Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

« Older discussions, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149

American English Wikipedia

No. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2018 (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.

Split American English Wikipedia (let's say and use British English on English Wikipedia as British English is the original dialect of English. That would solve all debates on which dialect of English should be used on which article. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles currently in American dialect would be moved to American English Wikipedia. Articles written Australian, NZ and Indian varieties would be converted to British English. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Extremely bad idea. Lots of work without any gain whatsoever. Also, Australian and New Zealand Englishes are perfectly legitimate and separate varieties of English. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Erkinalp9035:, you may want to see this. The wild impracticality also applies equally to this. I also suggest reading the Manual of Style on English varieties. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR is already quite adequate to deal with it. Splitting projects would be a massively excessive "solution" to an already solved problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:45, 18 May 2018 (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.
Sorry for necroposting, but MediaWiki already has a separate "en-gb" language option, so we could theoretically have a "". Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 23:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It'd be better to have someway to convert articles between the two (actually all) English dialects within the same Wikipedia. I think that was originally planned for the Serbian Wikipedia (for ekavski and ijekavski dialects) using lookup tables or something.Details on that plan here. I'm pretty sure that part wasn't implemented and they only got the Latin/Cyrillic script converter. Anyway, the ekavski/ijekavski problem is a headache (go read about it) but doing English "dialects" should be really simple. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 15:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
There are some quirks that make it a non trivial exercise, but it could be done, it would be appreciated by some of our readers. I've argued in the past that we should go down the Chinese wiki route and let the readers choose the version of English they want displayed to them. But I now think we should first find out what proportion of English Wikipedia users would benefit. ϢereSpielChequers 11:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Some words and idiomatic phrases are completely different (consider an article on torches, for example). Thus the onus would fall on editors to markup the source appropriately. I suspect this would face issues in practice. isaacl (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL Victim lists in mass tragedy articles - Round 2

The issue of victim lists in mass tragedy articles was adressed before and the consensus was that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis. I believe the issue needs to be addressed again to finally reach global consensus due to the fact that each mass tragedy articles become a constant struggle amongst editors supporting or opposing the inclusion of a victim list. There is also another issue where outcomes of a consensus on a specific article does not count as consensus for later articles, so the back and forth edits and fights never end. Current RfC

Current language of WP:NOTMEMORIAL: Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.

I propose that we add a line to WP:NOTMEMORIAL that would either allow or prohibit listing individual victims of mass tragedies if they do not meet our notability guidelines and/or WP:BLP and they are covered in the media as part of the story of the mass tragedy event. This proposal, if approved, would also override any local consensus and precedents. Long lists containing more than 20 names should be contained in a collapsed section.

   Support = Will allow inclusion
   Oppose = Will prohibit inclusion

Cheers, --Bohbye (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


  • Support as nominator. --Bohbye (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I continue to say that the victims are notable in the context of the given event. This isn't just someone creating an article in order to remember their deceased loved one or friend. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support — I'm reading this proposal as "allow" not "require," since that's what it says. I don't expect adding a line to WP:MEMORIAL stating this will end all disputes over victim lists. However, right now these disputes often boil down to
Proponent: I think we should have a victim list due to X, Y, and Z.
Opponent: I don't think we should have victim lists because of WP:MEMORIAL
Proponent: That's not my reading of WP:MEMORIAL.
Admin closer: No consensus.
This is simply not a helpful pattern. If WP:MEMORIAL included something like the following it would help: "This policy does not prohibit the inclusion of lists of victims of tragic events, if they serve an encyclopedic purpose, appear in reliable sources, and are compliant with other Wikipedia policies. These lists should be written to provide relevant information, rather than memorialize the lives of the victims."--Carwil (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Proponent: I think we should have a victim list due to X, Y, and Z.
Opponent: I oppose per WP:MEMORIAL.
Proponent: MEMORIAL says we can have the list if it serves an encyclopedic purpose, appears in reliable sources, and is compliant with other Wikipedia policies.
Opponent: I disagree that the list serves an encyclopedic purpose.
Uninvolved closer: No consensus. (or the closer counts votes and calls it a consensus) ―Mandruss  17:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the revised conversation is better, since the opponent has to explain how it serves no encyclopedic purpose. Of course there will still be disagreements but there is room for compromise and consideration of the page at hand.--Carwil (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It it easy to "explain how it serves no encyclopedic purpose" convincingly enough for your argument to count as much as any other in the eyes of the closer. Many editors have done exactly that. There is no clear Wikipedia definition of encyclopedic purpose. Therefore your suggestion would change nothing. ―Mandruss  23:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Support as 2nd choice. A mandatory rule that overrides local consensus and past precedent is a horrible idea that will require absurd and illogical outcomes. However, if the community decides to create a mandatory rule, I’d prefer for it to be inclusion for two reasons. First, this is more in-line with common practice on Wikipedia (particularly with school shootings) and will require less clean-up. Second, many tragedies are notable because of the specific victims (such as the 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash, which killed many leaders of the Polish Government in Exile). In these cases, it is incredibly important to know the names of at least some of the victims. Further, many notable people (particular those from non-English speaking countries) do not have articles, so we’d have to hold a pre-emptive AfD for many entries into the victim list. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I realized that a mandatory inclusion rule would require victim lists for pandemics such as the 1918 flu pandemic (50 million deaths, minimum), natural disasters such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami (230,000 deaths, minimum), and genocides such as the Rwandan Genocide (500,000 deaths, minimum). Most commenters in this RFC agree that victim lists are appropriate in some articles but not others; the main dispute here is over the proportion of articles in which victim lists are appropriate, not whether they are appropriate period. I think this RFC would have been more helpful if it proposed a default rule that could be overruled with local consensus instead of a mandatory rule that must be obeyed even in illogical situations. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


  • Oppose, policy is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. As it stands, this type of information gains consensus to be included in some articles and fails to in others, so there is clearly no consensus that this should always or never be added. Therefore, case by case discussion, as is current practice, is the proper way to settle it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Seraphimblade, I'm not sure that your response matches the description above for what "oppose" is supposed to mean. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the victims of mass tragedies are (generally) not notable, they are simply the people who happen to be in the area when the event occurs. Even in the case of mass shootings (where this debate keeps popping up), most of the perpetrators are not targeting specific people, they are simply killing anyone in the way. Obviously there are some minor exceptions. The vulcanologist who was killed by the eruption of Mount St. Helens while collecting data, a newscaster who is blown away by a tornado while on air, a passenger on a jet who attempts to stop hijackers, a shooting victim who was called out by name in the perpetrator's manifesto. But notice that these are highly specific things. For most victims of these tragedies the story would have been exactly the same if anyone else had been there and their names give us no real extra data. --Khajidha (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose but with appropriate exceptions. We should encourage editors to avoid these, unless there are reasonable circumstances, notably that if discussing the event that it is impossible to do so without mention some of these people. --Masem (t) 02:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Masem: My understanding is that this is about complete lists of names and ages, not prose about selected notable victims. They are separate issues and I think most opponents of the former do not oppose the latter outright, although we might disagree on the meaning of "notable". In my opinion your !vote is the same as mine in the following subsection. ―Mandruss  02:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, lack of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edibobb (talkcontribs) 02:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with appropriate exceptions per Masem and Khajidha. The status quo, however attractive it may seem to !vote for, has not served as well, and provides a justification for battleground that is really unnecessary. The wording should at least strongly discourage the practice of inclusion. No such user (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For the normal reader it is an utterly meaningless and worthless list of names randomly pulled out of the phonebook (with my apologies to the family and friends of the deceased). For the normal reader, it serves absolutely no encyclopedic purpose. Name(s) should only be included where it provides some identifiable and distinctive purpose for a generic reader. If it's a relative of the perpetrator, or a celebrity who gets individualized news coverage, or one of Khajidha's examples, it makes sense to have a textual-discussion of those individuals. To make the point reducio ad absurdum, there's no reason we should treat the victims of a mass shooting any differently than the victims of 9/11. A list of 20 random names is just as useless as a list of 2,996 random names. Alsee (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 2nd choice because there should be explicit provision for exceptions. Superior to status quo, however, per my comments elsewhere in this proposal. ―Mandruss  01:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose a list of the names of non-notable people who were killed in an event has no point other than to memorialize the victims in question. While I feel for the people involved, that is not the point of an encyclopedia. Cataloging the victims of various of events is a noble pursuit, but is more suited to another venue. My conclusion would be to prohibit victim lists unless the victim meets general notability requirements. It is either that or we have to decide where to draw the line. Does every soldier who died during a battle get listed in an article about the battle? How about everyone killed by the Nazis at Auschwitz in it's article? The list could do on. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 05:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, If for no other reason then who gets to decide what is deserving of such memorials? Victims of Terror, Mass shootings, collateral damage? Too much room for edit warring and POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • General oppose including lists of nn individuals, as (indiscriminate amount of information). Victim lists should include those who are independently notable, i.e. blue-linked. There may be a section in the articles on the victims - covered as a group / individually, depending on the depth of sources for specific individuals. I find the exhaustive lists not only excessive, but also potentially disrespectful to the relatives. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


  • Status quo Continue deciding ona case-by-case basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Status quo One-size-fits-all policies are rarely useful at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 02:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Status quo, since apparently "oppose" doesn't actually mean, well, "oppose", but I oppose making such a change. Policy is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. As it stands, this type of information gains consensus to be included in some articles and fails to in others, so there is clearly no consensus that this should always or never be added. Therefore, case by case discussion, as is current practice, is the proper way to settle it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Status quo - 2nd choice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Default to omit, exceptions by local consensus - There was a minor but distracting outcry of "Not this again!" when the list was disputed at Santa Fe High School shooting, and the RfC for that case is underway. If "Status quo" or "no consensus" is the result here, it must be stressed that "Not this again!" is inconsistent with that result and thus an invalid complaint. If the community kicks this decision down to article level, despite the fact that the relevant factors and circumstances are essentially the same in each successive case, then the community is saying it must be re-litigated at each successive case. I oppose that as a waste of editor time, and I support omission as default with provision for exceptions by local consensus. The difference between that and the simple "decide case-by-case" is that any arguments for exception would be required to show what is unusual about the case that justifies exception to the default. My rationale for supporting omission rather than inclusion as default is found here (first !vote). ―Mandruss  04:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Status quo. Continue deciding on a case-by-case basis. One-size-fits-all policies are rarely useful at Wikipedia. Case by case basis with no default rule. Some take WP:NOTAMEMORIAL way out of context. It is meant to shut down stand alone bios on deceased friends and family. It is not meant to exclude the mention of a murder victim name within the context of a page about a notable crime. Bus stop (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Omit excepting strong local consensus I'm not entirely sure what adding a comprehensive list of victims adds to an article, and as some users commented at the last RfC, it may be seen as disrespectful to mention people purely for how they died (WP:BLP1E). If some victims are notable for other reasons, sure it may make sense to list them. However, there may well be cases where listing all victims makes encyclopedic sense, and local consensus should be sovereign where it exists. Richard0612 12:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally Support Inclusion I think generally murder victims names and often ages (which helps distinguish the victum from other people with the same name) are an important part of every murder story that are almost always covered by reliable sources repeatedly. We have almost always covered the victim names for other notable murders like Golden_State_Killer#Original_Night_Stalker There is a trend in the media to even deemphasize the killer's name and emphasize the victims for notoriety reasons. Some take WP:NOTAMEMORIAL way out of context. It is meant to shut down stand alone bios on deceased friends and family. It is not meant to exclude the mention of a murder victim name within the context of a page about a notable crime. Do to privacy and accuracy reasons I do not support releasing victim names before they are released by law enforcement and published in RS or the listing of all wounded victims, which needs to be considered on a case by case basis. If child Mary Jones is shoot in the leg and survives she does not need to be named on wikipedia but if Jane Smith gets shot and earns an award for heroism we may well name her. Legacypac (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Status quo. The current wording, which in general would appear to prohibit the mass listing of names, but would allow for it if there were a good reason (mainly notability), seems fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Status quo - Case by case basis with no default rule. I have supported inclusion on the two most recent mass shooting pages I have participated in, but I see examples where it was decided to exclude the names, and if there is another situation where that is what the consensus is decided to be I have no problem with it. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Status quo - Should be done on a case-by-case basis, Seems the logical answer..... –Davey2010Talk 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Status quo - There are some cases where setting notability as a threshold would be a good idea. But, there are other cases, like where there are seven or so victims, and one notable person among them, when including the names of all killed would be a fine idea. Overall, having a guideline to cite isn't very good when that guideline has lots of good exceptions. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Status quo I'd suggest that it mostly depends on the number of names, if there are only a handful then it makes some sense to include them, if there are hundreds then it probably isn't a good idea. There are other factors that could affect the decision though. Hut 8.5 20:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Default to include, allow exclusion per local consensus After every major shooting, we seem to have the exact same debate about whether to include a list of victims. The debatealmost always centers around the same general arguments rather than the details of the specific shooting. Having to debate the same point again and again is a waste of time and is starting to ware on the nerves of many editors. Establishing a default rule instead of continuously debating the same point would be in the best interest of Wikipedia. I would prefer for the default rule to be inclusion of the lists for the reasons I explain here. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Status quo These are the type of articles where the need for editorial judgement is the greatest. Drawing lines in the stand is rarely useful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • These local discussions are never about the characteristics of the case. They are regurgitations of the same general arguments about victim lists, over and over. The result depends merely on the mix of the editors involved in the local decision. And there are always many editors who !vote based largely on precedent, as if that showed a community consensus, when in fact it does not. If there were such a community consensus, it would be affirmed in discussions like this one. The status quo is a mess, and the only way to resolve it is to reach a community consensus for something other than status quo. ―Mandruss  08:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Status quo Bearing in mind that WP:BLP1E still applies in the "breaking news" phase. I know that's aimed at articles, but the last thing I want to happen is for us to repeat an innaccurate list, potentially causing great distress to an affected family. There are some articles that a list of the victims just doesn't make any sense - e.g. The Holocaust. At the same time, sometimes it makes sense. Bellezzasolo Discuss 20:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Status quo Going to squeeze in just under the wire to note that a case-by-case basis simply seems the most logical to me. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 18:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Depends. Do what the historical secondary sources say — if they report a list of names, that's reasonable, but if not, don't. And don't go advocating the fringe theory that news reports are secondary sources: I'm talking secondary sources as defined by professionals. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Status quo, Proposal options are inappropriately Procrustean. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


