Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)

CONSENSUS TO INCREASE TO 250PX

This bifurcated discussion finds a strong consensus to increase the default thumbnail size on English Wikipedia to 250px. There is no consensus to further expand to 300px, though a number of editors expressed interest in revisiting the subject after a while at 250px. I am not certain of the technical steps needed to implement this change, but I will determine them and see that they are done. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2024 (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.

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T355914

Way back in 2009, English Wikipedia decided to change its default thumbnail size from 180px to 220px (which became the default for all wikis). It's been 15 years since then, and the most common screen resolution is now 1920x1080,[1][2] which makes 220px seem rather small. The Swedish, Norwegian, and Finnish Wikipedias have already switched to 250px and the Dutch Wikipedia switched to 260px(!). Since there are already other wikis using 250px, the impact on the thumbnailing services and thumbnail storage should be manageable (as the most commonly requested thumbnails will already be available in 250px). A 2014 proposal to increase the default size to 300px failed to reach consensus, which is why I'm trying the more modest proposal of 250px (which is the next size up in wgThumbLimits). Nosferattus (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - After wondering why thumbnails are so tiny on Wikipedia (especially compared to other websites), I finally figured out I could change the default in my preferences, which made me wonder why the default is so small, which led me to research the history of the issue. Seems like a bump in the size is overdue. Nosferattus (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I've always thought that Wikipedia has frustratingly small thumbnails. 4.16.149.14 (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose In many case images aren't just used on their own, but side by side with other images (the multiple images template for example). This already leads to cramped text on none desktop screens, and this propodal only makes that worse. Thete is also the issue of |upright= to think of, as this would effect the size from which images are scaled. If images appear to small a setting for larger base size is available in preferences. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  The common screen size of phones have also increased. In most cases where the multiple images template is used, it's on its own line instead of sharing with text. IP editors and readers should also be accounted for, and I don't see what considerations upright adds to thumbnail sizes. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry but In most cases where the multiple images template is used, it's on its own line instead of sharing with text is the opposite of my experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  You're right - the one line ones are "mini-galleries", which are vastly preferable to multiple images, which are used far too often. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yep with this increase all horizontal multiple images templates will immediately become to wide. Mini-galleries are definitely a better idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Template:Multiple image is used in less than one percent of articles. It has a hard-coded default of 200px and therefore should not be affected by this change at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  So one less issue than those mentioned. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I still don't see what considerations upright adds to thumbnail sizes. Aren't the considerations of that exactly the same as those for changing the thumbnail sizes? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Upright is scaled from the base image size, so any images that have been set as a specific size using upright will increase in size based on this change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  The same goes for every other iamge. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  No. If an image is set to 300px it won't change, but if it's set to 1.36 upright it will increase in size proportional to this change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  So will images not set to any px. Uprights are meant to be relative, I don’t see the problem here. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Then obviously I have failed to explain the point in a way you can understand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - 220px is tiny, especially on a 4K monitor which are becoming more common. I think it would be useful to increase the size, especially since other Wikis already have. 30px isn't much in the grand scheme of things and hasn't caused any issues for me when putting images in infoboxes. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support 220px looks tiny on my screen. I can set my default up to 300px but prefer to see what the readers are seeing. Or not, given the small size on their 4K monitors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Meh Personally, despite my screen being 1920×1280, I seldom maximize my browser. Also keep in mind how Vector 2022 shrinks the content area. Anomie⚔ 00:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  As a staunch supporter of V22, I don't think the larger Earth image looks wrong here. (Not sure if that means we should do it though, so I'm neutral.) Aaron Liu (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Nosferattus: isn't 360×800 the most common screen resolution (a very quick check showed readership of TFA today at about 2:1 mobile web to desktop web). — xaosflux ^Talk 00:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: Yes, I think you're correct and 250px (or 300px for that matter) works great at 360×800, as the mobile layout puts images on their own line. Nosferattus (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    Isn't mobile configured separately? I'm pretty sure that we can change the desktop size without changing the mobile size. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. It's not 2009 anymore, and the images look way better bigger. ‍ Relativity 02:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I don't fully understand the importance of screen size here, as I thought WP:VECTOR2022 specifically constrains article width by default. Could anyone with a super-wide monitor clarify? CMD (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  • It does by default. But the people !voting here probably either use a different skin or have clicked the button to un-constrain it. Anomie⚔ 04:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

    Given the resistance to the community wish of making unconstrained the default, it would be best to make decisions considering restricted width as the most likely one to be encountered by desktop readers. Having a look myself, I don't think 250px creates an issue within the constrained width (and I believe the latest zebradesign has been implemented), but worth keeping this default look in mind. CMD (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support I feel like I have to squint to look at images pretty often. This should be an RfC advertised on WP:CENT tho. Galobtter (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support Hardly any images except photos of faces can be properly read at 220px. As per Relativity, except even in 2009 our images looked too small. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I'd prefer jumping straight to 300px (and I think mw:Ops would, too), but 250px is fine and an improvement over what we have now. Somewhat bigger images are easier for people to see (e.g., if you're old enough to use reading glasses, which I'm sure I set down somewhere just a minute ago), but they also make the pages seem more interesting. I set mine to 300px last year, and I've never regretted it, and you can, too: go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering-files and change the thumbnail size. As noted above, several other communities have made this change already, and I'll add that AFAIK no community has ever switched to a bigger number, regretted it, and then asked to be switched back to a smaller size.
  BTW, because the English Wikipedia is the largest wiki in the history of the world, etc., the actual switch is something that requires a bit of planning. This is not difficult – in fact, on our end, it's really quite easy – but we should not be surprised, e.g., if we get an official request to manually set the images in the very most popular articles (probably on the order of the top 0.01% by page views) to the new size in advance of the official switchover. We can send a bot around to do this (and also to undo it after the switch is made), and that will take some of the strain off the servers on the magical day (plus give both editors and readers a way to see the change in action before it happens everywhere). Let's do this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WhatamIdoing. I've had a default size of 300px for a couple of years now, and it's hugely improved the desktop reading experience. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose We still also must consider mobile screens, and going above 220 px will put a strain on those readers. If you are on desktop, you can set the default size through a registered account to handle this. Masem (t) 18:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Why would it? As mentioned above, since images are put on their own line in mobile, having bigger images is nice and causes no issues. I just increased my thumbnail size to 300px and it looks great - a lot of images are a lot easier to see that way (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering-files also affects mobile, so you can test it for yourself). 250px is not going to cause any issues for mobile. Galobtter (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree, I find larger thumbs on mobile to be too large for a reasonable reading experience. Masem (t) 20:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'll also add that there is an issue with anything larger than 220px for a large chuck of non-free images, which we have constrained to 0.1MP. Many portrait non-free images like movie posters end up with image sizes around 400 x 225 px to stay within the 0.1MP. Thumbnail sizes over 220 px will implicitly and incorrectly imply that non-free images can be uploaded to larger sizes, which will not happen. Masem (t) 20:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Is there any actual legal basis for 10% of a megapixel? My impression is that this was more or less a random number pulled out of somebody's. jp×g🗯️ 15:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, it’s just something we picked. The legal precedent is only that the usage has to be ‘minimal’. If u have a retina screen in many cases u already get noticeably pixelated thumbnails for non free images. Upping the thumbnail size would increase that problem. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also, 250x400 px = 0.1MP exactly, so we could have the same height on a vertical image. US theater posters have a ratio of 27:40, so we'd be expecting to see uploads at 250x370px. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support, especially for mobile. I've got a tiny screen for a mobile, and default thumbnail has a lot of ugly white around it. On desktop it's a no-brainer; I usually set upright=1.35 to ensure images/graphs are easy to see. By choosing a better default, fewer people will need to rescale. Many people rescale using the px parameter, which causes accessibility issues, so another plus if that is avoided. My guess is that a default of 300px or 260px would be even better. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Sensible suggestion. I would even support 300px in the future. Schierbecker (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Looks good, more accessible, and none of the concerns raised bother me. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as a longtime smartphone user. My phone can easily handle the larger images. Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Jeez, I remember it was pulling teeth to get the thumb size bumped up years ago, and now it's been more than a decade? I think we are hitting the useful limits of thumbnail size at 250px, given that a) lots more reader use is mobile, which is width-restrained, and b) the WMF's Vector redesign harms screen horizontal real estate for the vast majority of readers and it's likely even if they're browsing full-screen at 1920x1080, they don't necessarily have correspondingly more content area, but I think the small bump proposed here is sensible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  The mobile width of an average mobile screen is 360 to 440 ‘non-retina’ pixels. With margins removed that’s about 300 to 360 web pixels. Above that width, the skin will scale down the image. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. This is less of an issue with Vector 2022, which makes the horizontal area much smaller, but I still recommend it be done. I myself have manually set the thumbnail size to 400px so I can see more in Vector 2017, which is the skin I use. SWinxy (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  And, yes, I would also support 300px thumbnails too. SWinxy (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support I set my personal default to 400px some time ago and that's fine so even 250px is small. And I'm not using anything special – mostly a 1920 x 1080 laptop or a smartphone. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: aesthetically, I like the current size better, but that's no reason to oppose, just my opinion. I am convinced by supporter's arguments above. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I do not see downsides to this proposal. Screens are significantly larger than they were a decade ago, so they should be able to handle slightly larger thumbnails just fine. For non-free media, that means the media will likely be smaller than the proposed new default, but that is only a minor issue. Conversely, I think 250px default thumbnails would be a significant benefit for both desktop and mobile users, especially seeing how many articles already use images that are 250px or larger in their infoboxes. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  The "0.1 megapixels is an ironclad rule we bot-enforce" definition of "low resolution" is something else that probably needs revisiting in a separate discussion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah that seems like a very arbitrary rule we could relax without issues. Galobtter (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  In that case, I don't think there are any other issues with upscaling the default thumbnail size to 250px. Although I definitely see why there is a size limit for non-free media, I agree the 0.1 megapixel limit seems arbitrary (for example, why can't it be 0.11 or 0.12 megapixels, which would allow non-free media to be slightly wider?). – Epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support - sane defaults make the world go round. There's always option for templates and or individuals to hard-code other sizes. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, a really good idea. Now hopefully somebody will get around to increasing the default text size, probably small enough that it was designed for 18-year-olds with the eyesight of eagles. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn Well... Aaron Liu (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Looks to be decided. Lightburst (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Per above, looks fine. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Reading and commenting from mobile to say that this looks better on the mobile version of the wiki and doesn't raise any issues there. CoconutOctopus talk 12:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support outdated current standard needs updating. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support going straight to 300px; I am almost kind of reticent to support going to 250px because we might end up stuck there for another fifteen years. 300px is, I'd say, close to an absolute minimum for things being legible. 220px is so mindbogglingly tiny I can't even explain it without using language from the old country:

