus?
4. In my experience, list articles don't typically include items that then have notes indicating that whether they belong on the list is contested.

DonIago (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

1. "Topics" refers to the individual subjects, entries, or items that might be included in a list.
2. "Unqualified" refers to the inclusion of a topic in a list without any accompanying clarifications indicating that its inclusion might be controversial or not universally accepted
3. "Majority" has the same meaning here that it does in WP:DUE; that there is a consensus among reliable sources that the subjective categorization applies.
4. List articles typically don't, but to comply with the requirements of WP:DUE they should; we can't be presenting the view of a minority as if it was the view of the majority.

BilledMammal (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Thanks for clarifying!
2. I'll be curious to hear from other editors regarding whether list articles should include items considered contentious.
3. How would we determine whether a majority of reliable sources consider a video game the best or consider an incident in France to be a massacre? There's at least probably video game review aggregators that could be used to say a game was well-reviewed, but "the best"? I have doubts that there's a similar aggregator to say whether most people consider an incident in France to be a massacre.
4. This sounds like your opinion rather than an established consensus?

DonIago (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

For #3, it's not a "majority of reliable sources", but "the view of the majority". As for how we determine that, the same way we determine it for every other article; this isn't a new requirement, it already applies to every article, including lists, through WP:NPOV.

For #4, this is established consensus in that it is part of NPOV and non-negotiable; even if there was a consensus against it (ie, a consensus that allows us to present minority viewpoints as if they were on the same level as majority viewpoints) NPOV would require us to reject it.

In general, all I am proposing to do here is make it very clear that NPOV does apply to lists, and provide some structure on how to apply it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the text should be simplified a bit... someone with English not as their first language could struggle with "unqualified in a list involving subjective categorization" and "the categorization applies is the view of the majority"... heck, I'm struggling myself! Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was getting at with my earlier comment; I think this is a bit of a word salad, but without knowing what the intentions are it's challenging for me to suggest less complex wording. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It definitely needs rewording, though I'm not currently sure how to simplify it but still get the point across. BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Majority" and "minority" of what? Sources or editors? Schazjmd (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

See my reply to Doniago above. BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with this proposal is that editors do not have a shared understanding of what it means for something to be subjective. Some editors think that subjective means something like "word that makes me feel like someone disapproves" or "label". Based on recent discussions, I would expect this to be invoked for discussions about List of bank robbers and robberies, not just for List of massacres. (A massacre is no more subjective than the color green. Having a slightly vague definition (vague definition: "killing a lot of defenseless people"; precise definition: "killing 17 or more defenseless people") is not the same thing as being subjective (subjective definition: "If you are the killer, then a massacre means killing 17 or more defenseless people, but if you are one of the people being killed, then killing anyone including you is a massacre". Objective definition: "killing a lot of defenseless people").

See also User:WhatamIdoing/Subjectivity in Wikipedia articles (work in progress). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Nice essay! Do you have any illustrative article examples in mind? – Reidgreg (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Reidgreg. I didn't write it with any article in mind, but nearly every medical article will have some aspect of this (e.g., kids recover quickly from Tonsillectomy, but the same procedure is harder on adults; don't give this drug to kids or pregnant women; preventive healthcare efforts, like checking your cholesterol levels, are kinda pointless if you're already dying of something else). It's probably more challenging to hit the right balance in political areas: China thinks A but the US thinks B; poor people think C but rich people think D; young adults think E and older adults think F, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

We can include a definition of subjective categorization; "Subjective categorization" would be any categorization that is not based on measurable and universally accepted criteria.

List of bank robbers and robberies has a measurable and universally accepted criteria, and so is not subjective. List of massacres does not have a universally accepted criteria, and so is subjective. Would that address your concerns? BilledMammal (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that you need to move away from the "subjective" language, because it will be misinterpreted. Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard, and one of the ways to do better at it is to avoid words that are not well settled or that mean something different in the real world. We do not need another 20 years of "Yes, well, it might be notable, but it's not WP:Notable", only this time using subjective as the confusing wikijargon word. If you want "measurable and universally accepted criteria", then say that and do not say subjective.