Memorial:General discussion

The two suggested "votes" may be confusing people. The options might be better framed like this:

  1. Require victim lists (if verifiable; WP:SPLIT to a stand-alone list if large)
  2. Decide separately for each article (permitted with consensus; status quo)
  3. Prohibit (no lists, except in extraordinary situations)

If people can be clear about what they mean in their comments, that would probably be more helpful than "support" or "oppose". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Victim lists have long been an issue. I was involved in a related local discussion nearly 5 years ago which had some interesting points raised. Cesdeva (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well it appears that nothing has come out of this discussion, the issue is going to continue to be fought out and re-discussed to death. Sorry if I sound pessimistic here but I have seen it play out now many times from both sides presenting the same arguments. Why would one school shooting for example be different than another with the same talking points presented? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Remarkably, at least one editor—an editor with extensive experience—has declined to help form a consensus with the rationale that there is no consensus. Apparently, avoiding pointless expenditure of editor time is seen by many as an improper use of community consensus. ―Mandruss  23:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you seeing something above that implies anything other than the status quo (no change)? This has been discussed in one way shape or form for years now, something is going to have to give eventually. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: I'm not sure I understand the question. If you're asking how I read the consensus to date, of course it leans toward status quo. If the trend holds, I know WP:how to lose and I'm resigned to the continued waste of time, but I will respond negatively to further "Not this again!" protests at article level. This will be the clear will of the community, and every editor should respect it. ―Mandruss  18:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the closer apply extra care evaluating individual responses. We have a striking situation where there are !votes in three different sections all saying the exact same thing: names can be included if they serve an encyclopedic purpose. People are just coming at it from different angles. If we get stuck with yet another RFC on this same question I suggest extra effort to more clearly articulate that position. The current drafting looks too much like "Always include all names" vs "Never include any names". Alsee (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the framing is poor, as might be expected from a very-low-time editor. I offered to collaborate on framing and my offer was ignored. But to me the drafting looks like "prohibit lists" (Oppose) vs "don't prohibit lists" (Support). In any case, I think it was clear from the start that the question is about complete lists of names and ages; that's what "victims list" means. It is not about prose about selected notable victims, and I'm pretty sure that some !voters have missed that essential point. It certainly is not about lists of names and ages of selected notable victims with no explanation for what makes them notable; that should never be on the table for obvious reasons. ―Mandruss  01:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Alsee:, @Mandruss:: I think Alsee has the correct read of responses posted here and Mandruss has the correct read of the proponent's intent in writing the RfC. Above, I tried to offer a succinct clarification of the policy that summarizes when victim lists are appropriate: ""This policy does not prohibit the inclusion of lists of victims of tragic events, if they serve an encyclopedic purpose, appear in reliable sources, and are compliant with other Wikipedia policies. These lists should be written to provide relevant information, rather than memorialize the lives of the victims." I could offer this as the basis for a future RfC, or we could refine it here, and then have an RfC about it. What do people think?--Carwil (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Most of the opposition to victims lists is that they inherently do not "serve an encyclopedic purpose", so I don't know what that would accomplish. Victims lists either generally serve an encyclopedic purpose or they generally do not, and that is something that can and should be decided, at community level, for all victims lists in mass killing articles (with provision for rare exceptions).
Further, closers cannot read the minds of the participants, and forgive me for believing that many supporters whose desire was to memorialize the victims would say that their aim was to serve an encyclopedic purpose, if that's what it took to get a list included. Ends justify means, very often. ―Mandruss  20:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Carwil if the closer has trouble extracting a clear result here, then I agree with your suggested followup RFC. However I think your text needs adjustment. When writing policies&guidelines it's often key to write for the audience who is motivated to not-find the answer we're trying to provide. You essentially wrote that uncontroversially-good content is permitted, and an over-enthusiast-list-maker can argue that your text says nothing against their list. I suggest starting with a default that victim names are generally inappropriate, then add "unless..." to allow names with a genuine purpose. I think consensus is that, in a disputed case, the person adding names is expected to offer a credible rationale beyond "listing victims". Alsee (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Mandruss. The entire point is that these lists of names are not encyclopedic content. Individual names may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but the burden of proof should be to show that mention of each name (individually) serves an encyclopedic purpose. --Khajidha (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Khajidha on specifics directly above. Have not examined all of Mandruss' arguments sufficiently to form a definite opinion on them, but those just above look rational and to the point. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk):

What we usually do, in practice

I'm feeling a little tired of this particularly perennial discussion topic, so while my already-delayed lunch is getting delayed a little longer, let me see if I can shed a little light on what happens, in practical reality.

We include lists when:

  1. The list of victims is short. A "mass killing" can mean as few as four victims to be named. When there are just a handful of victims, it's weird to write 5,000 words about the event but only mention the perpetrator by name. Most notable mass tragedies do not have a victim list that runs even into the dozens, much less hundreds or thousands.
  2. The victims' identities are relevant. There is a victim list in the very first sentence of Execution of the Romanov family. In more ordinary cases, we will have victim lists that read like "He killed his ex-girlfriend Grace, her new boyfriend Bob, and Larry Law, a police officer who responded to the emergency call. Her parents, Alice and John, survived their injuries".
  3. Some of the victims are independently notable. This may be a partial list ("230 victims, including Alice Expert, Joe Film, and Paul Politician") or it may be complete (four notable victims and a non-notable junior-level staff member or the non-notable emergency personnel who died trying to save them – when a complete list is feasible, it's inhumane to say that only a small fraction is too unimportant to name).
  4. Naming the victims makes it easier to keep track of the tragic events (e.g., Colonel Mustard first killed Miss Scarlet in the library, and then Mrs White in the kitchen. The next day, he killed Prof. Plum in the study, and Mrs Peacock in the ballroom).
  5. Naming (some or all of) the victims helps explain subsequent events and people, e.g., why a "Smith and Jones Families Memorial Scholarship Fund" was created, or why all the sources keep talking to Mary Mother.

We don't normally include lists when:

  1. The list of victims is long.
  2. The victims were largely innocent victims/random targets.

Does that feel about right, when you think about the breadth of articles we write? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but who's "we"? Clearly we've participated in different subsets of the whole. I and other editors that I have observed don't see it that way at all. In my subset experience, a large majority of editors either want the lists in all mass killings articles, or none, with some editors allowing for rare exceptions. If you want to propose the above usage, then propose it, but please don't frame it as an unwritten community consensus. I would oppose the proposal. ―Mandruss  21:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Point by point: 1) Seems perfectly normal to me to not name people who have no notability beyond being the ones who just happened to get killed (as opposed to being specifically targeted), 2) These are targeted deaths, so yes they belong, 3) A partial list would be appropriate, but your "inhumane" is simply another way of saying "We must memorialize them" and that is against policy, 4) seems like "the perpetrator killed one person in the library, then another in the kitchen. The next day, he killed someone else in the study and a fourth person in the ballroom." is just as clear, 4) the namesakes of such a fund would be notable, but Mary Mother should just be "the mother of one of the victims". --Khajidha (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Making widely-used icons consistent and modern

Look into most used files. We have four different information icons in the top thirty images. Most of them are also really old designs with lots of details (which was a thing in mid 2000s but not anymore) and they don't scale down to the size that they are being used. Most used icons are mostly in three categories:

  • Portal icons
  • *-stub template icons
  • *mbox templates

I hereby suggest using more modern set of icons that are more abstract (for example see Template:Astronomy-stub) or more specificity from these five sets: c:OOjs_UI_icons (icons used in the interface of mediawiki), Wikipedia 15 icons, c:Category:Material Design icons (because of the similarity), and c:Category:Emoji One BW (because of the diversity of the inventory). If not, at least putting some style guide for the icons. Ladsgroupoverleg 23:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Another icon-related thing: does anyone want Wikimedia to implement some form of HTML5 Canvas? Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 02:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • While on the subject, I would really like a new set of icons for Portal:Contents to represent the categories, they all have to be SVG and the same size, so anything in the way of better / more modern CC0 / PD icons would be great. JLJ001 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)sockstrike Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • All those icons look rather flat, one toned, and overall meh. —Farix (t | c) 16:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Whole-hearted support. Ladsgroup, I think you're a hero for proposing this. A lot of our visual iconography around here is a product of the trends early-2000s that birthed Wikipedia, and it's hugely overdue for a facelift. A flatter look like that represented by those material design icons would go a long way towards updating the look and feel. However, this is the most subjective matter imaginable, so I'm not sure how far this will get. But I'll with you all the way. A Traintalk 23:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is something worth looking into, but of all the possible arguments in favor of changing some of the icons, saying that they're no longer fashionable is really the bottom of the barrel, in my opinion.
    Anyway, let's put together some examples of the icon set. To compare:

Some current icons:

Warning icon Please stop disruptive blah blah blah.

Compared to icons from the proposed sets:

Warning icon Please stop disruptive blah blah blah.

--Yair rand (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The proposed icons are mostly horrible and not inline with the aesthetics of the project. The puzzle piece especially, which loses the Wikipedia logo entirely. I don't mind the new scales however. Do it on a case by case basis, but remember that most of the use of the 'bad' icons (like some assy .jpg version) is due to the substitution of old templates that have long been updated to look better. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
I agree about the puzzle logo but other ones look way better. Specially having consistency in the look seems great to me. We can use more blue in the icons to give the sense of ink Ladsgroupoverleg 04:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I am with Headbomb here. Most the icons look crap on Wikipedia, but there are some improvements that can be made with the icons that do look good, so by all means. JLJ001 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)sockstrike Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Mixed - I would say the same - the new scales look nice, but the others are less so, especially the puzzle piece as noted. Consistency all well and good, but some consideration on whether the older or more modern design is better in each case would be advisable Nosebagbear (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. It should be noted that the French Wikipedia is attempting something similar. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 23:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ladsgroup, I genuinely have no opinion on this topic, but do you think it would be better to wait until this discussion is finished before changing all the icons? Primefac (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
    Primefac The last edit on the discussion was about four days ago and I mostly wanted to be bold and change things gradually (changing everything in one go would be complicated and I don't want to do that.) Ladsgroupoverleg 17:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    Fair enough, guess I wasn't paying that much attention to the timestamps, more the fact that there's about 50/50 for/against so far. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think you should be changing the icons. I don't see a consensus for changing, with many complaining about the OOUI icons being flat/bad, and personally I don't like the new information icon that much; I don't hate it though, and could be convinced on it. Probably need an RfC if you want to change things; and IMO either use the new OOUI information icon or the old one, but mixing seems horrifying. At the very least, all the warning templates should use the same icon. I've reverted the changes since they don't seem to have any consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    There is a design style guide that explains why icons have been designed this way. This is a good read. Let's make subsections to move forward Ladsgroupoverleg 17:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    I've posted a link to this discussion at Template talk:Ambox. I think notices should probably be posted on talk pages of all templates that will have icons changed. --Yair rand (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I *do* think it's time to change the icons somewhat, and the proposed ones do look modern and nice, but I don't think these would be best for the message we're trying to send with these icons. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I support the general idea; this has long been overdue. I do not support some of the proposed replacements, because they might miss the point ("neutrality icon", see below). We should not blindly take these icons from a library. We should modify these SVGs (one reason why SVGs are awesome) to match our requirements. I'll go ahead with the black exclamation mark. Give me a few minutes, I hope. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree with Jjjjjjdddddd and ToBeFree: it's time for a change, but let's not borrow these icons wholesale. We're Wikipedia, after all, and SVGs give us a chance to add our own mark to the icons and, perhaps more importantly, discuss the changes. (Mostly the discussion, I suppose, but I digress.) Moreover, the icons presented could use some modification to suit our needs, though I do like their sleekness. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me when you reply) 01:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. No need to change it all. Take it on a template per template basis. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 03:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: That puzzle piece looks terrible compared to the one we have now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all so far. The single-color ones are harder to discern with bad eyesight. DaßWölf 19:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I use the desktop interface, and on that interface I don't see a need to change. If people using smartphones would benefit from the mobile interface displaying simpler icons then I have no objection to something that serves simpler icons on mobile or very low resolution display options. But if this is about replacing the fad of fifteen years ago for a current fad then please don't. Wikipedia has its own style and there is an advantage in being consistent in that, not doing change for the sake of change. ϢereSpielChequers 11:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Since it somehow didn't get mentioned below, Oppose the new version of the puzzle piece for the reason given by Headbomb.--Khajidha (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Late to the party oppose because there seems to be no need for what is being suggested. Happy days, LindsayHello 14:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the suggestion of these specific icons, but a Strong Support for the general idea of a more unified icon system. Miss on execution, but I'd love to see a better formulated attempt at this suggestion. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Changing information icon