  >220px thumbnails

  >2011

  I seriously hope you guys don't do this

• All else aside, this is a great idea and overdue. jp×g🗯️ 15:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

For reference, here is a screenshot of this page on a 4K monitor at 100% zoom level lol.



jp×g🗯️ 15:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The default skin has limited width, not to mention most use 1080p monitors. You may make it 300 for yourself. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The default skin was not handed to us on tablets from heaven; it was made by designers in accordance with the constraints of the project, one of which was that thumbnails were 220 pixels wide. This seems like a rather circular problem: we can't increase the thumb resolution because the skin wasn't designed around them, and the skin won't be designed around larger thumbnails because we don't use them? jp×g🗯️ 20:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I've searched a bunch of places and I can't seem to find a place that says V22 was designed on the basis of 220px thumbs. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Expecting the WMF to react to changing thumbnail sizes on a single project (even the main one) seems unlikely, and the default fixed-width page layout is how the vast majority of users will experience the site. (As an aside, one reason for the page width limits is that the longer lines go, the harder it is to read, hence one reason why you never ended up with extremely horizontal books. I dunno who is browsing Wikipedia at full-width and full 4K resolution, but that's objectively a worse way to experience it, and we shouldn't be considering those edge cases when making decisions for the majority.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I use limited width and even then the width is wide enough to justify 250px thumbs. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support. It's a marginal change, but apparently important enough to end up at CD. Oh well – I kinda like bigger images anyway. I can't support this beyond personal opinion on aesthetics, but I'd be willing to put a Weak Support on it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WhatamIdoing given that the screen resolutions of both computer and mobile screens has increased since 2009 designation. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WAID. Personally, I use 300px, which works fine also on my phone. —Kusma (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support - Increasing to at least 250px (if not 300px) makes sense in relation to more advanced mobile phones and desktop screens. As a visual thinker and learner (as opposed to a "word person") this change would also increase literacy for those of use who are visually dominant. Therefore I see it as an accessibility issue as well. Netherzone (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Just like with money inflation, keeping as the relative same as 15 years ago would be about 500px and 250 is a tiny step in comparison. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WhatamIdoing. Ajpolino (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as web design best practice. I broached this idea back in 2020, and given the response here it seems I shouldn't have let myself be talked out of it. I've had my personal preference set to 250px ever since then — it's nice, and I'd like to give readers that same experience. I find the opposes generally unconvincing (Masem's fair use concerns seem at least a bit valid, but as TheDJ notes, a bit of pixelation is already happening on high-resolution devices, which are becoming more common over time, so it's water under the bridge; and I don't have any problem with people uploading larger fair use images that then get automatically reduced, nor with us exploring raising the 0.1MP standard). {u|Sdkb} ^talk 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support without prejudice against further increases. – Teratix ₵ 04:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support And wouldn't be opposed to something larger than 250px too -Fastily 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: I've previously thought 220px was too small on desktop, and an increase to 250px seems reasonable even considered the limited width of Vector 2022 (which improves readability and skimming). — Bilorv (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Yes please, it would be a much more sensible default! Leijurv (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Good size and looks better on bigger screens Isla🏳️‍⚧ 00:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose too big, unless you have a huge display. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  250 looks alright for me at 1080p. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support The current default is just too small, and it's my observation that many new/unregistered users end up setting images to a larger resolution so they'll be legible. As it stands, WP:THUMBSIZE doesn't describe actual editing practices, and hopefully a better default size will improve that. hinnk (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Seems reasonable, although some care is neccesary for smaller screens.

ForTheGrammar (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support' good suggestion and 250 is a sensible size ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Current default is too small. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Increasing to 300px

Even though there is overwhelming consensus to increase resolution, 250px is a very small jump and in my opinion it should be increased to 300px. In the 2000s, the most common screen resolutions are 800x600 and 1024x768. Now, the most common resolution are 1080p, which is 1920x1080. 1920/1024 = 1.875, so in theory we should scale the image to 400px, but that's too large because New Vector has a fixed width for content. So, I made a test to determine whether 300px is truly the optimal image size. In one page, I opened Earth in default New Vector and preview it in 300px. In another page, I opened the same article in the Internet Archive as it looks like in 2008 and use a browser tool to set a 1024x768 resolution and then scale the page until both article's text looks at around the same width. Indeed, in both pages, the image looks almost exactly in the same proportion. I'm uploading screenshots of my test to Wikimedia Commons for others to see. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Here it is. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add that increasing picture resolution helps with printed and offline version of Wikipedia where there is no option to browse the full-res picture. That's why I consider 250px to be too small of a change. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The scaled version is definitely closer to 250px. The picture of Earth is a square image, while a lot more images are landscape. In my experience, for such images, 300px covers up way too much text. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not too helpful an image as the Earth image appears to be in an infobox that maintains its width, however as the pixel scaling is horizontal a landscape image would cover up less text than a square image. CMD (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Could we have an example with regular image thumbs instead? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit tired today, so can someone else make the example pic? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