I'm not sure that List of bank robbers and robberies has universally accepted criteria. How many of the events in Cryptocurrency#Loss, theft, and fraud belong in that list? They're banks (i.e., financial institutions accepting deposits from the general public) but not legally regulated banks, and the money (which is real money, but not government-issued money) was stolen. Were those bank robberies? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard, and one of the ways to do better at it is to avoid words that are not well settled or that mean something different in the real world. That is the meaning in the real world - I didn't make it up, and when I ran it through ChatGPT as a method of verifying comprehensibility it correctly interpreted every aspect, including that one.

I don't mind considering alternative wording, but I think subjective, as the opposite of objective, is the best word here.

How many of the events in Cryptocurrency#Loss, theft, and fraud belong in that list? Skimming it, none. Bank robbery requires force, violence, or threat of violence, and it appears that none of those thefts involved that. BilledMammal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You say that this is the meaning in the real world, and yet when I look at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective and https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/subjective or even wikt:subjective, I do not find either of the words measurable or universal.

According to your notion of bank "robbery", a bank "burglary" does not belong in the List of bank robbers and robberies. The law (int he US) might treat breaking into a bank in the middle of the night to steal money out of the vault yourself as being distinct from threatening to kill someone if they don't take the money out of the vault and give it to you, but I'm not sure that the Wikipedia list makes the same distinction. The incident described at the top of List of bank robbers and robberies#Slovenia would technically be considered a burglary, if it happened in the US. If you go back to this idea that the definition is "universal", then I don't think that the definition of bank robbery is universal. I think the US FBI says that there are robberies (e.g., threatening the teller) and burglaries (e.g., sneaking in at night) and thefts (e.g., computer hacking), and that most people use bank robbery to mean any crime in which depositors' money is stolen from a depository institution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

List for gore websites

Hi. I have been thinking for couple weeks now, if I should create an article that would contain all gore websites. Basically a list that would contain all operational and defunct gore content websites. However, I'm not sure if the topic is widespread enough, so I'm asking here. Would list of gore websites be notable enough or not? Or should it perhaps be added to List of online video platforms? Or should such list even be included in Wikipedia? I know those websites are sometimes called shock sites, and the ones I know of, have very disturbing content in them, but since Wikipedia doesn't censor anything, I don't think that it would be an issue here either. --Pek (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

With such an article I'd ask what the definition of "gore websites" is and how you source that a given website is a "gore website". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, according to Wiktionary the word gore stands for; murder/bloodshed/violence. Can't really find any better definitions. So anything that is graphical and violent. Also, since when lists need to be sourced? Back in 2017 I made list of metal detecting finds and nobody asked me to source it. Also, the websites in this (list of online video platforms) also don't have references. --Pek (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

We know what gore is, we don't know what a gore website is (and, based on your descriptions, I don't want to know). Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Items on list articles need either their articles that show they should be on the list or referencing to allow verification that they should be on the list. Lists are also subject to notability per WP:NLIST, although this is usually a very easy standard to pass. Also you would need some kind of inclusion criteria, for instance why would news website that have videos including murder / bloodshed / violence not gore sites? I'm not saying they are, but how do you create an inclusion criteria that doesn't include them, etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have tagged list of metal detecting finds as lacking sources. Even lists must be verifiable. – Teratix ₵ 21:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Compare Wikipedia:Glossary#uncited and Wikipedia:Glossary#verifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The point stands. – Teratix ₵ 22:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that lists must be verifiable. However, that one is verifiable (=sources exist in the real world). The problem with that list is that it's uncited. You could fix that problem yourself, if you wanted it done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Sites like https://algore.com? 😀 Anomie⚔ 20:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

A separate list of shock sites is so 2006. Graham87 10:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:5P1... in particular: "not...an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory." Jason Quinn (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

A place for non-encyclopaedic material

This probably qualifies as a truly misguided and crackpot idea, which is why I'm nervous of posting it even here in the Idea section, where crackpot is open for proposition, even if all it creates is a lovely firework display as it descends in multicoloured pyrotechnics, sinks, and is never seen again.

Could we have another parallel space beyond main-space and talk-space, where each article can have an "extra material" space? I'm proposing this to solve dilemmas such as useful original research, additional explanation of complex subjects, tables of relevant data, etc. etc.