This is proposal to replace blue information icons (Information.svg Information icon4.svg) with the OOjs one (OOjs UI icon info big progressive.svg) Ladsgroupoverleg 17:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Ladsgroupoverleg 17:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this icon is less visible to me. --Khajidha (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: This is not a warning icon. It doesn't need to be big, red and visible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Admittedly, it may be my poor eyesight, but this icon is less visible to me, as well. The lack of a shadow effect, I believe, is what's causing this. Or the light effect. Not really sure how to describe it. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me when you reply) 01:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The ones we have now are more visible and get the job done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I like the blue background. Maybe something like one of these Emojione 2139.svg Breezeicons-emblems-8-emblem-information.svg (although ideally darker)? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Less striking or visible or obvious. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Happy days, LindsayHello 14:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is nothing wrong with the old one. We don't need to be changing things to one solid color MS paint-style icons that stand out less. Natureium (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Changing alert icon

This is proposal to replace red alert icons (Ambox warning pn.svg Nuvola apps important.svg) with the OOjs one (OOjs UI icon alert destructive.svg) Ladsgroupoverleg 17:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

New proposal

With a black exclamation mark and a darker red triangle: Change Ambox warning pn.svg and Nuvola apps important.svg to OOjs UI icon alert destructive black-darkred.svg

  • Support as proposer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support: I still like the lighting effects. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me when you reply) 01:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: nice, clean separation between triangle and exclamation point. --Khajidha (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Only if other icons are changed to have a similar flat-coloring scheme — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • What is more important than style is having some amount of consistency. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral because there doesn't really seem (to me) to be any point to it; the original and the (second suggested) replacement are very similar, so why bother? As mentioned earlier, if this is about changing and old style for a new style/fad, it's not worth it. Happy days, LindsayHello 14:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I wouldn't be devastated, but the lighting/texture effect is pleasant on this one and I wouldn't say the new one is any nicer. While the proposal is clearest, the current ones are more than clear so I don't think any change is beneficial. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The new one looks less modern and more like the simplest shape someone could make on MS paint. The old one is already clean enough. Natureium (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Changing scale icon

This is proposal to replace scale icons (Unbalanced scales.svg) with the emoji one version (Emojione BW 2696.svg) Ladsgroupoverleg 17:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Ladsgroupoverleg 17:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this icon is used to signal a lack of neutrality, for that the unbalanced scale seems more appropriate. --Khajidha (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose an unbalanced scale should be used to show lack of balance or neutrality. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above: The replacement is missing the point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Not really what we need. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me when you reply) 01:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Graeme Bartlett. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Snow Oppose The one we have now not only looks better but is also unbalanced as per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clearly, as pointed out above, the replacement is inferior. Happy days, LindsayHello 14:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


Please suggest replacements for the following icons as well.

  • Information orange.svg
  • Stop hand nuvola.svg

Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't the replacement for the orange information icon simply be the same as the blue one but with the color changed? And what is the point of having the hand up as well as the Stop sign? Wouldn't one part or the other be sufficient on its own? --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Revise WP:NPOL so that someone who wins primary qualifies for more information in Wikkipedia

In any election, the incumbent has a great advantage over a challenger. Wikipedia's NPOL policy means that incumbent is by default notable but challenger isn't. As a service to our readers, instead of just re-directing from name of challenger (who at least in the US got some coverage running in primary election) to district race URL, could we not give more information about the race as exemplified for example here?[1] I understand reasoning behind our current model. I do not propose that, after general election, we continue to host info on challengers who are not otherwise notable. I do not propose to change notability criteria for any other categories such as NACTOR etc. But I think we can do better for general elections. What do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"I do not propose that, after general election, we continue to host info on challengers who are not otherwise notable." That seems to make the proposal a WP:NOTNEWS violation. We don't temporarily host information just to make races more fair; that's simply not Wikipedia's thing. Huon (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
(ec)In an article on the race you can say as much as sources and WP:DUE allow about any candidate, and balanced coverage is good. As to biographical articles, you seem to be suggesting a form of temporary notability, which we don't do. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
OK so for example, if you search for Texas candidate Lizzie Pannill Fletcher you end up at page for Texas 7th district, which has zero info about challenger Fletcher but a link to incumbent she will challenge. I am suggesting that such a page (for election) has a section for some links or info about positions of both candidates. I agree with Huon that it will be unnecessarily tricky to create a new category of "temporary notability." I am searching for a way to benefit our readers without requiring painful contortions of Wikipedia principles. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The best solution in such a situation is to add neutral, well-referenced information about each of the candidates to the redirect target, describing the race neutrally. Articles about unelected candidates tend to start out as campaign brochures masquerading as encyclopedia articles, and then are often loaded up with cherry-picked negative information added by supporters of rival candidates. It is a mess. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree 100% with the lively description of Cullen328 about articles of politicians. Cullen, if you can give an example, on any page you like of what and WHERE such info might go, that would be a great help. Sleepily, from Sweden, HouseOfChange (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
In the current case, HouseOfChange, the information can go in the District 7 section of United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2018. If you look at sections for other districts, you will see that some have information about various candidates. There could be 36 neutral spinoff articles about the races in all 36 Texas Congressional districts. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Cullen328, I do not propose to write 36 spinoff articles, but I will try to wrie one or 2 and see what reception is for them. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment generally there haven't been stand-alone articles on US House races, but based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California's 39th congressional district election, 2018 it seems that it is permitted, at least for races that generate national-level coverage (normally well-correlated with competitive races).
    As far as notability of candidates: I'm not happy with the current system, but don't see a better alternative yet. Notability is not temporary, and proposals that suggest current candidates are notable but will not be notable after the election are exceptionally unlikely to find consensus. Some candidates (Kara Eastman, Mark Walker) have been kept at AfD recently.
    Finally, as a procedural note, this is a fairly good time to have this discussion; there's enough time before any election that there's no obvious benefit for any political group associated with any policy change, but enough activity to give specific examples rather than hypotheticals. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the case of the U.S. House of Representatives, there are very few competitive seats in any election cycle. Cook estimates that less than 100 of 435 seats are competitive [2] in 2018, for instance. That means that in three-quarters of all U.S. congressional races, the general election challenger candidate will often be either a perennial candidate or someone simply running as a party standard-bearer with no hope or intent of election and no organized campaign. Over the next six years, that means we could potentially accumulate hundreds of biographies of individuals notable for no other reason than they once spent 15 minutes filling out a certificate of candidacy. Further, many general election candidates for congressional office already are usually able to meet notability standards absent this proposal as they will frequently be former state legislators who are inherently notable, or in some other way pass the WP:GNG. Candidates for competitive house seats are rarely unknowns. Chetsford (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Credible candidates in competitive House races are usually notable—Rather than try to generate a temporary rule, I want to suggest that in a polarized political environment, virtually every credible candidate in a swing district is getting "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Shortly after the primary, you should be able to defend them using the GNG, which NPOL specifically directs you to do.--Carwil (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I understand the intent is good... so I apologize in advance... but I'm about to cast this in the ugliest light possible. The proposal here is for Wikipedia to give non-notable individuals temporary free campaign advertising, because Wikipedia wants to alter the outcome of elections. I know, the intent is to be "more fair", but I subscribe to a rather purist view of Wikipedia policy. We write policies for strictly encyclopedic purposes, not trying to fix issues out in the world. Individuals who are already notable(Donald Trump cough cough) have an inherent advantage in elections. That is true no matter what we do. We shouldn't screw up our policies trying to fight that inevitable fact. The world isn't fair, we can't solve that. We're also already overloaded with work to do without having to try to manage a highly politicized category of "temporary" articles, especially when they lack the sort of sourcing we require to handle them properly. In some cases we'd have little more than campaign-adverting&attack-counter-advertising as sources to work with. We don't want to cross those streams. It would be bad.(Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously, and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.) Alsee (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not in the business of being a voter's guide. Winning a primary is a pretty low bar, and it is not much higher if, in the US, you restrict that to the two main parties' primaries. In the best of times these articles would be partisan battlegrounds and an attractive nuisance for off-wiki trolls and partisans. In short, if they were not notable enough for an article before then simply being successful in their party's selection process does not make them more so. Jbh Talk 02:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Hopefully not needed per Carwil. It really is concerning that Wikipedia might be magnifying the advantages of incumbency (the concern is not so much "fairness" to individual challengers as it is having a realistic prospect of dismissing incumbents). But as others have noted, as encyclopedists per se, that's not really our problem. But hopefully GNG will suffice. --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as a one-time major party nominee myself, I feel this is falsifying our concept of notability. Think of it as the political equivalent of BLP1E. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above, and biasing our rules to advantage subjects from one country is flat-out not acceptable. This proposal is tailored to suit the peculiarities of the US election system, and that makes it prima facie unacceptable, this website is not the Yankopedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comnent I don't believe we should change policy. What we need to do is actually follow what's written. Many editors seem to discount any national coverage about unelected candidates as not being able to satisfy GNG, though that's not anywhere in the official guidelines. I believe the regular GNG requirements are already specific enough to determine whether unelected political candidates are notable. I can understand desiring some amount of non-local coverage for unelected candidates, but I disagree with the idea that well sourced and useful national coverage about candidates should be deleted just because the person is unelected or loses their election. It would be far more difficult to fully document elections and get a complete view of the election when all the coverage for the losing side always gets deleted. We had an extremely widely covered district attorney race recently, and the information about the losing candidate is historically important to understand the race and some of the actions of the winning candidate, even if the loser never does anything else notable. Second, I can understand that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a campaign brochure, but I think the regular policy guidelines are enough to fight cases like that. Third, it seems against the purpose of Wikipedia to delete well sourced information and national coverage about candidates right as people are looking for and need that information the most. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Throttle edits adding excessive disambiguation links

In my long experience as a disambiguator, I have observed that the larger the number of disambiguation links added in a single edit, the more problematic that edit is likely to be in other respects as well, such as containing copyvios, overlinking, creating a sea of non-notable red-links, adding walls of text, or indiscriminate data dumps. I think an edit that adds more than, say, links to twenty different disambiguation pages should probably at least bring up a notice advising the editor to review Wikipedia's policies and MOS and consider whether they need to adjust their writing before saving the edit. I will add that, out of the hundreds of thousands of edits made on Wikipedia per day, only a handful have this characteristic. Nevertheless, it would quite often save a lot of work if the editor adding the disambiguation links (and likely other issues) would get a heads up, rather than other editors needing to puzzle them out afterwards. bd2412 T 03:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

bd2412, that sounds like an excellent idea. The next step would be to put in a request on phabricator. If that doesn't get results, drop me a line on my talk page and I will create a proposal and push them until I get a yes or no answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is in the same vein as various semi-perennial proposals for alerting users before they save certain types of edits: ones that introduce unsourced text, spelling mistakes, etc. In fact, there was a proposal in 2016 for similarly alerting editors when their contributed text contains links to dab pages. To rehash in the current context some of the reasons why these have all failed: 1) they introduces additional hoops for good-faith new editors to jump through (not good in the context of declining new editor numbers), 2) the presence of many dablinks by itself is only a minor problem that can easily be fixed afterwards, and 3) the real problem is the presence of copyvios etc, and these might or might not come along with the type of edit that would get picked up: the software will have no way of telling which edits are problematic and which aren't.
    Also, worth remembering that articles with more than 8 dablinks get swiftly tagged by DPL bot, which places them in Category:Pages with excessive dablinks (which currently has three members), where they can be examined by experienced editors. And the user who introduced any number of dablinks will promptly receive a talk-page notification (unless their edit count is below 100 or they have specifically opted out). – Uanfala (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The previous proposal was to throttle the addition of any new dab links. This is for edits adding a relatively high number. To add one or two disambiguation links in an edit is easy. To add more than ten takes a special kind of absence of forethought. I would add that very frequently the sort of editors who add masses of text laden with disambiguation links are the sort who have fewer than 100 edits. Suppose for the sake of argument we were to say that we would do this for edits adding 20 new links to disambiguation pages? Or 50? Or 100 (since I have seen that happen on rare occasion)? bd2412 T 11:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I have a lot of sympathy this goal, but AIUI throttling can only be done through the edit filter, which means that it has to be computed on every single edit at the time of saving, and that's expensive (slow) for every single edit. I don't think that the rest of the community would love having every single edit slowed down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Isn't that what the edit filters are already doing? bd2412 T 16:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, and that's why we need to do as little of it as we can. Each additional thing to check slows down editing even more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Also, can we at least do something to catch obvious disambig-linking vandalism like this? bd2412 T 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Delete IABot talk page posts?