300px covers up way too much text – Um, it doesn't cover up any text. Bigger images do take up more vertical space, but if it's actually overlapping with the text, then you should probably be at the Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) with a screenshot showing how the image prevents you from seeing all the words on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Bigger images will cause words to run away from the image, which is what I meant by "cover up", not literally overlap. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose given my opposition to 250px.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as the inevitable outcome. We will someday do this. Why not now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Because current popular screen sizes aren't fitted for such large image sizes. One day your local wages will inflate, but that doesn't mean we should inflate them now. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support, that's what I use and it is great both on my laptop and on my smartphone. (I rarely use ultra-wide screens). —Kusma (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per my rationale above. Were default Vector not restricting width I would possibly feel differently, but it is what it is, and given image/template sandwiching issues a more conservative default is a bit less ungainly in edge cases. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Also fine with this. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Per above, this is also fine. -Fastily 22:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support but note significant work --> a change from 220px to 250px will mean that some images with be a bit on the large size (with upright=1.35 for instance), but not too ugly. When we change it to 300px, a lot of images with upright=1.35 or upright=1.5 will have become too big. We may want to find consensus to change the upright parameter automatically under certain conditions (f.i. upright>1.35.. ). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  This was part of my reasoning for opposing both changes, if the default is increased any images set with upright will become the wrong size. Some kind of automated correction would certainly help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. 300px simply looks too big on my laptop screen (effective resolution 1280×800, using Vector Legacy). Even worse on my smartphone (also using Vector Legacy which I understand is an edge case), where the image takes up about 40% of the page width. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support I set my personal default to 400px some time ago and that's fine so even 300px is small. And I'm not using anything special – mostly a 1920 x 1080 laptop or a smartphone. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  On Vector 2022, with both toolbars floating? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I use Vector 2022 and find it works fine with 400px as my default. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  At least on my 2nd-most frequently used device, at 300px with the globe image the text is squished too much. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose seems to be too big on smaller devices like phones and has some issues with Vector 2022 right now I might support in the future if Vector 2022 is fixed Isla🏳️‍⚧ 00:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Erm, fixed? The design of max. width + toolbars is not gonna change and is a feature, not a bug. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Still fine and usable. As I am in support of increasing to 250px, I am also in support of this. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. That seems a bit much, and if we're going to do this kind of stuff it should be incrementally and give the reading community time to adjust and provide feedback.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Too big, unless you have a huge display. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Is it possible to have a "variable" width that changes depending on the size of your display? So basically like a percentage, but that doesn't seem to be currently supported in thumbnails. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  See the discussion right below. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

   Self-trout. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support As indicated above, I support 300px as well as (and in preference to) 250px. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Let's take it to 250 first and see how that works. Carrite (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (thumbnail size)

• Can't we use something that depends on the actual current width of the page? Vector 2022 allows that to change with the click of a button; why shouldn't the images become larger if the screen is larger? Maximum and minimum values, and even the height of the screen, can be calculated freely and automatically. For example, we could define that an image's maximum width is the minimum of: 20% line width, 100% view height, 400px. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  What about mobile, where images need to be on their own line? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  This can all be specified in stylesheets. If "mobile" refers to a mobile design, at MediaWiki:Mobile.css. If "mobile" is Vector 2022 on a mobile screen, by using media queries or universal definitions (such as my "minimum of" example above). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Dynamic scaling of content, not just images, should be the way forward. This would ultimately allow for a single page style regardless of screen size or aspect. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  As I understand it, somewhere in the server infrastructure, the thumbnail images have been generated and cached for fast delivery (thus WhatamIdoing's suggestion that the size be manually changed for high-traffic articles in advance of switching the default, to take the load off the servers from generating images on-demand until the cache has been re-generated). Thus having the thumbnails with different pixel sizes based on each user's window size would have a significant impact on performance. It is theoretically possible to specify a maximum limit for the space in which the thumbnail is rendered, though, so it won't take up more than a certain amount of the available content space regardless of the pixel size of the image. I've never looked closely at how it works under the hood, though, so am not sure how much rework might be needed. Cases where editors have used an {upright} scaling factor > 1 to deliberately exceed the usual horizontal space allocated would have to be accommodated, which might be tricky. isaacl (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, thumbnail caching is a point I hadn't thought about. But if we use the "minimum of: 20% line width, 100% view height, 400px" example, we can serve 400px thumbnails and they'll never have to be upscaled. Or, taking "upright" into account, the limits could be "20%*upright width, 100% width, 100% height and 400px*upright", with 400px*upright thumbnails, I guess. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, as I said, it would be possible to limit the space in which the image is rendered while serving it at a specific size, though I am uncertain about the amount of changes required for implementation (it could require work both in the MediaWiki code as well as the wikitext source). As any applied scaling factor isn't a fixed value (or one of a fixed set of values), however, accommodating it with a CSS rule would require custom CSS to be generated for each instance and targeted for the specific image. Given how the cascade works, I'm not sure if the template can cleanly manage this on its own (though I suppose as a kludge it could manually replicate a common rule while adding additional constraints). (Javascript code could apply an appropriate rule, but this would result in layout shifts, as well as requiring the user agent to support Javascript.) isaacl (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2024 (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.

Currently multiple citations to the same source are handled reasonably well, with a number appearing in superscript in the body multiple times, with the same number appearing just once in the references list, with letters (a, b, c, etc) after the number allowing you to return to the exact place in the article that you were up to, however, the reader won't necessarily know whether they were up to a, b, c, or whatever. Sure, it's usually not too hard to find your place, but it could be made easier if the in-text superscript said for example, 8a, 8b, 8c, etc rather than just using the same repeated numeral for multiple citations of the same source. MathewMunro (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

When clicking the numbered link to get to the ref, the ref becomes highlighted. Maybe the specific 'a', 'b', etc. could be specially denoted there? That would be an extension with consistent behavior. Changing the way the footnote marker is written in the text seems more confusing to readers, since it suggests that either there are different refs ('8a' vs '8b') or that there are different subparts of ref 8 (some refs do bundle multiple entries). DMacks (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, the reference becomes highlighted, but whether you have to click on 'a' or 'b' or whatever to get back to where you were is not clear, whereas if the superscript in the body of the article said '8a' or '8b', it would be pretty clear which one you were up to. An alternative would be to differentially highlight the 'a' or 'b' after the '8' or whatever number & letter it was in the references after you click on the superscript number in the body of the article, so you know which letter to click on to get back to where you were, or some similar means of making it stand out so that people know which one is the one to click to get back to where they were. MathewMunro (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you are objecting to my proposal of do exactly what you later wrote as your alternative:) To wit, I wrote "clicking the numbered link to get to the ref...the specific 'a', 'b', etc. could be specially denoted [in the ref after clicking]". DMacks (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant by 'Maybe the specific 'a', 'b', etc. could be specially denoted there?', but I'm on the same page now :)

And yes, that would be a smaller and for some a less confusing change. Highlighting the specific 'a', 'b', etc in a different colour would be one effective way of specially denoting which hyperlink to click on to get back to where you were. MathewMunro (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems like it would be confusing in combination with T100645, which IMO would be far more useful than this. Particularly since it seems to me that the browser's back button is more convenient than trying to figure out whether 'a' or 'b' or whatever is the right tiny link to click to get back, assuming someone isn't just using the Reference Tooltips gadget in the first place. Anomie⚔ 14:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That phab task looks like it would be a software replacement for {rp}? That sounds helpful. I agree that the idea floated here, of adding letters to the citation numbers^[2b] would be more confusing than anything else, and imply a seperate work or portion of work supporting the cited claim despite actually being the same.^[2a] Seems like it might also interfere directly with the citation style of some articles, which use ref groups to generate citation numbers with a similar format.^{[C 2]}

I'm not necessarily against a software patch to use javascript to change the metrics of the hopback link followed to make it easier to guess, but: the tiny sliver of the userbase that actually interfaces with citations probably reads them through an on-hover or single tap, without clicking through to the reflist; whenever I guess wrong, I tap "back" in the browser and guess again; most multiply cited sources shouldn't have so many different loci of citation that it's a difficult or tedious process to find the correct hopback link; and those that are cited that many times will probably be recognisable based on their oft repeated citation numeral, negating the need to click through to it after the initial few appearances. Folly Mox (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I didn't realise just using the browser's back button would take me back. Although I noticed that when using the back button, the reference will be somewhere on the page, depending on where it was (top, middle or bottom of the page) when you clicked on the reference, but clicking the correct 'a', 'b', 'c', etc hyperlink in the references will set the relevant line in the body of the article to the top of the page, making it easier to find. I realise that most people can find a reference that's somewhere on the page pretty easily, but it is easier to find it in my opinion if it's at the top of the page.

I accept that there are drawbacks of using a 1a, 1b, 1c, etc referencing style, and so forget about that. How about instead we do either one or preferably both of the following:

1. Make the back button take you to the place you were, but with the line containing the reference set to the top of the page; and

2. After you click a citation superscript numeral in the article's body, highlight & bold the relevant 'a', 'b', or 'c', etc in the references that you have to click on to get back to where you were?