For example, at Abbots Ripton rail accident we have a long and well-written article whose author has gone to the trouble of checking census reports to find out the subsequent career paths of people involved in this serious 1876 incident (see notes 14 and 19). They've included - unfortunately unsourced - background railway information that is extremely useful to the reader (e.g. note 2, concerning the intermediate caution position of an early semaphore signal). There is also quite a lot of logical deduction based on individual fact (eg notes 9 & 11 where our editor has carried out calculations of stopping distances and timings), and personal interpretations of opinion (e.g. note 4). The original research is a real problem to me; by rights it shouldn't be in the article, but since it's cited to something that a reader could potentially check (albeit a very primary source, 1881 census data) we've got as much reason to believe the research is true as we do any of the rest of the article, which means that I really, really don't want to delete it. The personal deductions are the same, and this editor's work does set the accident in context in a way that is lacking in the only cited source, the accident report.

So if we had an "extra material" space, we could move sourced original research into it, thereby preserving "encyclopaedic" articles without having to throw away valuable human knowledge and deduction.

An "extra material" space would also be useful in barely-comprehensible technical articles. Here there's often the dilemma that if anyone attempts to add explanatory material, it runs into editors who point out that we're not a text book, who respond that we aren't here to hold hands with the ignorant, and if someone can't understand the main article, the subject is beyond them. The maths world, for example, frowns on simple, explanatory material supported by references to textbooks, as these are seen as tertiary sources, doing a different job, not the "real deal". It's even more dubious about websites with teaching/explanatory material set up by university professors, even though these are often the most approachable explanatory material, and have been produced by people who are acknowledged as competent. So again, we could put explanatory stuff based on such sources in the "extra material" section.

I'm not proposing that it should be a junk-heap. It does need restrictions. I'd say "closely related to the subject and demonstrably true" should be a minimum.

Is this a completely disastrous idea? Elemimele (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this a completely disastrous idea? Probably.

sourced original research – isn't that an oxymoron?

Is this new namespace linked from the article? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow: Good questions. (1) Yes, a new linked namespace. It would mean that (some) articles would have three buttons at the top instead of two: "Article", "Talk" and "Extras" or some hopefully better alternative.

(2) By "sourced original research" I mean things like the Abbots Ripton "Notes" where the editor has gone to quite obscure primary sources (the 1881 census data) to work out what happened to the signalmen and stationmasters involved in this particular accident in their subsequent lives; and they've drawn conclusions from what they found (that the Abbots Ripton signalman can't have been regarded as too guilty by his superiors as he remained employed as a signalman). To my mind, this goes beyond what an encyclopaedia editor should do (summarise secondary sources) but is nevertheless "sourced original research" because they've indicated clearly from where they found their information. The synthesis aspect is less bothersome because the thought-process is obvious and the reader can either disagree or agree. Elemimele (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that this would turn into a monumental time-sink. Any content in a 'parallel space' would need monitoring for WP:BLP violations, breaches of copyright, vandalism, and the rest. And unless it was an utter free-for-all we'd still have to restrict what could be placed there, with the inevitable disputes, XfD discussions etc. If people want to publish original research, they have plenty of other options (Wikiversity might be appropriate for some), and facilitating it here is a distraction from the core purpose of the project - a tertiary encyclopaedia based on published sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I was just going to ask whether the OP was aware of Wikiversity? That sister project allows for some original research (such as analysis of primary source material to form original conclusions). Perhaps this is what you are seeking? Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Or Wikibooks? I think Wikipedia:Transwiki-ing is the solution for this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiversity appreciates good quality original research. We then could do with a link to the content if it has value. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this what WP:External links is for? RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That would help with professorial tutor-pages, but what am I supposed to do with the original research in Abbots Ripton? There isn't an external link because the Wikipedian did the research. But it's good research... Elemimele (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Still not something for Wikipedia, I think . Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with an editor using "quite obscure primary sources" so long as they hew to the restrictions in WP:PRIMARY. Although this is considered research outside Wikipedia, it is not what we call original research. Drawing conclusions from primary sources is what we call synth, and is forbidden. You can let the reader draw their own conclusions though. If you have some original research, you can publish it outside Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That article is certainly waaay too detailed and too based on primary sources. Honestly I think fandom sites would be the best place for OR and such things. JoelleJay (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an article that is way too detailed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

No such thing as too detailed?