A previous RfC halted new talk page posts by InternetArchiveBot.

This RfC is to see if there is consensus to delete the posts. It affects about 1 million talk pages. An example post that would be deleted.

There are two options for deletion:

#1 - a bot edits the 1 million pages deleting posts. Archived talk pages will be left alone. Bot operator User:GreenC has volunteered.
#2 - the wording of the post is modified to give users permission to delete posts if they want to. Since talk page posts normally can't be deleted by other users, it would remove that restriction. The wording can easily be changed via the {{sourcecheck}} template, it would not require every page be edited.

Please !vote support or oppose. Clarify choice of method #1 and/or #2 in order of preference.

- Rod57 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


  • Support as nominator. Prefer #1 but would be happy with #2 - Rod57 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, as the nominator has not explained what benefit (if any) there would be in doing this. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Because the posts clutter talk pages and confuse editors. They won't be archived in most articles, most have no automatic archiving or enough traffic to warrant archiving. If you still oppose why not support choice #2? -- GreenC 18:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose making another million edits here. Looks like these mostly all use {{sourcecheck}} - just add some verbiage there. — xaosflux Talk 16:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Choice #2 says this. Are you then in support of #2? -- GreenC 18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty indifferent to option 2, just strongly opposed to option 1. If going for option 2, certainly need to check if there are other uses outside of this use case that could lead to unintended impacts. — xaosflux Talk 19:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per the {{sourcecheck}} argument. Just change the text. In most cases it'll get archived anyway. — AfroThundr (tc) 17:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Choice #2 says this. Are you then in support of #2? -- GreenC 18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - See choice #2  :-) -- GreenC 18:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose everything — literally not a single reason to make a million edits to remove once-useful things. Unless there's a good reason, we need not retroactively remove material. I don't see a need to change the template to encourage folks to delete them, they're not hurting? What's the need here? ~ Amory (utc) 19:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support deletion Option #1 or any deletion plan is fine. This text is spam and information pollution which wastes huge amounts of time by continually distracting users to read this text. It is of no use to anyone. This text never should have been posted and for as long as it persists it is actively spoiling the Wikimedia user experience. At least archive it all; preferably delete it outright. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose option #1 as something that could cause more harm than good, especially if a new bot has to be designed to handle this workload. I just don't think it's worth the time and effort just to create more page revisions that don't do anything constructively. I would be okay with rewording, per option #2, but again, I don't see a need to do it retroactively to past posts. Surely, if anyone cared, I'm sure after rewording the post others would interpret that as being safe to remove past posts if they wish, and no one would find a problem with that. Red Phoenix talk 21:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The posts get archived on active talk pages and lend meatiness to article talk pages that otherwise have seen little activity. I've actually used IABot's messages to do some close checking and don't want to see my work deleted, if it still exists where it hasn't been archived. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose option 1, indifferent on 2 as long as the template isn't used elsewhere. That said, this seems to be a solution in search of a problem - has the fact that the messages exist been raised as a problem before now? ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Firefly: Yes, below in the discussion, I have raised the existence of the messages as a problem. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Blueraspberry: You say that the messages 'consume human time', but what evidence is there for this, or for this being a problem? Tone doesn't come across well in text, so please rest assured that I'm genuinely interested in this - do you have any data to back up that such messages eat up reader time (unnecessarily), or are they just scrolled past in a second or two. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 23:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Firefly: This is spam. Spam consumes small amounts of time and attention from large groups of people giving benefit to almost none. Which of these premises do you dispute? - there are millions of these messages, tens of thousands of people read them, they have a life of years, the talkpages show tens of millions of views, there is a body of research publication which describes how spam / advertising consumes time and spoils an environment, these messages ask for minutes of time from all readers, people prefer to moderate their environment's level of spam, this kind of messaging is unprecedented in Wikimedia projects. Most people scroll past in 2 seconds but even that is unacceptable multiplied times millions. Many people read the messages the first few times and some people actually respond. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all Please do not edit one million pages (or even one hundred pages) without a clear benefit. The watchlist turmoil alone is not worth it. A worse problem is the wasted effort as puzzled editors check what happened on the talk pages they monitor. I would scratch my head if I saw a bot modify another bot's message. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 2 requires editing ONE page. Not a million. Can you re-evaluate Option 2? -- GreenC 18:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Please make a proposal with precise wording, preferably brief. However, you don't need an RfC to edit a single template. I don't see a need to add a "you have permission to delete this" message. If someone is too inexperienced to know they can delete a bot's message if it's a nuisance they should not be fiddling with talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: I agree that permission isn't actually needed on any given single article, but Rod57 initially proposed something roughly reflecting your position on the template's talk page and ended up running this RfC at least in part because I asserted that mass removal of the messages, regardless of whether done by bot or by encouraging human editors to do so, is something that would require community approval (mea culpa). Even (especially?) experienced editors are indoctrinated to never ever mess with others' talk page comments, so I think adding such a message to the (already transcluded) template would have an effect beyond just "stating the obvious". I suspect the "precision" you find missing in the framing of this RfC is due to an attempt at brevity and neutrality from someone who has never constructed an RfC before. I hope that tradeoff won't make necessary restarting it entirely. --Xover (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose; per above. This has the potential to waste users time by alerting them to the automated change. Also possible is wasted editing hours as people discuss the issue during the fallout. In any case, particularly with regard to the example given above, we would almost certainly appreciate a human user leaving such a TP summary after making a non-minor edit affecting sourcing, why should a bot's contribution be less valid/useful. Agree with discussion points below - that brevity should be considered and would support improved brief messages if they can be shortened. Edaham (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Solution 1 per cost benefit; would
  • Weak Support number 2 per User:GreenC . GenQuest "Talk to Me" 11:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose making edits to every talk page with such a message, there's no point in flooding watchlists for that. Don't care if the solution is changing the wording of a transcluded template, as implied might be the case in option 2. Anomie 12:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 1, meh for Option 2. Don't see the point in removing the notices systematically, especially many of those were made at a time when IABot wasn't super reliable. I've removed IABot messages before myself, so if you want to add a message to a template IABot used to mentioned this is an option, sure. I don't think it's going to make much of a difference, but I'm not oppose to that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Option #2 and Would not oppose Option #1. I manually remove these on "my" articles if they happen to annoy me (clutter), and see no reason why others should not feel free to do the same, with or without "permission" from the template message. Changing the message to explicitly allow this (subject to normal local consensus), provided it is backed by community consensus in this RfC, has effectively zero cost and mainly reaffirms the status quo. Mass removing them by bot seems excessive for the problem: they're just a bit of clutter, and we have a ton of that in various other forms. Better to avoid the watchlist noise and potential for wikidrama such mass edits can engender. I would not, however, be opposed if consensus was to bot-remove them: I just don't think it's a big enough deal either way to feel strongly about it. (PS. Kudos to Rod57 for setting up this RfC. It's good to have a community consensus as guidance, either way.) --Xover (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support #2, neutral on #1 I hear the arguments against 1 on the basis of the many edits, although I'm not sure how much of a problem it would be. However, it would be sensible to allow users to remove notices in areas where they constitute clutter. Tamwin (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 1 and Support Option 2 which pretty much lets sleeping dogs lie. The posts are spam and were a nuisance when made, but make further nuisance only to those readers who read old posts. Waking this sleeping dog will make a new, similar nuisance to my fellow talk page stalkers. Yes, my opinion is based on a guess that the new nuisance will be bigger than the remaining nuisance value of the old spam posts. No use complaining when other guesses lead to other opinions. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support option 2: the messages are useless, but not worth the trouble of performing a million of edits. Option 2 seems like a good choice in addressing the perceived issue. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose All - There is no benefit to editing over a million pages just to delete a bot message ..... They can and will be archived eventually, I and others archive talkpages and most talkpages have the archive bot .... if they're not archived then who cares ? ..... The proposal IMHO does not in any way, shape or form help with the goals of Wikipedia. –Davey2010Talk 20:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose option 1, indifferent to option 2 I'm just not seeing the problem with letting old Archivebot messages stick around: they aren't causing any harm and they'll eventually go away on their own through talk page archiving. I strongly oppose option 1 since it will require a ton of work for little benefit. Option 2 only requires a single edit, so I have no objection to it. I don't think it will accomplish much, but if the community wants it I won't oppose. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support option 2, to clarify that one doesn't really need to check the bot's edits nor to edit any talk page template. Those requests were just terrorism imposed by users who didn't believe in the success of the bot. Neutral on option 1: the whole message should have been a template, but the subst-worshippers would have opposed that; the real solution for the future is to avoid adding so much text in talk pages, changing Wikipedia:Substitution if necessary, to make it clear that it's vastly better to insert boilerplate text via templates. --Nemo 07:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose option 1 - the benefit doesn't justify the volume of talk spam. No opinion on Option 2; I have WP:OneClickArchiver enabled which can remove them from the talk page already. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose both options. This is unnecessary, will clutter watchlists and history, and remove slightly useful posts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I will add that option 2 will be much worse than the original posting of messages on the talk page, since all the talk pages will be changed, and will waste so much time in people finding out what happened, for no benefit at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose both options, per Davey2010 and Johnuniq. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 1 because mass edits like that would be immensely unnecessary but support Option 2, so that the messages can be removed where they are actually an obstruction. BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose option 1 and support option 2. If people need to be told that removing trivial and deprecated bot messages does not breach WP:TPO, then let's tell them. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


The persistence of advertising and spam messages consume a huge amount of human time and attention and bring no benefit. The Wikipedia community currently does not anticipate or measure the costs of mass messaging millions of discussion posts to hundreds of thousands of readers. If a message has a life of years, then if great numbers readers spend their time considering great numbers of messages, then this wastes hundreds of hours of Wikimedia community time in an unsatisfying user experience. We have to keep Wikipedia clean of unproductive distractions! See my previous rants on this topic:

No bot should be allowed to consume hundreds of human hours about its automated activities! Remove these messages immediately and avoid ever allowing this again! Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No evidence any significant amount of time is spent on these. They were turned off precisely because everyone just ignores them. On active talk pages they'll be archived quickly, on inactive pages they won't get seen. ~ Amory (utc) 00:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm in general agreement with Bluerasperry on the principle, but must note that I consider the concern somewhat overblown on this particular instance of the issue. In general we should strive to be mindful of editor attention, including both article and user talk page messages, and "noise" in people's watchlists; but not to the exclusion of useful functionality or information. There is certainly wasted attention caused by these messages, but they are not entirely devoid of compensating value (how much is a subjective call). And excessive effort expended on them, relative to all the other more pressing issues the project faces, is likewise not a good use of the same limited resource (editor attention). --Xover (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Xover: I really appreciate your acknowledgement that editor attention is a limited resource. I can understand and accept that different people will calculate cost/benefit in time in different ways, but I find it challenging to understand how anyone could say that the cost is zero or immeasurable. Thanks for the reply. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
No one said the cost was zero, just that what the exact cost is is at best a guess that depends on a lot of assumptions, which ultimately yields little to no insight on anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Per Headbomb, I don't think anyone is asserting that the cost of editor attention is zero. But they may disagree that leaving the old messages in place affects (uses) editor attention to any degree worth mentioning, or they may care so much more about the editor attention wasted by noise in watchlists and possibly discussions and wikidrama arising from the removal as to consider the other to be insignificant. Or they just think other factors are more important. An RfC !vote is the distilled result of the conclusion drawn after considering the various factors and assigning them your particular relative merit: it is not an expression of ignorance of, or active dismissal of, other concerns. It's "Here's what I think is important", not "What you think isn't important", if you'll pardon the simplification. --Xover (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I would not criticize others. For myself, I fail to understand the other side, and for myself, I feel a lack of ability to express what I see in a way that makes me feel understood. Thanks for the encouragement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll note that we have a reasonably accurate proxy of the attention gains by the bot's activity, namely clicks on its userpage. --Nemo 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Can they at least be put under 1 <h2/> tag titled == "External links modified" == and then each time the bot runs it just adds the date as an <h3/> (===6 June 2018===)?  Nixinova  T  C  04:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Nutshell templates