Although, I just noticed that if you click the little '^' symbol in the references, it does exactly what I want it to do, and the hover works well too, so maybe it's just a matter of learning how to use it properly :) although, there's nothing wrong with having multiple ways of accomplishing the same thing. MathewMunro (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither of these is a good idea. We should not attempt to change how the browser's "back" button behaves. Some websites do this, by various means including server-side immediate redirection, client-side immediate redirection, and Javascript that actually modifies the botton's action. It can mean that you get trapped on that website with no way of getting back to where you came from - this might of course be intentional, but it's not what we want for our readers.

When you follow a link from a superscripted ref marker to the ref itself, or from the backlink on the ref to the superscripted ref marker, the place that you reach gains a pale blue background; this is due to a CSS rule:

ol.references li:target,
sup.reference:target {
  background-color: #eaf3ff;
}

The first selector (ol.references li:target) goes for a whole list item in the references section. To pick out an individual backlink within that list item could be possible, but would mean that the individual backlink would need to be the target of the link from the superscripted ref marker, and since this is not the whole ref, the pale blue background would be less visible. Such changes - even if agreed on here - would need to be requested through phab:. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed modifying the back button behaviour would be bad if it had any kind of spill-over effect trapping you on a page. I certainly don't know enough about web-programming to know whether or not it could be done in a way that only does what it's supposed to do on all browsers & devices. And if you had to choose between highlighting the whole reference and highlighting just the relevant 'a' or 'b' or whatever, you would certainly be better off just leaving it the way it is, especially seeing as clicking the '^' symbol takes you back to where you were even if you don't know whether it was reference 'a' or 'b' or whatever. But if you could differentially highlight both the whole reference and the relevant 'a' or 'b' or whatever, (or change the text colour of the relevant 'a' or 'b' or whatever in addition to highlighting the whole refernece) that would be ideal, but again, this would only be a very very marginal improvement. I'm happy to let it go :) MathewMunro (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Two comments: this extends="Smith 2023" attribute to add to <ref> has been in beta since 2019. We can't really hold our breath for the MW development team, or whoever it is who decides to push such features out of the beta cluster to us, to actually get around to this any time soon. I'm working on some scripting to help replace {r} with other citation methods. The community completely deprecated inline parenthetical referencing in 2022, and rp is a form of it, albeit less intrusive a form that doing "(Smith 2023, pp. 178–180)" in mid-sentence. This is slow-going technical work, but it's something I'm committed to. (I feel a responsibility, having been the one who introduced rp in the first place. It was needed a long, long time ago before Lua modules enabled us to turn templates into sophisticated scripts, but rp is badly obsolescent now and needs to go to the retirement home along with {harv}.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Should all articles listed at articles for deletion for a week without opposition be eligible for "soft deletion"? HouseBlaster^talk 01:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Details (RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations)

Wikipedia:Deletion process § No quorum says (underline in the original):

If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor, and no one has opposed deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators.

This proposal would remove the requirement that an article be eligible for PROD to be "soft deleted". In effect, this would mean poorly-attended but unopposed deletion debates can be closed as WP:REFUND-eligible soft delete.

Survey (RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations)

• Support as proposer. In December, there were 46 deletion nominations ultimately closed as delete after being relisted as "ineligible for soft deletion": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11,^[a] 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32,^[b] 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,^[c] 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46.
  In fairness, there were four (4) articles that are still bluelinks because they were ineligible for soft deletion: 1,^[d] 2, 3,^[e] and 4. But I don't think that a redirect, a stub, a non-neutral REFBOMB mess, and No Pants Day justify the volunteer time rubber-stamping nominations. WP:OFD2023 shows that ~15% of AfD nominations are closed as keep, which is ~twice the 8% survival rate of the "ineligible-for-soft-deletion" December group. This suggests that editor time is better spent rescuing other articles.
  Finally, I will note that this change would still allow for WP:REFUNDs of the affected articles. HouseBlaster^talk 01:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  I want to add a little bit to my rationale: this proposal would result in PROD and soft deletion being treated differently, and that is the point. A well-advertised-but-unattended discussion is not the same thing as a banner staying atop a page for a week. Arguing against this proposal because it would treat soft deletion and PROD differently is textbook circular reasoning: treating them the same way is A Good Thing because they should be treated the same way. Respectfully, why should fundamentally different processes have the same outcome?