Anyway, I concur - there are many free options available for self-publishing original research, and if such research eventually becomes good enough it could even become a source for the article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

...if such research eventually becomes good enough it could even become a source for the article. That depends on where it is published. - Donald Albury 12:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

One view is that the place for non-encyclopaedic material is in a non-encyclopedia, i.e. another site. However, you may be surprised at what is encyclopedic. Certes (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a very good idea, and its something that the WikiMedia foundation is missing in its mission to be the 'sum of all human knowledge'

This could be facilitated by linking Wikipedia articles entries in WikiData to a new project with your suggestion in scope

Additionally, there's no reason, in theory, why Wikipedia couldn't host discussion/OR/miscellania regarding an article on an appropriate subpage by changing the settings of its MediaWiki instance

What you're describing is something that the internet sorely needs. As it stands, people find information on a topic that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia by typing reddit.com/r/[TOPIC]. There are obvious flaws with this. A WikiMedia foundation alternative would be a great thing.

Such a space could operate as a forum, place for research, reference repository, and / or all manner of other things in respect of the entries we have on WikiData Jack4576 (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Iirc, Wikibooks allows original research and general purpose publications, and Wikiversity is more focused on textbooks for academic courses. Of course, it won't get nearly as much reach as Wikipedia, but they are alternatives. One does not have to resort to Fandom to write these sorts of things. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Everything2? I have occasionally found useful ORish things there unavailable anywhere else. It began in 1998 and has a massive amount of [mostly junky] content with some gems. -- GreenC 17:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  @GreenC: thanks for the suggestion, I'd never heard of Everything2. My first look confirms your view: a lot of rubbish, but a few genuine gems. Maybe that's why the idea of an OR/extras space in Wikipedia is not so great; it would also end up containing much more trash than value. I don't know... but I still haven't the heart to tackle Abbots Ripton! Elemimele (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Travel article external link spamming proposal

@Primefac has directed me to WP:VPR, but since I think this proposal still needs work, I’ll start here.

Past discussions of relevance: original discussion and external link blacklist request.

The general idea is that there should be a general sanction on editors of “Visa policy of COUNTRY” articles as these are prone to external link spamming of unofficial third-party travel/visa agency websites (with a risk of them being fraudulent too). And/or a protection policy regarding “high-risk” articles, since it’s usually IPs or newly created accounts who add these sorts of links.

See the original discussion above for links to examples of diffs where I removed inappropriate external links.

Per Primefac regarding a possible general sanction: maybe to also include "phone numbers in X" articles - spam is one thing but I have also noticed (both in the visa and phone number articles) that people have a really bad habit of putting incredibly personal info in these pages (visa ID numbers, phone numbers, etc), to the point where protecting it not only stops the spam but also decreases the proliferation of personal info that needs to be suppressed.

@Daniel Quinlan: for your info. Fork99 (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

What does it mean a general sanction on editors of “Visa policy of COUNTRY” articles? You mean anyone who edits these articles should be constrained (how) from doing (what)? -- GreenC 17:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean that’s why I brought it here, I’m not 100% sure how it should work. Initially, I proposed making a few exceptions to the page protection policy to preemptively (possibly pending changes protect) a few higher risk countries/articles that seem to be targeted by inappropriate external links. Fork99 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve come up with an interim solution in the meantime, and that is to add a piece of hidden text below the “External links” sub-heading of each article warning that links added should be discussed first at the talk page, any unofficial links placed will be deleted. It would also say that if they persist, their website will get blacklisted.

Something to the effect of:

<!-- ({{NoMoreLinks}}) --> <!-- DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF LINKS NOR IS IT A PLACE FOR ADVERTISING (WP:ADV) ----- If you think that your link might be useful, instead of placing it here, put it on this article's talk page first for editor discussion. Links that are to UNOFFICIAL travel and/or visa agency websites WILL BE DELETED. IF YOU PERSIST, YOUR WEBSITE WILL BE BLACKLISTED BY WIKIPEDIA AND/OR WIKIMEDIA. --> Fork99 (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up about that working too well. Check out the "editing box" here [1] for what I had to do in one article -- and it works only so-so. (That link might not work in the distant future when article sections have moved around.) EEng 23:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Top and tail the external links section then, perhaps? Hm yeah the things people obsess over on Wikipedia! Fork99 (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You might have more success by reporting the websites to the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. That should keep them out of all the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

"Bibliography:" namespace

There's a somewhat contentious RFC going on in Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals) § RfC on notability criteria. While we almost certainly need a better SNG for journals, there is one point there that is confounding the issue to some degree. There is a valid (though not WP:PAG-backed) desire to include information on the sources Wikipedia uses to build its articles. It does make sense that we want to provide information to our readers about the sources we use to construct Wikipedia. But maybe trying to force encyclopedia articles about these sources is the wrong approach.