I am proposing that the nutshell templates be used in Wikipedia's encyclopedic articles to provide a quick summary about a particular subject. Please let me know what you think of this proposal.
Example: United States

--2601:183:101:58D0:B420:71FD:AA18:2464 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No. That’s what the lead section is for. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence at United States reads: "The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions." We think our readers are capable of reading and comprehending a 33-word sentence; 10-year-olds are not our target audience. What reader benefit does your nutshell add that justifies the added clutter? ―Mandruss  22:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Why do policy and guideline pages use the nutshell template? Why not use the first sentence of the article? --2601:183:101:58D0:B420:71FD:AA18:2464 (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SHORTDESC. This is a project that does almost exactly what you are looking for. Bradv 23:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Nutshell banners work well when the page is a lengthy set of instructions and the reader needs help to understand what they should do or focus on. For an encyclopedia article, what Brad noted. A database of 5 million short descriptions on any topic is quite useful on its own, can be used on mobile apps, book reading apps, Google search result page, etc.. but when landing on the encyclopedia page itself, it's redundant with the lead section. -- GreenC 14:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Many pages already have an info box that serve that purpose. A "nutshell" box across the top seems redundant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It has been twelve days since the start of the discussion, and as of this closure, there are about 26 supporting comments versus 30 opposing comments. Supporters argue that the proposed filters could result in difficulty in accessing or uploading to Wikipedia and its sister projects, with one user comparing it to SOPA. Opposers argue that Wikipedia should not be used for political advocacies, or that the site should generally remain neutral in political affairs. Even if you ignore the !vote count, taking into account the discussion and the amount of feedback generated here (about half that of the ultimately unsuccessful NN banner RfC), there is at best no consensus to put up a banner as proposed. With that said, the WMF and Jimbo have stated that they have raised concerns about the proposed directive, particularly Article 13, and their position is noted.

There was also a proposal to put up a neutrally-worded banner that would provide information about the directive without pushing any particular position of it. It was supported by some users from both the support and oppose sides, but ultimately there was not enough discussion on it to have any sort of consensus of approval either.

With that said, the discussion leaves open the possibility towards proposing a neutrally-worded banner, which would then be the topic of a new discussion.

(non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:51, 18 June 2018 (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.

Background: please see this discussion started by Jimbo Wales on his talk page.

I propose that a site-wide banner be displayed through June 20, 2018, on all language Wikipedias including the English Wikipedia, when geolocation indicates that the reader is in an EU jurisdiction, explaining the upcoming June 20 European Parliament vote on the copyright law changes being considered there which could severely impact all Foundation projects, including a link directly to

Note that the Wikimedia Foundation already has an official position on this issue: Doctorow (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Background information

Collated information on the effects of the law on Wikipedia

  • The EU's Copyright Proposal is Extremely Bad News for Everyone, Even (Especially!) Wikipedia, EFF
  • 70+ Internet Luminaries Ring the Alarm on EU Copyright Filtering Proposal Update to EFF by Danny O'Brien and Jeremy Malcolm, June 12, 2018, including link to protest letter text

Filtering proposal

(taken from @Doctorow:'s message on Jimmy's talk page)

  • Sites that make material available to the public are required to filter according to rightsholder-supplied lists of copyrighted content
  • Even if they do filter, they are still liable if infringing material is uploaded and made available
  • If you believe that you have been unfairly blocked, your only remedy is to contest the block with the host, who is under no obligation to consider your petition
  • There are no penalties for falsely claiming copyright on material -- I could upload all of Wikipedia to a Wordpress blocklist and no one could quote Wikipedia until Wordpress could be convinced to remove my claims over all that text, and Wikimedia and the individual contributors would have no basis to punish me for my copyfraud
  • There was a counterproposal that is MUCH more reasonable and solves the rightsholders' stated problem: they claim that they are unable to convince platforms to remove infringing material when the copyright rests with the creator, not the publisher (e.g. Tor Books can't get Amazon to remove infringing copies of my books because I'm the rightsholder, not them); under this counterproposal, publishers would have standing to seek removal unless creators specifically objected to it
  • There is a notional exception for Wikipedia that carves out nonprofit, freely available collaborative encyclopedias. This does get WP a lot of latitude, but Article 13 still has grossly adverse effects on WP's downstream users -- anyone who mirrors or quotes WP relies on the safe harbours that Article 13 removes. Think also of all the material on EU hosts that is linked to from Wikipedia References sections -- all of that could disappear through fraud or sloppiness, making the whole project (and the whole internet) more brittle

Position of Wikimedia organisations


Please post any questions about the law and how it might affect Wikimedia projects:

  • Do we currently make use of copyrighted material in a way that would be affected by being in violation of this "law"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Slatersteven: yes, "it could also require Wikipedia to filter submissions to the encyclopedia and its surrounding projects, like Wikimedia Commons. The drafters of Article 13 have tried to carve Wikipedia out of the rule, but thanks to sloppy drafting, they have failed: the exemption is limited to "noncommercial activity". Every file on Wikipedia is licensed for commercial use." ref.
    • @Slatersteven: No, no direct impacts on Wikimedia projects as the text currently stands in both Council and Parliament. All non-for-profit projects would be excluded, which means all our projects. If our content is used commercially this would happen on another, non-Wikimedia service. That being said, the wording is not final and sloppily written, so no guarantees it will stay this way. But there is a clear political will to exclude all Wikimedia projects. --dimi_z (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I asked how we would be in violation of it, maybe I was not clear. If this rule was in place now what do we do that would mean we would could be prosecuted for being in breach of it (assuming that it does not have an exemption)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What effect would this law likely have on sources Wikipedia uses for references? E.g academic journals and newspapers. John Cummings (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • "Under Article 11, each member state will get to create a new copyright in news. If it passes, in order to link to a news website, you will either have to do so in a way that satisfies the limitations and exceptions of all 28 laws, or you will have to get a license."refJohn Cummings (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What effect would this law likely have on websites that Wikipedia sources open license media content from? e.g Flickr John Cummings (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Flickr would have to filter all uploads. --dimi_z (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Does this law effect Wikimedia Commons? John Cummings (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, see answer to question 1.
    • No it doesn't affect Commons, as commons is also a non-for-profit service (but compromises not final).--dimi_z (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


  • Support as proposer. EllenCT (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for similar reasons as not doing anything about net neutrality and not coming off as political. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No using banners to advocate for or against political policies unless there's an existential threat involved. --Yair rand (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    Further, even if this is an existential threat, the correct way to act against it would not be to link to an external site, and certainly not one like that. "The European Commission and the Council want to destroy the Internet as we know it and allow big companies to control what we see and do online." That's not a sentence Wikipedia can be associated with. --Yair rand (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As with the last time someone suggested a political banner, I see no reason that this is appropriate for wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Apparently there is an existential threat, see the post by Doctorow at 19:44, 4 June 2018 here. This proposal should not have been made without clear information. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The first link in this section includes that description. I agree it certainly does represent an existential threat to the freedom of content re-use, even if the exception for encyclopedias was carved out to prevent direct legal attacks on the existence of the wikipedias. Other projects such as Wikisource would certainly be directly at risk, but they don't reach as many EU citizens as enwiki banners would. EllenCT (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support:
    • European Copyright Law Isn't Great. It Could Soon Get a Lot Worse.
    • Updated position paper: Article 13 remains a terrible idea and needs to be deleted
    • Copyright wars are damaging the health of the internet
    • Article 13 could "destroy the internet as we know it": What is it, why is it controversial and what will it mean for memes?
    • EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line
    • European Copyright Leak Exposes Plans to Force the Internet to Subsidize Publishers
    • Text of the proposal: English Other languages and formats
--Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. According to [3], "France, Italy, Spain and Portugal want to force upload filters on not-for-profit platforms (like Wikipedia) and on platforms that host only small amounts of copyrighted content (like startups). Even if platforms filter, they should still be liable for copyright infringements of their users under civil law, just not under criminal law." There is a time to panic, and unless someone can come through and show that all this is not true, then this is that time. If the EU enacts this, we should immediately and permanently block all access to Wikipedia from the EU, globally lock EU-linked editors on all WMF projects, and disband all EU Wikimedia chapters and liquidate any assets there. For a start. We should do that in two weeks. Or we can do a banner now. Your choice. Wnt (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    European chapters have no legal responsibility whatsoever for Wikimedia sites, IIRC. Does the WMF even need to listen to European copyright laws at all? What we need now is an analysis by WMF Legal on what the ramifications of this would be. Panicking isn't helpful. --Yair rand (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    There is a duty of care. If the above comes to pass, anyone participating in a European chapter would be subject to very extensive legal harassment and it is not reasonable to pass that responsibility on to them. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not reasonable to claim that the WMF is not subject to EU law and thus action is not necessary. I'm skeptical about some of the claims made by opponents of this measure, but if they are accurate I would support an EU-wide blackout in response. I'd like to hear whether the WMF or their lawyers have an opinion before !voting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It may not appear reasonable, but it is the case the the WMF servers are in the US, and US opyright law is controlling, not EU copyright law. There may be personal risk for individual editors, but there's no more risk to the WMF's projects than if China changed its copyright laws, or Melanesia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Beyond My Ken: I’m going to take the opportunity to point out that Wikimedians are already individually liable for every action we take on WMF projects, so if the concern here is that individuals will be held more accountable for stealing the intellectual property of others, well, good for the EU in my book. If there is actually an existential threat to the WMF, I’m sure their legal team would be on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • US copyright law is (fortunately for us) not all-controlling. Local copyright law is also important. WMF does need to comply. The point is the opposite; individual editors are not affected; WMF is. But it's not complaining. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you have it backwards, but I'm not prepared to mount a detailed exegesis. My understanding is as my comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This has wide-ranging implications for the sources WP relies on, for downstream users of WP, and for WP itself. It's an unworkable and dangerous proposal that it antithetical to WP and any future project founded on similar principles. [Wikimedia has already taken an official position in opposition to this] a year ago when the proposal was first mooted. Now it's on the brink of passing and it's actually gotten worse in the intervening year. Note that I'm a consultant to the Electronic Frontier Foundation which has opposed this since the start, so I'm hardly impartial, but WMF and EFF are on the same side here, and I think Wikipedians should be too. This is a real problem for the whole project and needs to be averted. Doctorow (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment added to Template:Centralized discussion. Holding off on a !vote per Power. TeraTIX 01:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support absolutely flabbergasted with the mountain of oppose votes solely on the grounds of "political bias". The proposed law has wide-ranging implications, which at worst could mean closing Wikipedia in the EU. It doesn't help that the proposal was made so soon after the net neutrality one was closed. Net neutrality was arguably harmless, but I just can't see how this law could possibly not have substantial negative effects on Wikipedia. We can't afford to gamble on Wikipedia exceptions being added to the final bill. The one political cause we should campaign for is our own. (see Headbomb) TeraTIX 23:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question: Is there a Wikipedia article on this topic? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I've created Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. It's fairly difficult to find "neutral" sources here, and I'm not even sure how the EU makes legislation. Hopefully the magic of collaboration will improve it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TonyBallioni's concerns about being perceived as politically biased. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless the WMF is supporting such a banner (Jimbo != WMF) we have generally decided that politically-oriented banners are not appropriate. If the WMF want to enforce one, if they feel the issue is significant enough, they have ways to push that themselves. --Masem (t) 01:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While I'm sympathetic to the arguments here, I am somewhat weary of requests for politically-oriented banners. If the Foundation wishes to do it themselves, they can (and, by all means, they should, if they feel that strongly about this issue), but the voters of Europe have made their choices, and it's not our place, as a worldwide community of editors, to browbeat, cajole, or even attempt to persuade them otherwise, through the usage of Wikipedia. So, just as I voted on net neutrality (twice), I vote again: please, no more political banners/alerts/whatever on Wikipedia. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 02:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for many of the reasons stated above. While I can see the harm to the wider internet if this passes, I'm not convinced that this poses an existential threat to Wikipedia which I believe is the only case where such banners are appropriate. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Winner 42: this article outlines the direct threats of the law to Wikipedia, thanks, John Cummings (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Wow, that reads like it was written in response to this thread. I did find one factual error though. Doctorow states, "Every file on Wikipedia is licensed for commercial use." A relatively large amount of copyrighted content is already used under fair use doctrine and is not licensed for commercial reuse. That said, this hardly rises to an existential threat. Worst case, some European sources get harder to find. I think Wikipedia could reasonably ignore most of what this is because it is US based and I seriously doubt that Europe has the political capital to block or fine Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose any political banners, as always. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above and echoing the oppose votes for net neutrality banner further up. We should be careful with political banners. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TonyBallioni and oppose Political banners and this is a political issue and feel there other fora are better for this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Though I'm sure the proposal is with good intent, ultimately this is an encyclopedia and not a campaign rally. Chetsford (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest some plan to formally document somewhere that generally politically-themed banners from any country will not be run, to save editors time in discussions like this. It is all evident from recent proposals, that consensus cannot be reached on issues like this. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think we should be in the business of championing political causes, and adding a guideline to that effect sounds like a good idea. If the WMF decided this was a threat to the movement and wanted to campaign against it, that would be a different matter. That is part of their job, after all. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. On June 11, net neutrality will be adopted as official U.S. policy, and if internet can survive in America, it can survive in Europe too. wumbolo ^^^ 11:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at this point we should ask WMF for more information and advice about this situation instead of speculating based on opinion pieces and advocacy sites (such sites may very well be correct, but they do not offer an unbiased perspective on controversial topics). Also, as already pointed out by others: it would be helpful to discuss a more general guideline about prohibiting political (and other) advocacy on English Wikipedia and to clarify the handling of possible exceptional cases (if any). GermanJoe (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Not an existential threat as Wikipedia can easily exist without the EU, see also the Turkey block. While bad for editors in the EU (including myself), if this comes to pass we might as well fork the encyclopedia, it seems a saner strategy at this point. I find it interesting btw. how people point at WMF whereas WMFs strategy has been to ask the community. Seems a bit circular. :) —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Sure, for that matter Wikipedia can continue existing even if tomorrow a biological attack kills the entire humanity. It just won't have any user. --Nemo 21:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Well it's clear that the community is fine with that, isn't it ? The ideals have eroded to the point where we effectively ARE the Encyclopaedia Brittanica that we replaced. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, we need to be able to address laws that directly affect Wikipedia. (Note that I am not thrilled by the not very informative nature of ). We regularly have banners claiming Wikipedia will die if users don't donate -- the potential threat from bad legislation seems worse than two years without donations. —Kusma (t·c) 14:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the community is here to build an encyclopedia, not for political campaigning. Proposals like this are on their way to WP:PERENNIAL. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support compared to net neutrality, this appears to actually have a direct and major effect on wikipedia in the EU, closer to WP:SOPA. Hope to get a statement from the WMF on how exactly this would affect us though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As Galobtter and Kusma say, this is legislation which directly affects our copyleft and wiki model: not only it directly affects Wikipedia, but of all possible topics in the world it's the one where we can't avoid having an opinion and can't avoid being the most competent to talk (copyleft is the third pillar, folks). On the other hand, it's a bit hard for a community like ours to give a clear and short message among stacks of open letters signed by hundreds of organisations, piles of papers by hundreds of academics, hundreds of competing amendments. Realistically, the true menace will be clear after the JURI vote and the final call to arms will be before the vote in the European Plenary, like last time. After the committee vote, it's certainly too late to have a good law, but it won't be too late to stop a bad one. If we use all our bullets now, we will be harmless when the lobbies come up with yet another trick against Wikipedia. --Nemo 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support great idea. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • NEUTRAL Oppose yet ANOTHER PROPOSED WIKI-BANNER CRYING WOLF about the end of civilization as we know it. When can these well-intentioned—but badly conceived proposals—and the accompanying Wiki lawyering, just stop? If the WMF speaks out on the issue, ping me... GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Ping. This is highly relevant for everyone to read.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree the article makes a good point. Particularly about how difficult this would make editing for our average users, per:

...Third, the broad and vague language of Art. 13 and the compromise amendment would undermine collaborative projects that rely on the ability of individuals around the world to discuss controversial issues and develop content together. Free knowledge that is inclusive, democratic, and verifiable can only flourish when the people sharing knowledge can engage with each other on platforms that have reasonable and transparent takedown practices. People’s ability to express themselves online shouldn’t depend on their skill at navigating opaque and capricious filtering algorithms. Automatic content filtering based on rightsholders’ interpretation of the law would—without a doubt—run counter to these principles of human collaboration that have made the Wikimedia projects so effective and successful.

For that reason alone, I would not condemn action by the site regarding this issue regarding Article 13, and change my opinion to Neutral for this activity if it is deemed by consensus that either a Banner or Blackout to be necessary by the WMF. Thanks for the input, Jimbo. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the oppose comments - Exactly as the opposition to the US net neutrality banner. Also this would mean identifying from cookies/IP adresses the location of our users/readers. Our encyclopedia is international and it must remain apolitical. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Kudpung: "Also this would mean identifying from cookies/IP adresses the location of our users/readers" eh. we already do that for almost every single banner.. Since at least 2009. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
TheDJ, I have no idea. I'm an editor not an IT expert. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Apolitical? LOL. I have a list of articles I would like you to make apolitical.... HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48 then as a Wikipedia editor there are things you can do about it. Hope your list is not too long...Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung Some I can work on. Give me time. Some are owned by unprincipled Admins who would rather see me banned forever. There is no hope there. (For those articles or those Admins, and maybe Wikipedia.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not appropriate to push that POV, even though many of us might agree with it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GenQuest. Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs, in articles or otherwise. --Joshualouie711talk 15:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We are not a forum, and that must just as much apply to this as anything else. Wikipedia must not and should not engage in advocacy. Once we do that then any claim of neutrality goes out of the window, we play into the hands of those who say we are not neutral.15:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
  • Support. Like the net neutrality proposal, this is not inherently political. Like net neutrality, this also has to do with something that threatens the very premise of WMF's purpose. But unlike net neutrality, this law may prevent EU users from accessing Wikipedia because Wikipedia doesn't pay the appropriate fees to news sources for using short snippets of text, and so forth.
    I initially thought this was about the image copyright law that banned images of certain structures in the EU, but this is much, much worse. Talk about heavy-handed... epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We are not a forum, and that must just as much apply to this as anything else. Wikipedia must not and should not engage in advocacy. Once we do that then any claim of neutrality goes out of the window.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Too late. clpo13(talk) 17:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • The whole point of the project and the foundation is advocacy for free and open knowledge, for everyone to contribute, share and make money off. A highly radical concept in 2001 and still in most parts of the world. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Completely wrong. Not right at all. 100% wrong and 0% right. The point of the project is to provide that free and open knowledge. Not to advocate for it, or for anything else whatsoever. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: this law will have very serious consiquences for Wikimedia projects as outlined by the proposer, Julia Reda, WMF, WMDE and others. John Cummings (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support although I doubt a proprosal on en-wiki can affect all other language wikis, so probably just here. I'm quite flabbergasted whenever I hear the "we shouldn't be doing advocacy"-line. Obviously we shouldn't be advertising for political parties or recommending the next big dietary supplement, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with telling our readers whenever a proposed policy would severely **** with our editing model. I wonder if one would get the same reaction if the proposal was more obviously authoritarian. It's also incorrect that the WMF hasn't said anything about this as explained above, and various elements of the WMF-affiliate ecosystem has been working against this, such as the WM EU-group (full disclosure, WMDK, which I'm a part of, has done so as well). Despite the carveouts for online encyclopedias in the proposal, it would still impact some of our other projects, as well as the general free-knowledge infrastructure, such as forced remuneration. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 16:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. This is not just a vague human rights thing, this is something that may well have direct financial consequences for WMF. On that bases I'd go as far as to support WMF overriding whatever consensus happens here to make the blackout happen. DaßWölf 02:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Wikipedia is not a soapbox, whether political or not. But wait, why would we think this is a bad idea anyway? Isn't a robust and effective filter to prevent copyright violations one of the things we've repeatedly asked the Foundation for in the various community wishes consultation exercises? Isn't it exactly what we desperately need and want for this project, instead of relying on a script written by a user and the one dedicated admin who monitors it? Since the vote is imminent, can we take it that the WMF has already dedicated substantial human and financial resources to preparing an effective filter in case it turns out to be needed? Will it be ready in time? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Kusma, including caveat that the saveyourinternet link is not ideal. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Before it is too late. Yann (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Copied from the recent proposal for a Net Neutrality banner, after reading much of this discussion (I can't say it any clearer than this). I'll note that something does not need to be "partisan" to be political by my understanding and use of the word. First definition at "of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government".
    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for political statements supported by a majority of the few editors who happen to show up in a discussion on this page. That's regardless of the merits of the issues or how Wikipedia might be affected by them. We are Wikipedia editors, not political activists (although each of us is free to be a political activist off-wiki). In my view, this proposal should go the way of the proposal to show an anti-Trump statement before the U.S. presidential election. Furthermore, I think we should consider an explicit policy against using the encyclopedia as a platform for political statements. ―Mandruss  21:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Guy Macon and Wnt. Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I will abstain from voting. But just to point out that if we do it, we should have our own banner, as we did on de.wp and bg.wp. We are in a particular situation where Wikimedia projects have been carved out from the proposal as the text currently stands. We need to explain why we still worry with a little bit more nuance, at least on the landing page. --dimi_z (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia commununity get involved in any political issue which is an existential threat to Wikimedia projects. There is a preponderance of evidence that this political issue is an existential threat to Wiki and for that reason it is fine for us to take a political position. It is true that Wiki is "neutral" but neutrality is relative and rational and aligns with an ethical code. Our ethic code includes values like "publishing an encyclopedia" and "making the encyclopedia accessible". I feel that we have met an appropriate standard of evidence in this case, and I agree that WP:reliable sources say that Wikimedia projects are facing an existential threat with this political issue. It is fine for us to advocate, lobby, and demand our right to develop and provide access to the encyclopedia we are sharing. I also feel that it is not necessary to settle any political controversy around this issue. I am willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of critics' concerns about our incomplete information on the law and lack of total certainty that this law is bad. For me, it is enough that we are diligent to cite reliable sources which confirm that some authorities have identified a danger.
I see "oppose" !votes which suggest that Wikipedia should avoid reacting to any country's legislative process as a way of achieving neutrality. I feel that this is misguided, because while Wikipedia is neutral about many topics, we always take a position that every country should allow Wikipedia, access to information, and the educational resources we provide. I will not entertain anyone's arguments that restricting access to Wikipedia should be part of the Wikipedia mission. There is no reason why we should expect that the law of every country is best for Wikipedia. It is fine for us to say that Wikipedia is basically good, and to expect that the laws conform to the existence of Wikipedia. Citizens like us make laws for the public good. People do not exist to conform to laws which fail to consider the public good. It is right to start with the assumption that Wikipedia is good and that good laws will encourage its development. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support A lot of the oppose votes seem to come from editors who won't be affected by this legislation, which makes me question if they truly understand the potential consequences. Speaking as someone who will be, from what I understand of it (correct me if I'm wrong), it will make it nigh-on impossible to do anything more than trivial edits. We would no longer be able to upload fair use images, cite web sources, or even quote copyrighted material. How on Earth are we supposed to write decent articles with those restrictions? This could be detrimental to Wikipedia and those in the EU who wish to edit it. The WMF may not be bound by this legislation, but my ISP will be. This is not just a political crusade. Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Then do something about your law makers. Do you understand the current legislative actions affecting internet, copyright law, and legality of use for our users in China? How about Turkey? Spain? Thought so. Wikipedia is here for people to access—or not. They can do so, as best they can from the countries they live in. These are countries where they have –politically– elected the officials who then propose, debate, and enact the laws they deem necessary. We are not here to advocate for or against any such laws, any such country, or any such lawmakers. That's politics. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Period. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 00:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Remember that proposed copyright legislation a few years back? It would have made many, many free images used here subject to copyright. We had a banner about that, because it would have directly and adversely affected us. I don't see how this is any different. Adam9007 (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Yep. And I was against that action too, but consensus was against me. I stopped editing for about year afterwards, too, because I saw that these kinds of political actions would become perennial requests. Judging from, counting this one, three discussions so far just this year, I guess I wasn't far wrong. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional moot. This discussion will probably be closed after 20 June 2018. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just like the net neutrality discussion we had a while back: I'm sympathetic to the ideals, but I'm opposed to Wikipedia being used as a political platform regardless of ideology. Unless of course, the Wikimedia Foundation itself decides to release a statement themselves, but in any case, there are alternative outlets for statements like these to be expressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Direct advocacy on a political matter is about the farthest you can get from maintaining neutrality. "Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles", to quote {{uw-npov2}}. Go start a blog if you want to publicize your opinions about political matters, whether in your own country or another. Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC) This is intentionally copy/pasted from my vote on net neutrality. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support. The oppose voters must be missing the fact that a major part of fair use methodology that is absolutely essential for Wikipedia's functioning will be rendered effectively illegal unless Wikipedia tithes to every news source it cites and quotes. If we're not going to protest for the sake of the internet, then do it for the sake of Wikimedia's budget. DaßWölf 02:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. If the legislation passes, it would almost certainly be illegal to access most Wikipedia articles from the EU, and Wikimedia and/or individual contributing editors might be found liable for copyright violation. Certainly downstream commercial users would be found liable if they did not block access from the EU, even if Wikipedia and individual contributors were exempt. We need a banner within 3 days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: SOPA is a precedent, but this actually is much worse. Wikipedia is a name synonymous with open content online, and if they try to assert the "it applies to any website which serves European users regardless of where its being run from" card like GDPR is, this is an existential threat that goes much farther than just Wikipedia. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Blue Rasberry. Double sharp (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for the convincing reasons given in the proposal. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong possible support Being apolitical does not mean being blind to threats to Wikipedia. The Red Cross is apolitical. That doesn't mean they can't take a stand against a proposed law that would make it harder to give blood. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let me share you a Wikipedia [Hungary] story, happened a few years ago and handled by yours truly: a large number of Wikipedia editors (image uploaders) got email from a large lawyer firm which stated that they have violated the rights of a LargeImagePublisherHouse™ since they have illegally used their imagery without their permission and they are commanded to immediately remove the image (from WM Commons) and immediately pay a large sum of money or they will be brought to courts. Possibly hundreds of such. The users got really scared, and I tried to figure out what was going on. After contacting the lawyering gang it took a weird turn: turned out they have used a company specialising in content filtering to scan millions of web images against their image catalog and flag copyvio [and have paid a helluva lotsa dinero for that], then started sending out harrassing mail en masse. The problem was, however, that their library ("accidentally") have included lots of images from Wikimedia Commons! So they have "claimed" their copyright, matched against, well, the originals then sent out the pay-or-get-sued mail. Obviously when they've been shown this they were hugely embarrassed and apologised and sent out correctional mail in the following weeks. Nevertheless, the harm's been done: some people left Wikipedia immediately and disappeared for ever. This is the same principle and technology They™ would like to enforce on Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, and apart from that basically everyone around your internet cable. Whether this is existencial or not… decide for yourself. Compulsory monitoring by copyright owners (not the authors, mind you)? Veto right for them? And we have to pay for that technology, implementation, and by the way accept all responsiblity for misfiltering, either way? I do not think that would get unnoticed in Wikipedia and Wikimedia operations. --grin 07:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Unlike the US net neutrality issue, this impacts Wikipedia as a project much more immediately and negatively, and it is legitimate to oppose it from this operational perspective. Sandstein 12:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support very clearly something that negatively supports our community's direct mission and activity, Sadads (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is an instance where being "political" is unavoidable: the political aspect is baked into the very idea of a free encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a political platform, even if the policy issue impacts (to some) our continued existence. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same reasons I've opposed other similar proposals, we shouldn't be using banners to urge action in a particular way. That said, the issue is quite important and under-reported. I could support a neutrally worded banner that linked to some neutral information sites, but not one that advocates opposition or support. I think most readers are smart enough to make up their mind, if they are given information.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because Wikipedia should not be using its position to influence the way the world is run. Our founding principles stated in Wikipedia:Five pillars include that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and that "We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them." SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that we already use edit filters on Wikipedia: Edit filter management and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The concerns raised in last year's WikiMedia blog do not appear to have considered our own existing filters and the way we operate them. SilkTork (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Blue Raspberry. --Carwil (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Has a significant risk of impacting our ability to function. Agree with User:Sandstein. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments below. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose a banner linking to a page explicitly in opposition to Article 13, Neutral on a banner linking to a NPOV summary of the facts. --Joshualouie711talk 00:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WAIT, how is this political?