  I would also point out that the status quo is the 46 articles from December are "hard" deleted: you either need some showstopping sources to show the closer/an admin at WP:REFUND or else must make your case at WP:DRV to get them undeleted. This proposal would result in all of them being REFUND-eligible. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support no irreversible harm. Potential abuse/misuse is mitigated by a single user and in worst case, a guaranteed WP:REFUND is always possible. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Makes it easier to restore deleted articles and discourages drive-by/rubber stamp !votes. Seems like a net-positive. -Fastily 01:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support but caveats: The nominator must make a clear delete rational; the nominator must declare that they have followed WP:BEFORE, and say why the BEFORE options, especially WP:ATD are not suitable. I assume that this can override a previous PROD removal. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I have always held that soft deletion at AfD is simply a procedure where we pretend that the nominator, instead of nominating the article for AfD, tags it for PROD instead. So there should be no difference in the rules for soft deletion vs. PROD IMO. However, I am open to considering introducing an expiration for PROD declines, such that an article which has not been declined for PROD in, say, the last five years becomes eligible for both PROD and soft deletion. The reason why declined PRODs are ineligible for PROD is the same reason why we discourage edit warring - you shouldn't be able to get the last say just by being more obstinate at forcing your changes through. However, five years is long enough to presume that the original decliner may have forgotten about the article; they can always maintain their opposition by re-removing the PROD or !voting keep at AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support as outlined by nominator. Makes perfect sense. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support I don't understand but i support. LionelCristiano (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: I thought we already did this? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It took me a bit to parse the proposal, which boils down to "can articles be soft deleted if they've had a contested PROD?". Q for nom: would this change mean that after a single week a decision would be made, or would the normal relisting cadence happen? I'm with King of Hearts in an alternate solution where a soft deletion would only be blocked if the PROD was less than some number of years ago. Eight years, perhaps? Ten seems too long (2014 was a decade ago) but 5 feels too soon (2019 was just a few days ago). SWinxy (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  I envisioned it being a tool in the closer's toolbox: namely, if they feel relisting would be productive, relist. If not, it would be eligible for soft deletion. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per King of Hearts. If someone nominates an article for PROD, which is contested, and then immediately renominates it for AfD, just because the person who opposed that PROD didn't show up to the discussion, doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Also open to allowing PROD again after 10 years or something like that, but soft deletion is just applying PROD rules to AfD. Galobtter (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal would effectively allow an article to be PRODed twice. If a PROD has already been removed once, the nomination is controversial. If the person who removes the PROD states in his edit summary that the article should not be deleted, or that the grounds for deletion are erroneous, or that the article satisfies GNG, or the like, I can only infer that the AfD is not unopposed, and that making a comment like that amounts to opposition. James500 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • This proposal is also explicitly based on the assumption that changing the rules of AfD will not change the behaviour of AfD participants described by the statistics cited. It is not obvious that the assumption is true. This proposal might result in an increase in the number of nominations being made in the first place. Nominators might decide to send every declined PROD to AfD in the hope of getting a soft deletion while no one is watching. This proposal might also result in more keep !votes being made in the first place, if deprodders cannot just wait for an unattended AfD to be closed as no consensus. I also notice that the statistics cited are for December (the time of year when we have the fewest active editors), and do not take into account any seasonal variation that might exist. James500 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Fair enough point about seasonal variation. I pulled the statistics for June 2023 (chosen as halfway through the year): 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, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,^[f] 36, 37,^[g] 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45.
      Bluelinks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 16#Explore Learning, which I am not sure which category to put in. It was closed as "delete", but is currently a redirect to ExploreLearning (without a space). That article appears to be on an entirely different company. At the very least, the two articles (Explore Learning and ExploreLearning) coexisted for a period of time—maybe there was a WP:CONTENTFORK? I'd appreciate it if someone with admin goggles could take a look.
      Finally, the behavior changes you cite seem to be positive changes. The point of any discussion is to find consensus, which logically means "no consensus" closes are not an ideal outcome. We allow speedy renomination of no consensus closes for a reason, after all. Thus, I would argue that discouraging dePRODers from seeking a "no consensus" close is a good thing. I also take issue with the assertion that Nominators might decide to send every declined PROD to AfD in the hope of getting a soft deletion while no one is watching. First, I would hope that people would not attempt to game the system. But holding a full-blown AfD is absolutely not while no one is watching. There is a banner atop the page (which was evidently enough to attract the dePROPer), it is listed on the daily AFD log, and there is literally an entire WikiProject dedicated to ensuring other interested participants see the discussion. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
      • ExploreLearning and the deleted Explore Learning (AfD discussion) are two different subjects on two different continents. The latter went through Proposed Deletion in July 2008, one month after it was written. Also relevantly, a succession of copyright violations of corporate advertisements, editors with declared and undeclared (but obvious) conflicts of interest rewriting most of the article, and preference for the company WWW site over independent sourcing caused the non-company sources cited in 2008 when Proposed Deletion was challenged to have been long-since lost, buried years deep in the edit history, in 2023 when the article came to AFD. Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose there is often low participation at AfD so waiting a second week for comments is reasonable. Also the deprodder would be rushed into responding when they may be offline for a period. This suggestion would unnecessarily speed up deletion without any consensus in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Fastily. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. If an article is ineligible for PROD then it is, by definition, controversial and is thus completely unsuitable for deletion without an active consensus to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, although well-motivated, this proposal would open the door to deletion of articles that just don't happen to be interesting to the handful of editors who regularly visit AfD, even when the nomination is obviously spurious or misguided. Admins should be both allowed, and expected, to use their discretion to relist, or otherwise ensure that deletion is for policy-based reasons, not just because no one could be bothered that week. Elemimele (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose may open door for misuse. I see these cases as no consensus to delete which if anything should default to keep. Well-meaning proposal but defies conventional wisdom. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. If nobody cares enough about an article to make a brief comment on an AFD, it does not have enough support to exist. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. If nobody can rebut the argument for deletion then we shouldn't be keeping the article, per WP:CONSENSUS. BilledMammal (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Meh This RFC seems poorly written, as it fails to note that very section the nomination links to goes on to offer several options for when it was an opposed prod, one of which already is soft deletion. It's unclear to me whether "supports" will be interpreted as supporting the status quo or as calling for something more strict, and I could see some opposes actually supporting the status quo too. I see there was a better-worded RFC on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes that didn't get many responses.
  Personally I think we can afford a relist or two before soft-deleting, even if the de-PRODder didn't notice the AFD to oppose there too, per WP:NODEADLINE. But leaving it open to admin discretion (i.e. the status quo) is ok with me too on the assumption that admins will save immediate soft deletion for clearer cases. Anomie⚔ 12:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose For similar reasoning as King of Hearts. I would not necessarily be opposed to this in cases with a multi-year gap between PROD and AfD, but I do not like the idea of essentially being able to PROD an article twice in a short period of time. As for a timeframe, leave it to admin discretion. Curbon7 (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - a week is nowhere near enough time, a lot of articles for deletion are likely to be on more obscure topics, that we possibly should have articles about, but that most editors will not be familiar with. A week is not enough time to be seen by someone who might be able to expand the article or explain it's importance. If there's an automatic deletion cut-off it should be closer to a year. Irtapil (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose per Anomie. There is a lot of context missing from this RfC, such as how that sentence got added to the process and the conflict with another part of the same section, i.e. it may already be an option. I put forward a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes to try and discuss some different wordings and options that could be used in a proper RfC per WP:RFCBEFORE. It would be advisable to close this discussion, workshop the wordings on that talkpage, and come up with a more comprehensive one since the current wording is self-contradictory. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I take this proposal to be stating that we should strike and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, which I think would resolve the contradiction. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  If that's what this means, then support, to strip away some bureaucracy and also get rid of the kind of nonsensical idea that some CoI or other "problem article" writer gets a special "right" for having removed a prod tag while addressing no problems in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  One side effect is that notable articles could be deleted if this were to be implemented. For instance, it took two weeks to find sources for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TL;DR (2nd nomination) 71.239.86.150 (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that would have been deleted after just one week. There's no consensus for deletion in the first week - two different redirect arguments and a delete !vote. -- asilvering (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• eh. I appreciate the reasoning, but I don't much like the idea of an unopposed AfD being soft-deleted at the end of a single week, and I don't really think it's too much to ask that someone second an AfD in the event that an article was deprodded. I'd be happier with the idea if it was something like "can be treated as an expired PROD if they've been relisted at least once", I suppose. -- asilvering (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• I'll generally relist a no comment nom when I'm patrolling the logs but when no one has argued in support of retention or even commented indicated an interest, I will close these as a soft delete. No one has shown up in that two week window but if they do down the road, they don't need to do the DRV dance. They can have it restored and it can be addressed, if necessary at that time. I do think a week might be too little of a time though so while i do this, I'm not in full support. It's something that deserves merit though. Star Mississippi 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose a week is too short; at least one relist is reasonable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose if an article is ineligible for PROD, it is because someone has deprodded the article and would, presumably, !vote to keep in an AfD. They should not be expected to have to do this twice. I would be in favor of considering a time limit on prod (ie articles proposed for deletion >10 years ago can be re-proposed), when considering how much our notability standards have changed, and the possibility for PROD to be abused. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Eddie891 I don't think this is an accurate assumption. I frequently see PRODs like "article has existed since 2007, take it to AfD". Many de-prodders give no reason at all, and also do not show up to the AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  yes, but the implied de-prod reason in the first instance you give is that the person is suggesting the article be taken to afd, where more editors can !vote on the afd. And editors not showing up to the AfD is part of why I opposed— we cannot expect good faith de-prodders to have to keep tabs on a subsequent afd nomination and comment again. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  If I PROD an article, I keep it on my watchlist in case it is de-PRODed, so I can then determine if I want to take it to AfD. Presumably a person asking to take something to AfD will want to participate in that discussion, and if they do not, I don't think asking someone to take something through another bureaucratic hoop is a great reason to de-PROD. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  The person is suggesting the article be taken to AfD, yes. But it doesn't make sense to infer from that that the de-prodder would vote "keep". In my experience, they do not, since "article has existed since 2007" (or whatever) is not a valid keep rationale, and they can find no other. -- asilvering (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Thryduulf and others. Rlendog (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: it is too easy to create an article that worsens the encyclopedia's quality and too difficult to delete it. Anyone may object to a PROD without a valid reason, but only justified AfD comments are taken into account by the closer. Deletion should not be prevented because of baseless objections by article creators. Soft deletion after no reasoned opposition at AfD is a good approach. Relisting indefinitely is not a solution to low participation at AfD as a venue: the same number of discussions will need contributors regardless of how long they are open. A closing admin who sees the nomination is poorly reasoned should not delete the page. They should instead !vote in the AfD, present some references and/or improve the article (just as they should if it was a nomination and three baseless "delete" !votes). — Bilorv (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - A week is too short of a time, so I would appreciate at least one relist. Since there are no requirements for editors in nominating an article for deletion (just expectations), suggestions to require a more complete nominations are unrealistic, or subject to interpretation by the closing editor. --Enos733 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see anything wrong with the procedure here of relisting ineligible AfDs when discussion is light. The problem is really just that we need more AfD participants. SportingFlyer T·C 19:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - One week is not long enough. If it went through the cycle three times with nobody offering an opinion, I might see it — but when's the last time that has happened? A solution in search of a problem — or a short-sighted "solution" that will create problems. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support If the administrator believes an relist would be appropriate, they should relist it. If an administrator believes an article that has received no opposition to deletion should be deleted similar to PROD, they should delete it, with the opportunity for REFUND. I see no need to forbid soft deletion in these cases that typically still result in deletion and no need to expect others to expend time casting a !vote for what may be obvious or easily undoable. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per KoH (who, no, I am not related to). If someone has previously objected to deletion, we should not just go behind their backs deleting it. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations)

So to be clear and article like MIKTA would be deleted even though the rationale doesn't make sense?Moxy- 22:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No, because someone expressed opposition to deleting the article in the discussion. (If that comment had not been made, the article would be eligible for soft deletion under the current rules.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

So not comment then default deletion ..... do those involved in deletion at least look for sources...as in is there an common sense or effort involved if noone comments? Moxy- 04:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If people are not looking for sources before !voting, I would argue that is a problem beyond the scope of this proposal. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