I think we could address this specific issue by creating a "Bibliography:" namespace, and allowing for bibliographic entries for journals or other sources, that don't need to hold up to WP:N. We can require a template at the top of each entry that makes it clear that "This is a Wikipedia bibliography entry for a source used in Wikipedia articles" with some verbiage noting that it's not an article itself etc. We'd require most policies and guidleiness to be met, with a specific different "notability" criterion allowing only for inclusion of bibliographic entries on sources that Wikipedia relies upon, e.g., Bibliography:Niche Reliable Journal.

A key for this namespace is that it would be intended primarily for readers, to give them information on what Wikipedia is using -- hence its purpose would be different from WP:RSN/WP:RSP, WP:CITEWATCH, etc which are meant for editors to evaluate sources.

What do you think? —siroχo 23:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I really like the bones of this idea, but I don't think a whole nother namespace is the solution. Couldn't we collate this sort of information under the auspices of a WikiProject? Folly Mox (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I might have misunderstood what you were suggesting. With the links to the discussions you led with, I thought you were talking about general information about the sources we cite, not a compilation how those sources are cited in articles, which seems more in line with a similar namespace created by fr.wp to hold citations for reuse. Or maybe I'm dumb and just don't understand what is being workshopped here at all. Folly Mox (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed I was I was thinking about general information about the sources we cite, intended for readers. Basically so we can provide some level of Wikipedia-style information on the resources we cite, even normally we would not construct an article about the source due to our policies and guidelines.

If folks see value in expanding such an effort into a compilation of how those sources are cited, I'd be intrigued but haven't put too much thought into that yet.

I am not sure if a WikiProject necessarily works, because those are generally groupings of editors and tasks/initiatives the editors want to work on, rather than meant for readers. —siroχo 00:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I personally love the idea of providing our readers more information about our editorial processes, including how we view our sources. I'm sure there exists a contrary perspective holding that the only reader-facing namespace should be article. I'm sure of this because it's a position I personally held just a season ago, as evidenced by my comment on a similar idea at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 202#Proposal to show the status of reliability within articles (which was geared towards RSP specifically rather than a bespoke bibliographical entry). Folly Mox (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Ohhh... I thought it was like a {{Harvard citation}} except they displayed on another page, so that the in-text references were minimalist and the longer reference was in a list in the Bibliography namespace. @Folly Mox: is this frwiki namespace active, or just a proposal? I'm curious. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 11:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

fr:Aide:Espace référence is, according to the Foundation's proposed citation reuse initiative, meta:WikiCite/Shared Citations, currently in use as of 2022 (I can't read French to verify). An easy way to consolidate and reuse citations, as well as holding metadata about their perceived reliability, comes up an awful lot. The WMF's proposal is appropriately the most thorough and ambitious, but I only know about it because this idea came up on this page last month, at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 50#Reliable source tracking on Talk pages. Folly Mox (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on my limited knowledge of French, it looks like it's a namespace for listings of information regarding multiple editions of a work (e.g., ISBN, pages, etc). Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, according to the example listed prominently on the associated WikiProjet, the namespace holds basic bibliographical information with citation template code for easy copypasta, but it looks like it could comfortably hold information about reliability, and presumably there's a way to program a module to fetch an appropriate reference from Référence: space and have it spit out the citation template you want, which would populate Special:WhatLinksHere for the associated reference. The module would probably only need per-cite specifics like |page=, |quote= etc. as optional parameters and you'd be up and running without needing to understand or fill out citation templates at all for any sources sufficiently detailed in the namespace under discussion. Folly Mox (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Could be useful – would help reduce clutter long citations cause. I believe wiktionary has something somewhat similar – a "citations" namespace dediacted to quotes supporting usage of the word. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 23:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This could also be useful for newspapers as well. Curbon7 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this would be a much better place to host all the journal articles that amount to nothing more than a non-independent primary database entry. One of my concerns in the "are journals in selective citation indices inherently notable" RfC is the fact that readers/editors coming across our journal articles will assume they are like any other Wikipedia non-biography article and have met GNG, and thus expect that the prose content will be a summary of independent secondary reliable SIGCOV (or at least has the potential for this) rather than a pure derivative of ABOUTSELF. A namespace dedicated to curating bibliographic data, where there is no expectation that an entry is based on IRS SIGCOV (or has received such, even if not cited), wouldn't mislead people into thinking a homeopathy journal is reputable just because the article doesn't mention any criticism of it. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