WAIT. before you oppose on 'not-political' grounds, be aware that this is not something that it politicised in the EU, it is something that has not been reported on in the media, and the public are largely not aware of. This EU proposal is far more dangerous than any of the net neutrality debates, in a direct way to Wikipedia. Net Neutrality doesn't directly affect Wikipedia, but the changes to copyright that article 13 contains may make it impossible for Wikipedia to operate in the EU; the 'link tax' might completely shut down access to Wikipedia in Europe if enforced, and the rules for copyright basically eliminate fair use, making all the European branch language Wikis largely impossible. That is way more of a big deal than a bit of political activism. Please do not bandwagon this one, THINK. I was against the other net neutrality banners, but this is NOT THE SAME THING. I urge you guys to please reconsider, because this is not a partisan political issue in the EU, and that this is actually a potentially huge existential threat to Wikipedia itself. Even Jimbo Wales has said so over on his talk page.Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  • It is being done through the political process, thus it is political. The WMF isn't worried about it, so why should we be? TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Where have you been told that the WMF isn't worried about it? It is not a partisan issue like net neutrality, so Wikipedia wouldn't be 'taking sides'. This is trying to be snuck through the political process with nobody noticing. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, if this is a threat to the WMF model, then the WMF should be clearly issuing a statement against it and/or issuing something to say they support a message. (WMF supported the Protests against SOPA and PIPA). If we had this, I would see no problem then including a banner message to warn about this. --Masem (t) 21:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Err, they already did: wmfblog:2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/. Judging from the statement, WMF seems rather worried about article 13, which would probably make the WMF subject to some kind of liability. The European users and associations originally cared about other things, necessary for our copyleft wikis: freedom of panorama, public domain, orphan works. But then, maybe that's considered "political" too. --Nemo 21:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I detest hidden pings; if you're going to ping me, at least make it so I can see my name. Anyway, I agree with Tony and Masem; if it's an existential threat in the view of the whole of the Foundation, not just Jimbo, something will be done. Moreover, it's not our place to attempt to sway the minds of voters regarding the proposed policies of their lawmakers. (Hint: contact your lawmakers and spread the word about this.) — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Javert2113:Sorry about the hidden ping, I pinged everyone that had made a 'political' oppose above, and it was a long list of names. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It's fine. I'm just a bit grouchy today, to be honest. Thank you for the ping; I probably wouldn't have seen this otherwise. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the WMF is worried about it, or whether or not I'm personally worried about it, I still oppose. While I understand the proposed banner would not be encyclopedic per se, I think the general spirit of WP:NPOV should still apply to publicly-facing content and the proposed banner - linking to a site that says a specific piece of legislation "threatens everything you do" - is not in line with that. That said, I appreciate the spirit in which the banner is proposed. Chetsford (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there anyone here who would change their position if the banner was worded differently or linked to another page such as [ ]? I am guessing that the answer is no. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think your guess is probably a good one. I'd be opposed to any type of persuasive banner regardless of the specific words used or the topic referenced. Chetsford (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the issue is that it isn't clear exactly what consequences this might have, particularly for Wikipedia. Article 13 is pretty broad in its language, which makes it a bit unclear where it will be enforced and where it won't. When similar laws passed in Spain I know that google news shut down in that country (at least linking to Spanish publishers). A lot of these links are pretty fearmongery, and I am not sure anyone really knows what consequences this might actually have. Everyone seems to agree that it will be bad to some degree however. If a Lawyer from the WMF could give us confirmation on this (can someone ping somebody?) that would be the best. I'm not sure if wmfblog:2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/ represents a WMF position on the topic or not... — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The worst case scenario, it seems, is that Wikipedia in the EU goes the way Google News did in Spain. That, in the future, Wikipedia will be inaccessible to EU citizens. However, I oppose the persuasive banner regardless of the consequences. If the citizens of the EU, acting through their MEPs, decide WP is not welcome in the EU we should respect their decision, not chain ourselves in the guest bedroom and demand to stay. Again, though, I do appreciate the spirit in which the banner is proposed and agree it would be unfortunate if the worst came to pass. Chetsford (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh, the WMF is not worried about it. They are insulated by being (as an entity) based in the US, the material based in the US etc. This will not impact Wikipedia or any of the major encyclopedias in any significant manner. It will be an issue for editors in the EU but as to how much - that remains to be seen. What it is highly likely to totally fuck right up is Wikia - a site that routinely (and is in fact built around) violates copyright. And since Wikia is a for-profit cash-generating machine of a certain someone, who happens to live in the EU and so is subject to EU law, its not surprising they are 'concerned' about legislation that will directly impact that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Julia Reda AMA

For those few interested, tomorrow Julia Reda (one of the few defenders of the Internet within the EU politics), is doing an AMA tomorrow at 12:00 CEST on reddit (talkcontribs) 14:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it has started: --Nemo 11:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Article outlining the threats of the law to Wikimedia projects

Cory @Doctorow: has written an article for Electronic Frontier Foundation that outline the threats posed by the law to Wikimedia projects and what can be done to oppose it:

  • The EU's Copyright Proposal is Extremely Bad News for Everyone, Even (Especially!) Wikipedia.
Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on the subject

Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market has been started, it is currently not very comprehensive, please help expand it. John Cummings (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

According to the (fairly critical) de:Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger Germany has already such legislation, maybe that is something worth inspecting? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Germany already has the link tax aka article 11, see Google News (it failed miserably, so the EU lobbies are now proposing an even worse version). The biggest danger for Wikimedia is probably article 13 (mandatory upload filters and liability). --Nemo 08:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
It also appears to be poised to but some real teeth in the EU right to disappear, with hefty daily fine if a US website like Wikipedia refuses to delete a BLP article on demand. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WMF position

Hi everybody, since some people have been asking about it, I wanted to confirm our position very briefly: the Wikimedia Foundation is deeply concerned about requirements for mandatory upload filtering to fight copyright violations or other problematic content that could appear in the future. Therefore, we oppose Art. 13 of the proposed Copyright Directive due to its potential harm to freedom of expression, user privacy, and collaboration on the internet. We believe that a general monitoring obligation for platforms would threaten user rights. Best, --JGerlach (WMF) (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

JGerlach (WMF), As I pointed out at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 229#How about a far less controversial EU Copyright law proposal? the WMF position you just linked to is over a year old, and the proposed regulation has changes significantly since then. See Talk:Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market# Timeline of the proposal (prepared by Cory Doctorow) for a list of the changes. The leaked secret proposal to make the upload filter in Article 13 more extreme especially troubling and might require an additional WMF comment.
May I request an updated position statement? If there are no updates, may I request a simple republishing with a comment to the effect of "in the year since this was published, our position has not changed"? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Guy Macon, I can confirm that our position has not changed and we oppose Art. 13, in its amended version too. Even with the recent changes and the exception for non-commercial purposes, we oppose this proposed norm because it would establish a dangerous precedent and threaten user rights on the internet. --JGerlach (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass ping

@TonyBallioni, Yair rand, Natureium, Power~enwiki, Billhpike, Masem, Javert2113, Winner 42, Godsy, Doktorbuk, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Chetsford, Ammarpad, Joe Roe, Wumbolo, GermanJoe, Finnusertop, Kudpung, HiLo48, Joshualouie711, Slatersteven, Justlettersandnumbers, Mandruss, Narutolovehinata5, Nyttend, Chris troutman, SilkTork, and Sphilbrick:--Apologies for the mass ping.But, I feel it might be prudential to inform you of the WMF 's stand on this issue, which has been clarified at this thread, since it has the potential to affect your !votes.Best,WBGconverse 04:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Still oppose as bringing politics into Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I would still think that if the WMF felt this needed to be known, they can force a banner across all projects. limiting to just is not a good idea. --Masem (t) 05:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Same view with Masem. If the Foundation felt it is "necessary," just run banner across all projects as non-overridable Office action. But waiting for en-wiki crowd to agree first means it is not as "dangerous" as pro-banner camp are making it to look like. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Still oppose. To be clear: the WMF statement contains many valid thoughts and concerns (although a bit vague in some parts), but it does not demonstrate an immediate threat to Wikipedia's core mission. GermanJoe (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I remain opposed to a banner of any kind. Regardless of the WMF's position, I remain unconvinced that Wikipedia should be used as a platform for programs such as this. This would violate NPOV and other related policies, including the Five Pillars. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Still oppose. We have to be careful about hosting political banners. Think of the unintended consequences... doktorb wordsdeeds 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Still oppose It is not an issue of the rights and wrongs of this directive, but out commitment not only to the concept the the principle of neutrality. I believe that you should obey not just the letter of the law (or you should stop using commitment to the law as a kind of Moral VC to tell people how great you are).Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not one bit different; WMF's stand does not change the fact that this would put political advocacy atop every page. Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping, but I already commented on that year old blog article in my oppose. I'm not sure that the Foundation is aware that we already use edit filters created by our users, some of which are designed to combat copyright violations. But even if they are, I think it's OK for the Foundation to say that they are opposed to stuff which they feel impacts on Wikipedia. What is wrong is for anyone to use Wikipedia as that platform. Those folks who are opposed to this (and that includes our blessed Jimbo) should use legitimate platforms to express their concerns or disagreements. SilkTork (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No change, if the WMF wants to take an office action to run a banner I could tolerate that but I wouldn't be incredibly happy about it. That said, I have already been mass pinged twice to this discussion and would appreciate it if this was the last one. W42 13:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Continue to oppose: Thank you for the ping, but this has not affected my position, either, nor the ones of my fellow editors, I daresay. My position may best be summed up as a combination of Ammarpad's thoughts, Narutolovehinata5's beliefs, and Winner_42's hope to not be pinged again. If you care to read it all, it's below.
    First, the Foundation may say whatever it likes, naturally, but they don't post their (inherently political) statement on English Wikipedia: neither should we. As it stands, there are other platforms that should be used to political lobbying and discussion instead of our collaborative encyclopedia. Moreover, of course, the Foundation could force Wikipedia to run a banner, and there'd be bobkes we could do about it, but they haven't; whilst one may see that as respecting the autonomy of our efforts here, I see that much in the same way GermanJoe and Ammarpad do: this isn't something that is wholly inimical to Wikipedia as a core threat to our mission and our future. Finally, as a standard matter of policy, we do not engage in political campaigning on the encyclopedia, and we do not allow campaigning or WP:ADVOCACY (our stance against SOPA and PIPA being a notable exception). It would behoove us, in my opinion, to continue such a policy. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 15:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • WMF's opinion never made any difference to me; I find them despicable. I still oppose this political jousting being hosted on Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur with the comments on this matter made above by TonyBallioni, Doktorbuk, and Nyttend. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • continue to oppose If WMF wants to influence EU legislation, they should hire a lobbyist. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Reaffirming oppose per TonyBallioni. --Joshualouie711talk 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I had reasoned that my !vote would stand unless I modified it, but a large number of editors appear to feel that it would be effectively withdrawn if I didn't re-affirm it here. Shrug. Still oppose as there has been no counter to my argument, let alone a persuasive one. ―Mandruss  22:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Time to close?