MIKTA is just a case of a really bad nomination by a user who clearly sent an article to AfD without Googling its title. Lazy nominations are a problem with or without soft deletion. Pichpich (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

But soft deletions make the effects of lazy nominations very significantly worse. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, although I'd be counting on the closing admin to review the deletion rationale before actually soft-deleting the article, just as I'd expect admins to close PRODs as deletions only after performing the usual and basic WP:BEFORE checks. Am I just being naïve here? Pichpich (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Am I just being naïve here? unfortunately you are. While the worst offender that I know of was desysopped, there is no shortage of deletions being done without proper checks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I know for a fact at least some admins don't look at articles at all when closing deletion discussions, so no. (And TBF deletion closers have a lot of work to do without replicating the participants work) Mach61 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The admin instructions for handling expired PRODs do not require us to conduct checks for sources (etc.) prior to deletion, but if you feel they should be changed to include such a requirement, feel free to gather a consensus to that effect at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. WP:BEFORE is a part of a different process, namely WP:AFD; PROD is intentionally a more streamlined process. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Well admins could do checks for a prod and decline, but so could any one else. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Color Bars are used on nonpartisan election articles which are located on the bottom of the where the political party would be located if the election was not nonpartisan Some Wikipedia editors have removed the Color bars and replaced the colors with political party as a good faith edit on the election articles, and concerns and objections have been put forward. Removed the Color bars and replaced the colors with political party as a good faith edit Assuming that the candidate is in a politicil party with out displaying the name which can cause issues add disruptions to nonpartisan election articles. I propose Color Bars should not be used at all on Infobox election of nonpartisan election main page articles in The United States DLCY89* (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@DLCY89*: I'm skeptical more than a handful of editors reading that are going to know what you are talking about. We need a historical link to an article that showed the "color bars" and an after version that has the "poltical parties" replacing them so we can compare them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello McCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 here are the links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Los_Angeles_mayoral_election&oldid=1111460767

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Los_Angeles_mayoral_election&oldid=1107634318

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Los_Angeles_mayoral_election&oldid=1107792562 DLCY89* (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The middle one of these appears to have done the following:

• added political party names and color bars representing the parties under the names of the candidates in the infobox.

The third of these:

• removed the party names and kept the color bars, but changed one of the Democrats to green for unknown reasons (I can't find anything in that article or the one on the candidate suggesting a connection to the Green Party)

The party names are important encyclopedic information in this context. The color bars are just decoration and serve no actual purpose. They certainly cannot be relied upon to convey information, since what colors correspond to which US political parties is going to be something familiar mostly to Americans (and only some of them), it is very easy to simply not notice at all (I had to look several times before I noticed it, and that was in the context of actively trying to distinguish visual differences between the three versions), and most importantly we have plenty of readers who are color-blind (i.e., the third version fails MOS:COLOR) – even aside from the strange switch to green for one candidate. I would thus advise putting back the party names and removing the color bars, or putting both back and undoing the confusing and unsourced change to green, but expect that other editors are likely to remove the color bars entirely as unneeded decoration (they are basically just unusually wide icons, against MOS:ICONS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, we have to have the party names, because the colour bars can be confusing, at least for US politics. (The US parties have inverted colours from many other countries — their progressive party is blue while their conservative party is red.) I kind of like them, personally, but I can't deny that they are largely decoration. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we should certainly have the party names, whether or not we have the colours as well (about which I have no opinion). Am I the only editor who saw the title of this section and assumed it was about colour bars?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) ^<diff> 13:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that party identification should not be included in the infobox of a non-partisan election. On one level, especially in jurisdictions without party registration, there is a certain amount of speculation and inference in incorporating a party label. Also, candidates may run by downplaying or rejecting a party label, although they may previously identify with a party. Finally, the infobox does not specify that the election was nonpartisan and provides the wrong impression to readers. I do believe the information about party identification is encyclopedic, but should be mentioned in the prose. --Enos733 (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that we have a shared agreement about what it means to have a "non-partisan election". The candidates in the election linked above are still members of a political party, supporting their political party, and being supported by their political party during the election campaign. "The voters don't have to vote for members of their own party" is not a non-partisan election in quite the same way as "There are no political parties involved in this election campaign". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  What Ballotpedia says about nonpartisan elections is correct, "Nonpartisan elections are elections in which all of the candidates for an office are listed on the ballot without party labels identifying any political parties with which the candidates are affiliated or by which the candidates are nominated." The term is distinct from partisan elections where the candidate does have a party label on the ballot.

  Now, it is true that many candidates do make their party identification known in a nonpartisan election, but the party identification does not mean that the candidate is supported by that political party. Similarly an endorsement by a party does not mean the candidate affiliates with that party.

  But the point of a nonpartisan election, fundamentally, is that the voter does not see the party label on the ballot. The infobox should reflect the nonpartisan nature of the election, affiliation of the candidates should be in the prose. - Enos733 (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree infobox should reflect the nonpartisan nature of the election. I believe the best solution is to remove Color Bars and party lables. Is there also a way to put a party affiliation labels info boxes instead of color bars or political party of labels? DLCY89* (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that I originally proposed this at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard#Can an uninvolved admin please step in over toxicity and BATTLEGROUND at darts-related pages? (Permalink} by mistake. Moving it here per the new procedure. but I've copied by comment below. For further context, see the linked thread as well as Talk:2024 PDC World Darts Championship and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Darts#Stats that are against WP:SYNTH The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing this thread, the linked diffs and talkpages, and the requested closure above, I'm supremely unimpressed with the conduct of a number of people in this topic area. It certainly isn't just one person, incivility is rampant throughout the area. In order to break the back of this problem, I'd propose General Sanctions be authorized for the Darts topic area, text below copied from WP:GS/PW. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Listed at WP:CENT — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The AN thread is quite revealing of how editors interact in that topic area. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• You might consider proposing that the community designate the topic area in question to be a Contentious topic. isaacl (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I considered it, but chose not to on purpose. WP:CTOP is specifically tied to Arbcom and subject to their oversight; we still have template issues leftover from when Contentious Topics replaced WP:ACDS. By using the older Discretionary Sanctions language, it makes things much more clear that it was placed by the community and not Arbcom, that it doesn't happen at WP:AE or get appealed to WP:ARCA, etc. Separating community-based sanctions from arbcom-based sanctions reduces confusion in the long run. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Over the long run, personally I think it would be simpler to have one procedure for authorizing additional actions by administrators, with either the community or the arbitration committee designating topic areas where the procedure can apply. I appreciate, though, that this would be breaking new ground for the community and so at present has more uncertainty. isaacl (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support I had no idea darts of all things could be so toxic. KaptenPotatismos (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I've long since given up being surprised at what people will argue about. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Loci of dispute is a decade out of date, but it gives a flavour. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Before Wikipedia even existed, I received the wisdom that politics, religion, and sports were subjects that caused heated arguments. So I am not surprised at all. That said, from what I've been able to follow of the dispute here, it's not the topic, but the fact that articles have been written in one form for a long time, and the argument is over whether that form adheres to our policies and guidelines. It's the common "But no-one has objected since 2006!" argument, combined with arguments over Manual of Style compliance, original research, and sports statistics, all of which have provoked heated arguments in other areas in the past. It's not really darts itself that is being argued about. Uncle G (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

      Nothing that cannot be resolved with some AGF colleborative discussions. But that will need the necessary goodwill on both sides. An outsider barging in with "my opinion can't be swayed" as their motto doesn't work at all, as the last two years have shown. And assuming bad faith of the darts regulars isn't helpful either. This proposal is an overreaction. It will only discourage discussion. Tvx1 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

      Ah, yes, the perennial WP:CONTENTAGE "argument to avoid", which supposes incorrectly that old content is mystically exempt from later changes to policies and guidelines and process (often even compliance with the P&G rules that existed all the way back then but weren't followed in that topic at the time, without much of anyone noticing). The more obscure a topic is, especially if it has a fans/practitioners editor base that leans in a walled-garden direction (often via a topical wikiproject), the less it tends to attract cleanup efforts, especially compared to things of broad editorial interest like major sciences or globally famous persons. It's a severe misunderstanding of WP:EDITCON, a supposition that because a loose consensus can be established simply through acceptance of content being as it is for a long time that this equates to the formation of an ironclad topic-specific consensus that somehow overrides any highly-specific site-wide consensuses established through affirmative processes, like policies and guidleines, that have a much higher WP:CONLEVEL. This fallacy is a long-term source of squabbling, across many topics. I only ends one way (with the P&G eventually being followed as in every other topic), but has a very corrosive effect on editorial goodwill. Sports and games in particular are commonly a nexus of this recurrent problem. CONLEVEL policy was created to curtail it, but perhaps is not clear enough, or simply too infrequently acted upon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