If it is data about sources, then Wikidata is the place to put it. Then every Wikipedia can use it. Perhaps we can have a way to more neatly present the info to English language readers from the data, but I don't think we need a name space. We used to have doi's as templates. But I would think that Wikipedia: is better than Template: for this. But a template could interpret the wikidata to display. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:" namespace is meant for editors. I'm hoping to find a way to provide information to readers about the sources used to construct the encyclopedia, especially when articles don't exist for the sources due to notability reasons. Wikidata may be a good answer for this, but how would we display it to readers? —siroχo 06:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little bit sus about outsourcing information to Wikidata. It's really good at what it does, but it is a different project, so it's difficult to keep an eye on for changes, it acts as a black box when chasing down errors, and the learning curve is pretty steep. The other, other, other time the idea of a separate namespace for citation reuse came up recently at the VPs, at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 197#Migrating inline references to a separate 'References' space, the Wikidata solution was characterised as a non-starter.

Wikidata is great for uh data, but if we're concerned with things like subjective assessments of reliability, we're going to lose a lot of important context in translation. I'll close with the perennial reminder that reliability can only be properly assessed at the intersections of sources and the claims they make. Folly Mox (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry when I said I'll close, I meant my comment, not the discussion! Sure, let's make a Reference: namespace while WikiCite is approved, roadmapped, developed, and launched. Why not give it a go? Folly Mox (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

What to do with User:Jaiquiero redirects

User:Jaiquiero who has been blocked for disruptive editing, has created a multitude of redirects (over 50), a few of which are good, some of which I R3'd, and many which I'm hesitant to R3, but should still be considered for deletion – many are unlikely search terms or just pointless. Taking these remainders to RfD would be an incredible waste of time and effort. What should be done? Pinging Ivanvector who, at RfD, suggested Delete all effectively per WP:X1. Mass- and likely automated creation of barely-plausible redirects is net negative for Wikipedia, and the creator is blocked for exactly that. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned WP:X1 because it was a temporary emergency criterion we created to address nonsensical redirects created by a different user, but in that case there were many more redirects - at one point a list was compiled of that user's redirects that had 50,072 entries, and that excluded any that had been edited by any other editor. And they were far more obviously nonsense than Jaiquiero's: just before being banned and action being taken, the user created 126 redirects to micromastia, including such titles as "tuberous boobies", "diminutive titties", "minute breasts", "little tits", and "herniated areolar complexes". They also created all 126 of those over a span of one hour and 25 minutes. Actually much of their later work had to do with breast ailments, but earlier they had focused on nonsensical modifications of dictionary words, like classificationally, occasionalness, or violetishness. The criterion was created because there was resistance to just mass-deleting every one of their redirects, as a tiny proportion were deemed useful but we didn't want to have every one listed at RFD. It took many editors two and a half years to go through them all. An admin commented on Jaiquiero's talk page that of 3,871 articles they created, 3,610 have already been deleted, which seems like a lot but is a blip compared to the user we created X1 for. Also, my X1 comment was in reference to a different user's redirects from these two, and they've been blocked as a sockpuppet so G5 applies to those anyway.