      SMcCandlish, I still think that the CONLEVEL reform that was tossed around last year could be promising, if there's any interest in it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

      I'd forgotten about that, and it's worth developing further. Though that rather long discussion was most immediately about WP:YEARS and "their" articles, WP:ITN, and a few other specifics, what SnowRise said there (in part paraphrasing Levivich) resonantes strongly and is broadly applicabl.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a massive overreaction. The entire situation really revolves one user, who even during the AN report stated their intention that they would not colleborate and stated that "their opinion can’t be swayed", against whom the community seems to be unwilling to take action. This proposal amounts to using a large blow torch to get rid of a fly. All it really needs is users on both sides to be colleborative and to accept nothing is black and white here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs)
  • The issue goes far beyond the one person you're pursuing an indef on, as well as the other two long term users who have been indeffed over Darts content. Invicility, WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, and WP:OWNership seem to run rampant in this topic area. For avoidance of doubt, here are a few examples of your own recent conduct: [3][4][5][6][7]Wrong link, should have been [8] The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  • What point are you even trying to make with these diffs? More than half of them is me just reporting factual events like two users having been blocked. Care to explain what policy I violated posting that? Or is it just a blockable offense to just post something in a darts-related discussion that doesn't agree with the non-regular darts article editors?? As for the first two, maybe you should also read and cite what I was replying to? Heck, I'm not even a member of that darts project, I'm just an occasional editor to those articles, mostly those on the world championships. I was just baffled by behavior shown on the talk page by BOTH sides during the last world championship and it's still inexplicable that only one of the users who resorted to personal attacks was sanctioned. Even more so because the unsanctioned users had displayed the same behavior before in an other topic area and got topic banned there as a result, and because the user did not show any insight on their behavior and no willigness to change during the AN proceedings. I honestly don't understand why you and others keep putting all the blame on one side. In fact all the drama that occured over the past two years in that topic area is somehow connected to that user. A core issue is their ""my opinion cannot be swayed" they displayed throughout and which they reiterated at WP:AN. That's why I maintain that this proposal amounts to suggesties to using a nuclear missile to kill ant. Start with dealing with that one user, as multiple people suggested during the AN, and then see how things evolve at the topic over next weeks and months before resorting to such drastic measures as general sanctions.Tvx1 17:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

    I honestly don't understand why you and others keep putting all the blame on one side. The whole point I am making is that all the blame is not on one side. This entire time you've been crusading for an indef on ItsKesha, and you're right that she's been grossly uncivil. Much of her behavior has also been in response to even worse personal attacks and even slurs hurled by the now-blocked editor and others. That doesn't excuse it at all, but rather it points to a wider problem. As far as which policies you've violated, right off the bat You need to learn to read is clear WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations, especially given that it was a response to a ten month old comment. The rest demonstrates WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, WP:OWNership, and assumptions of bad faith, though my fifth diff has the wrong revision so I'll correct that now. The point is that there's enough conduct here to block half the editors on Darts pages, but instead I'm trying for a gentler approach of "final warning for everyone, cut it out or else". The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support but with a time limit like a year or 18 months or something. We have too many topics that stay perpetually under conditions like these (community or ArbCom ones), when the problems are usually traceable to fewer editors than it takes one hand to count, most of whom learn their lesson, do something else around here, or go away entirely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC) PS: I don't mind waiting for a while as Tvx1 suggested. This might actually just fizzle out on its own.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: A time limit does seem like a good idea, though I'd suggest 24 months to capture the full 2024 and 2025 darts "seasons". Even the frequent use of words like "outsiders" make it clear that we're dealing with a group of entrenched editors centered on one topic area, and GS/DS/CTOP is the only tool we have that has a proven track record of success for this type of issue. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, works for me, if it comes to actually needing the GS. Hopefully Tvx1 is correct that it won't be, though I'm not sure how that is determined? Do we have yet wait for yet another ANI to come up?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. We're talkin' 'bout darts...darts. GS is one of the worst pieces of Wikipedia red tape. I've been here for years and I still don't understand how it really works. This is some sort of heavy-handed response to a few people that can't play nice together. Just block them and move on. Don't put some big hanging sword over the entire topic. For the record, I've never edited a darts page, and couldn't really care less about the topic. I just happened to see this pretty randomly and was dumbstruck. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Any topic can get messy, even darts. Tree shaping was under GS once. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support with a renewable 18-month limit per SMcCandlish Aaron Liu (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Wait per Tvx1, now that I’ve reread the diffs. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The evidence presented here and at AN is sufficient to suggest that admins would be more effective if TBANs are added to the toolbelt. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - this appears to be a small handful of rogue editors that need dealing with, rather than a wider problem. GiantSnowman 19:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support having reviewed (what I could see) of the evidence, it is clear that nearly every single editor involved in the area has a tendency to go all BATTLEGROUNDy at the drop of a hat. See Tvx1 above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• I mean, do whatever you want, but... what good is this supposed to do, exactly? --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm neutral on whether or not general sanctions would help, but I don't believe the problem is darts. The problem is one we've seen time and time again where a few editors take control of a specific corner of Wikipedia, establish their own way of doing things, and the community drags its feet on doing anything about it. GS is a bandage that might have a marginal effect on this outbreak, but it doesn't actually solve the problem. We don't need to fix the darts topic area, we need to fix WikiProjects and the way they facilitate ownership of content, and we need to start handing out bans to editors who can't engage civilly. If general sanctions are adopted, I agree that it should only be for a limited time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the problem is WikiProjects any more than it is Darts. To me the problem is groups of entrenched editors fixated on isolated topic areas (darts, roads, weather etc); they do tend to congregate at Wikiprojects but also regular article talkpages, project-space pages, etc. Even off-wiki locations, so restructuring the WikiProjects themselves won't be effective. Discretionary Sanctions are the one thing that's shown promise, so I think applying it to more of these areas could help correct the issue. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Overall I agree, but WikiProjects seem to facilitate it the most when this comes up, and getting better about restricting the whole "controlling a topic from a WikiProject" thing would benefit Wikipedia overall. But you're right that there's an underlying problem here beyond individual topics and beyond WikiProjects. Walled gardens need to be broken whenever they crop up, and group ownership over a topic area needs to be easier to address. Once a group of editors decides to ignore best practices in their topic area, there's very little recourse short of a massive Village Pump or ANI discussion (and even those are hit or miss). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, this is exactly the problem. We see the same things in so many areas, and LOCALCONs just self-perpetuate due to the editors in a niche WikiProject being the only editors following a DELSORT topic. So we end up with long-term "consensus" that, e.g., academic journals do not have to have ever received any significant or even secondary independent coverage to have an article, simply because editors in that area misrepresent an essay as if it's a real guideline or as if it was compatible with GNG at all. That leads to articles on pseudoscience-peddling academic journals that can only be based on puffy content from their own website and outdated, trivial primary data from an indexing service they applied to join... Or, e.g., the "600 articles on phone versions" from that other thread, or the "solar eclipses sourced only to primary news reports and listicles" issue pointed out there by @TryKid. It's Wikipedia-wide. JoelleJay (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Believe me, I know. I spent several months challenging WikiProject ownership at WP:YEARS with mixed results, and I keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events because many of the regulars there have decided that routine news coverage demonstrates notability. There just needs to be a way to address the Wikipedia-wide problem rather than playing Whac-A-Mole with general sanctions and then hoping that admins actually pay attention to the given area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not sure that sufficient evidence has been put forth that this is a widespread problem, rather than being a few editors we could easily handle through regular process. I also don't see how this solves the walled garden issue. There is considerable muttering that the darts regulars are being recalcitrant. But somehow I doubt that GS is going to be used against the regulars. Indeed, it seems more likely that GS is going to be used against darts newbies, to keep out dissenting voices. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose it's more than reasonable to just deal with this on an individual basis. Buffs (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose it has not been demonstrated that there is a sufficient need for this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Contrary to the previous three users, when I read the pages the nominator links, I can see behaviours that rise to the level of community sanctions. Way back last year, JRRobinson was indefinitely blocked and topic-banned, but I think his conduct and language has become normalized in this topic area, and we're still seeing discourse at his level. The AN/I thread led to an indefinite block of Penepi, which I think is a useful intervention. In the AN/I thread, ItsKesha articulated a clear apology and retraction, and pledged to do better in future. I think the jury's still out on whether there's more to do; but as a precautionary measure, for the time being, I would support community sanctions.—S Marshall T/C 10:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: It's not just currently, but there've been issues with darts-related topics going back a decade or more. Some people might think the topic a petty one for sanctions, but the measure of a contentious topic is, well, the degree to which people are running to the battlements. Ravenswing 17:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose. GS (and DS, CT, and the like) are good for a handful of particular problems: mainly blocks that won't stick, pages in need of more liberal protection, and editors who need to be topic-banned rather than blocked. They shouldn't be used just as ways for the community to signal its unhappiness with something, I don't think. It seems that the conduct issues in this area are already being resolved quite effectively when they're reported at AN[I], and adding general sanctions just adds more long-term bureaucracy for little gain. But I certainly support the underlying idea that the behavior in this topic area hasn't been appropriate and that admins should feel empowered to make blocks as necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems to be much more preferable to deal with on a case by case basis. While there is some issues with WP:OWNership from the looks of things, I don't see (and can't imagine) the problem to be articles about darts tournaments, but rather a behavioral thing with users. It might end up in shared spaces with darts and related talk pages... but "darts" are not the cause, and the topic doesn't seem like it needs to get hit with sanctions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Purpose of ANI)