To answer the question, if there is an affirmative consensus that all of Jaiquiero's redirects should be deleted, then that's all that's needed for an admin to mass-delete them - they can just refer to that discussion (or this discussion, if that's what we're doing), or any other user could tag them WP:G6 and refer to the discussion. Probably this should be happening at WP:ANI, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that if you have already been through the lot, then it may be possible for others to join in a bulk RFD for the ones you are hesitating on. So if you can open up a discussion for them and list the ones you are unsure on in one big RFD, it should do it justice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Edward-Woodrow, you are right in saying that Jaiquiero has created "over 50" redirects, well over 50. In fact the account made a total of 3,420 redirects, of which all but 36 have now been deleted. Not quite up to Neelix's level, but still grossly excessive. JBW (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have just checked a random sample of 10 of the remaining redirects. Two were, in my opinion, perfectly good redirects. Four seemed to me sufficiently pointless that I can't imagine anyone would bother to create them, but they are relevant enough that now they exist I feel they may as well stay. that leaves four which in my opinion were so pointless that I deleted them under speedy deletion criterion R3; they were either redirects from a subject with some connection to the topic of the target article but not actually mentioned there or just redirects from arbitrary modifications to the name of the article subject which nobody would actually be likely to search for. I did not see any of the grossly unsuitable redirects which Jaiquiero made; perhaps they have all been deleted already. JBW (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Multinational bands and music groups

The vast majority of bands and music groups are based in a single country with performers from that country. Most articles begin "Bandname is a Nationese genretype band", such as The Velvet Underground was an American rock band. Today, more multinational bands are being formed, either by corporations, producers or because performers migrate or co-locate. In such cases a national descriptor without specific detail may become misleading. Editors have different views about nationality or may rely on poorly-researched entertainment media or compromise on a dual-national descriptions. Debatable descriptors appear in Alias (band), Kamelot, Kaachi, Le Sserafim, Sculptured, The Pretenders, The Band, Rainbow_(rock_band) and many more.

The assumption in the guidelines under Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music is that performers and composers are individual. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography is helpful but assumes individuals. In contrast Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film explain how to describe multinational productions. I started some unfruitful discussion here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music. I propose inserting a 4th point under Nationality to avoid implying something false about any principal performer's known nationality, when applying a band/group's national descriptor. Travelmite (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Why not just say "x is a multinational *something* band yadda yadda yadda"? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, or even "is a *something* band yadda yadda yadda", and explain the multinationalism in a later sentence. I think Travelmite has a good general point, but we do not need to prescribe a specific approach; it will vary by article. E.g. "is a *something* band based in Nigeria with members from Nigeria and Sengal" or whatever. I think it's correct that we need to say something about not misleadingly identifying a multinational band and a national one; e.g. "is a Nigerian band, with some members also from Sengal" is potentially confusing and smacks of a "put a national identifer on everyone and everything" fetishism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Paris Combo, which has had members from France, Australia, Algeria, and Madagascar, has started with "Paris Combo is a musical group based in Paris, France ..." for more than 17 years. The countries of origin of the members are only listed in the Members section. Donald Albury 18:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Refideas notification upon editing an article

I've been kicking this idea around in my head for a while now, so I'm testing to see what interest there might be. Plenty of people park good sources on article talk pages using Template:Refideas when they don't have time or interest in working on the article themselves, or perhaps don't know what to do with the sources, and/or generally hope that someone will be able to use them at some point. It's a great idea, but part of the problem is that... people don't look at the talk page as often as they could, so these sources may sit there unused for a very long time, even on a frequently edited article.

So here is an idea, I don't know if it would be technically feasible, and I don't know if people think it would generally clutter up a page, but how about when someone hits "Edit" on an article that is using the Refideas template on the talk page, they get maybe something like a little yellow box above the editing window with a single short sentence saying something like "There are suggestions for sources on the talk page that you may find useful." Does that sound doable and something that people would appreciate?

This would be especially useful for both people looking into whether an article should be deleted (oh, look, there are good sources after all, never mind), as well as people with a genuine interest in improving an article who have the time to put the work in. How does this sound as an idea? BOZ (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Excellent plan. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Timur9008, @JimmyBlackwing, and @Sciencefish as I think I have seen them using Refideas the most. BOZ (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

+1 I will never be able to use all the sources I park in refideas. I think this proposal will help improve the encyclopedia. Donald Albury 00:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I've added refs to hundreds of talk pages but I've always been aware that they may go unseen. If there was some kind of notification, it would most likely help. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)