• Ca, could you sign your !vote above? Could you also move the rationale from the opener to your !vote. The opening RfC statement needs to be neutral and brief. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the advice, I'll be shortening my RfC question and sign my !vote. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Better. Can you please add a signature before the background information header. Only the neutral question should be copied over to the central RfC listings. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

   Done I presume LegoBot will do its thing and copy the new RfC text over. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  'Twill. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think I would prefer the reverse: discuss patterns of user behaviour at the administrators' noticeboard, and leave the incidents noticeboard solely for incidents that require immediate attention. isaacl (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I find AN to be a place I'm more likely to check in on given the pace, volume, and temperature of discussions when I'm busy than ANI. Bringing some, but not all, of the discussions where temperatures flare the most to AN would, for me, not be any sort of improvement. Joe's suggestion above about directing some stuff to other forums already setup to handle them is also a good one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  To double-check my understanding, are you saying that you feel discussions on patterns of user behaviour as well as discussions of incidents requiring immediate attention are both discussions where temperatures flare the most? isaacl (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I wrote the following a few minutes before the RfC closed, and I am not convinced there is WP:SNOW possibility of a change in the opposite direction: [Oppose, but] delete the words "and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" that were added to the page header in June 2018 per Joe Roe. ANI is certainly not a suitable venue for dealing with accusations of that kind. At the moment ANI certainly sometimes functions as a kangeroo court, where it is not possible to get natural justice or a fair hearing (!voters are not even required to be impartial, or to be capable of telling the difference between reality and fantasy, and there are no rules of evidence etc); such discussions there are sometimes vehicles for subjecting regular editors to harassment and psychological abuse, that sometimes rises to the level of a massive public show trial, complete with ritual public humiliation and threats, bullying, gaslighting and other pressure to make forced false confessions; such discussions there are sometimes vehicles for trying to gerrymander a content dispute by making false or frivolous conduct accusations in attempt to get the other side blocked or banned so that they won't be able to !vote in the content dispute; and such discussions there are sometimes a an exceptionally toxic environment, and sometimes not an environment compatible with the safety of editors either. James500 (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  @James500 I closed it due to the fact that the RFC is for changing the whole purpose of ANI in general, (which doesn't have a chance right now)) not just the header, that is why I left this section open so things like changing the header can be discussed. Seawolf35 ^T--C 20:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with the many of the points you made. If we were to not use ANI for such purpose, what should be the alternative(s)? Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think there should be a more concerted effort to direct people to the more structured alternatives that already exist for specific types of disputes (WP:DRN for content disputes, WP:XRV for contested use of permissions, WP:AE for edits in contentious topics, etc.) and, as a last resort, ArbCom for the remainder. – Joe (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I am proposing a new project: Community feature requests.

• Basically it will be a continual system for voting on feature requests, much like the m:Community Wishlist Survey but not held once a year (well, that project isn't being held this year at all...) but always open to voting.

• Each request would sit in its own subpage, just like Dark mode, with description of the problem, proposed solution and benefits followed by discussion and voting.

• To display the results a table like this could be generated on Toolforge every hour - ranking the feature requests by number of support votes (for example like the "Current leaderboard" here).

• Probably Meta is natural place to host this idea (one set of English feature requests for all wikis to avoid overlap), but if Meta rejects it I would be fine hosting it locally on English Wikipedia.

• Note that the process of creating and voting for feature requests can start today and I think it would assist in getting voices heard by the Wikimedia Foundation development team.

Thoughts?--Commander Keane (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I have started Wikipedia:Community feature requests with further ideas and examples.--Commander Keane (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, note as described on the meta:Community Wishlist Survey page, the WMF is working on processes to continually receive community requests. (I realize from your comments at meta:Talk:Community Wishlist Survey/Future Of The Wishlist § How long until this is implemented? that you are aware of this direction.) I think it would be good to collaborate with that team to work out how the requests will be tracked. Of course, anyone is free to start creating pages now to draft and develop their ideas. I'm a little wary, though, of trying to co-ordinate the community into using a single framework when the WMF processes are coming. isaacl (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

This can be achieved by disabling the relevant User:Hazard-Bot task.

As discussed at WT:About the sandbox#Sandbox header is too big, it's very inconvenient, and is of dubious educational value considering how often people remove the header against its warning. There's already an editnotice at the sandbox, so whichever minority of editors who do read the rules will still be informed that it isn't a free-for-all. Mach61 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The point of the sandbox template is to invite people to 'click edit' because it's a 'space to experiment'. An edit notice doesn't serve this function; a blank page is not at all inviting. Pretty much everyone who has ever edited the page will have read the notice which says that it can be edited. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

In that case, can we at least shorten the header to be a one-line {ombox}? Mach61 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Once mw:Extension:PageNotice gets installed on enwiki, we can move the sandbox header to the namespace notice, making it impossible to remove while editing the sandbox. – SD0001 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That might indeed be useful, though I don't think it resolves the question here. I hesitate to ask whether there's a timescale for that? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

So let's have a link, to Template:Sandbox heading, and ask what it should look like. Personally I'm not really seeing a great deal to do. We have a line saying what it is, one saying what to do with it, another explaining why it keeps changing. A couple of explanatory links, and a notice about what not to do with it. Let's hear what needs culling. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

perhaps this? . Mach61 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As I have noticed, many unrecognized nations have WikiProjects. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Artsakh, Wikipedia:WikiProject Abkhazia, etc.) so why not Northern Cyprus? Currently it is a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cyprus (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Cyprus) Youprayteas (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youprayteas WikiProject Cyprus is already marked as only semi-active, so I don't think spinning Northern Cyprus back out will be much help to anyone. -- asilvering (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it is unfair that many unrecognized countries have WikiProject while N. Cyprus doesn't. Youprayteas (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are not set up with any sort of systematic content consideration, but as a matter of facilitating editor attention. The Abkhazia and Artsakh projects are both quite inactive as well, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognition isn't doing better either. Such moribund projects would likely be more often wound up if the process was simpler. CMD (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Should the daily WP:XfD logs have a level-2 heading for each page and a level-1 heading for each day? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

For example, the heading "April 18" would appear as large as the page title, and an article title like OneGet would look like the "Bump XfD heading sizes" heading above. For obvious reasons, this does not include WP:Requested moves.

• Yes. This would make all such individual page discussions subscribable, and only level-2 headings are subscribable due to technical complexity. As for the level-1 heading, most XfDs already have a separate page for each day's log anyway, so displaying it as large as the page title shouldn't cause much problems. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)