Reading the discussion above, while of course voting is not consensus, as of this comment, there are 27 26 support comments versus 30 oppose comments. Even if the support comments were more numerous, considering the amount of participation here (far less than the unsuccessful net neutrality proposal a few months ago) and the narrow gap in numbers, it's becoming clear that there really doesn't seem to be consensus at this point to implement the banner as proposed. With that said, some users from both sides have stated that they are open to either a neutrally worded banner that merely discusses the proposal and its details, or a WMF-implemented banner. But from the looks of things, with discussion having slowed down over the past few days, it seems unlikely that the numbers are going to change. As such, I would suggest that this proposal be closed, albeit without prejudice against continuing discussion of the EU proposal itself elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes time to close I think. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 08:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree, clearly there's no consensus. TeraTIX 11:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
A neutrally-worded banner, moreover, still announces to the world that we believe it a really important thing about which tons of people need to know; the details of the wording wouldn't affect the fact that its mere presence is non-neutral. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Also support close at this time. A "neutrally worded" banner would need a separate new discussion—that was not the topic of this one, so absence of comment cannot be fairly interpreted as absence of opposition. To avoid unnecessary confusion, the close should be clear that the "neutrally worded" option remains unresolved. ―Mandruss  14:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Post-closure discussion

Post-closure comments, including discussion of the EU directive, can continue in this section. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

How to/should we add a Wikidata item link to Authority control

Currently, there is no link from the {{Authority control}} navbar template to the Wikidata item page, where the information displayed is gathered. The Wikidata item page is where an editor may add/remove/correct authority information on a person/entity. A common complaint against {{Authority control}} is that the template (and thus Wikidata) contains information on the wrong subject, or that the links are useless, or the associated link is broken, or frustration from how/where to correct it (there are other complaints as well, but they are outside the scope of this discussion). This proposal/survey seeks to allow editors to more easily access the Wikidata item linked to the Wikipedia page to make such additions/removals/corrections. While gaining some support, it has been suggested at Template talk:Authority control#Adding Wikidata item link to aid navigation to poll a larger audience, so voilà.

A 'Wikidata item' link exists on the left hand margin of any Wikipedia page which currently has a Wikidata item associated with it, similar to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. Also similar is our placement of a 2nd link to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. at the bottom of the page in the external links, to aid navigation and visibility. So the addition of a 2nd link to Wikidata would be in line with current behavior.

This will not affect dormant transclusions of {{Authority control}}; i.e. those which do not display on the page.

Option 1 - RHS in-line 'Wd: Q2144892' links as the first item:

Pros: it's short, so the chances of adding an extra vertical increment to the height of the {{Authority control}} template is also small. After scanning all ~690k transclusions, 59.5% of {{Authority control}} templates display 3 or fewer links from Wikidata, and 90% display 7 or fewer, so at least those 60% would very likely retain their current height. Also, parameter suppression of some kind will probably happen in the next 1-few months, making even more templates 1-liners.
Cons: it's lumped together with the other authorities so it (Wikidata) might run the risk of being misidentified as an authority (which it isn't), but I've only seen this concern raised once (part of the reason I'm here). This hasn't been a problem with a sister template, {{Taxonbar}}, which has about ~50% of the transclusions of {{Authority control}}.

Option 2 - LHS 'Q2144892' link on a separate line:

Pros: less chance of being misidentified as an authority, and more obvious linkage to the corresponding Wikidata item than Option 1.
Cons: will force all {{Authority control}} templates that are 1 line tall (~50%) to be 2 lines tall.

Option 2Wd - LHS 'Wd: Q2144892' links on a separate line:

Pros: lowest chance of being misidentified as an authority, and more obvious linkage to the corresponding Wikidata item than Option 1 and Option 2.
Cons: same as Option 2, and slightly wider.

Option 2Q - LHS 'Q2144892' links on a separate line (stylistic variant of Option 2Wd; Q and 2144892 link to different pages):

Pros: same as Option 2, plus the additional link describing what Wikidata is, and is "cleaner looking" than Option 2Wd.
Cons: same as Option 2.

Option 2Wikidata - LHS 'Wikidata' link & RHS links display ID names instead of numbers:

Pros: same as Option 2, but much more reader friendly, and LHS is constant width regardless of Q# size, and the RHS (with this example) is slightly shorter than any Option 2.
Cons: same as Option 2.

Option 2pencil - LHS ' ' link:

Pros: same as Option 1, and widespread use elsewhere, so intuitive.
Cons: less descriptive than Option 2Wikidata, and hard to see for users who invert browser colors.

Option 2edit - LHS '[edit on Wikidata]' link:

Pros: same as Option 2 and Option 2Wikidata, and widespread use elsewhere, and maximally intuitive.
Cons: possibly too enticing?

Option 3 - any of the above.

Pros: various.
Cons: various.

Option 4 - no change.

Pros: status quo.
Cons: less mobility to Wikidata, and thus less potential for editors to add/remove/correct information.

AC Wikidata item link survey

  • Option 2edit, 2Wikidata, 2pencil, 2Wd/2Q, 2, 1, in that order, as nom.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  23:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 2Wikidata, if not, 2Wd, failing that, 2. I feel 2Wd is the best here, or failing that option 2. 2Q is bad and confusing. Option 1 is baaaaad. Personally, I'd just add the full Wikidata:Q2144892. The objectings (below) to this are silly, since it makes editing what is presented harder if there are errors, and presents Wikidata as authoritative.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Options 2edit/2pencil, 2Wikidata, 2Wd, and 2, in order. We shouldn't add it to the authority field, so option 1 is a no-go, and 2Q is confusing for the user. Option 2Wd gives the best indication of what the Q link is for, although just calling it "wikidata" would suffice. Option 2edit is probably the most clear, but the pencil reduces the template back to one line, which is nice. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 00:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Options 2 or 2Wd in that order. Oppose 1 as very bad. Oppose 2Q as too difficult for mobile users to navigate. I also oppose 2pencil and 2edit. IMO we should not be including calls to action such as "edit this" or "edit that" since it seems to encourage the least competent drive-by readers to start editing things and, while WMF projects do not demand much in the way of competence, Wikidata is not a good jumping off point. Chetsford (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
By that reasoning, the "V · T · E" in every navbox template should also be removed. There haven't been significant issues of navboxes getting messed up because of the edit links being displayed. We need to give readers some indicator of where the data is drawn from and how to make corrections or additions. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 20:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
"V · T · E" isn't an overt call to action since none of those abbreviations will necessarily be obvious to the drive-by reader. "Edit" or "Edit here" or "Edit this" are all calls to action; it's an announcement to the reader that we want them to edit it. I don't really want every rando reader to start editing a Wikidata entry. "This Can Be Edited" would be a descriptive indicator that was not a call to action but space considerations would obviously preclude that. Chetsford (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 4. There is no need for a WikiData link, especially since we now transclude most from WD (at least up to 22 per subject are transcluded, up to 43 possible). WD is NOT an authority, and anyway it is already linked from the toolbox. There is no ‘one size fits all’, on many articles, both the in-AC link ánd the link in the toolbox will be visible at the same time on one physical computer landscape oriented screen. No objection agains a ‘sisterlink’ like template at long articles (but no standard inclusions there either, it does need merit). —Dirk Beetstra T C 04:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • As it is relevant here, today I did this. The link to Commons is in the toolbox, anddisplaying it so prominently in this case suggests that there is more to get on Commons. However, commons in this case has just three other cropped immages of the same as in the article - nothing to ADD. For much of WD (we are set to transclude 43, we sometimes display up to 22), the WD link has NOTHING TO ADDin terms of authority control (and there are enough requests to have more parameters to be added ...). The inclusion at the bottom should be a choice, not a standard for the 10s of thousands of articles that have an AC. If WD really has more to offer, include a sister link. —Dirk Beetstra T C 00:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • On a short page like David H. Sanford the link in the lefthand box ánd on the AC would be almost next to each other, hence there is no easier access. —Dirk Beetstra T C 10:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Beetstra, can you explain how Wikidata is not an authority? Are you referring to the possibility that there might be more than one authorized heading for the same topic? By that token, we ought to remove WorldCat, because it's quite common to have multiple OCLC numbers for the same book because a cataloguer wasn't paying attention. Nyttend (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
        • @Nyttend: WikiData is not a reliable source, and therefore it is not an authority on any subject. Subjects get, within its capabilities, assigned a unique number, but anyone can create a subject, anyone can put whatever they want in it. By that datamodel, without proper authorized peer review, it is not an authority. That is fully in line with discussions going on elsewhere. Note: if we call WikiData ID as an authorative number, then The PageID of every page here on en.wikipedia is, by that same reason, an authorative ID. In short, not everything that assigns an ID is an authority. And that we need to link the WikiData ID because we use its data is, to me, a rather circular reasoning. —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Beetstra, do you even know what an authority file is? If so, why are you contradicting yourself by describing an authority file and promptly telling me that WikiData isn't one? Hint: reliability is completely unrelated to whether it's an authority. Please tell me, in depth, what an authority file is and why your definition is superior to the definion that we professional librarians use, to which your description of WikiData is quite close. Then, get it published in JASIST or a similar journal. Until you can prove that people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about representation and organization are wrong, don't waste everyone's time with a fringe definition of "authority file". Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
            • So, go include all PageIDs for all other Wikipedia pages, it must be useful as they are full of info. —Dirk Beetstra T C 07:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
            • But simply, we do not need to include any possible identifier that is publicly available, especially not ones to open wikis and any other unreliable source and randomly assigned list. option 4. —Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
            • After reading a bit more, I stand with my initial comment. WikiData is an open wiki, it does not have the necessary control measures. —Dirk Beetstra T C 14:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 4. The reason given as a "con" is actually a "pro". We don't have the WD link in other templates that are filled way too often from Wikidata (official website, commons cat, ...). AC is already a poorly designed reader-unfriendly template, and efforts are under way to drastically change it. Adding yet another link and another undecipherable code after a meaningless abbreviation is not the way to go. If not option 4, then whatever, but definitely not option 1. We shouldn't put IDs from unreliable wikis into our "authority control" templates (not just Wikidata, but also musicbrainz and so on). If any option 2 is chosen, then don't add the Q-number, just add "Wikidata", so readers have a better chance of knowing what the link means (something that should be done for all the others as well, give the short "name" of the site instead of the meaningless ID, so people know that they are looking at a link to a Czechian, Swedish, US, ... repository). Fram (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've added the 2 - names to give an idea of what I mean. Fram (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I've renamed Option 2Names to Option 2Wikidata following convention & updated subsequent references to it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per Beetstra and Fram. To be honest, I'd be quite happy if Wikidata folded but since that is unlikely to happen any time soon, the less connection there is, the better. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Adding the Wikidata link/ID is useful. Option 1 has the benefit of (almost) matching what is used in this template on other wikis (e.g., commons). I quite like the last Option 2Wikidata with the full display of the names rather than the acronyms and numbers. But any of the options would work aside from option 4. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "No link to Wikidata" is painful. I think we've generally established that a template pulling from Wikidata should provide in the context of the template a way to edit the content at Wikidata (this is how Module:Wikidata functions broadly). OTOH, I don't think any of the options above provides the call to action in the way that Module:Wikidata does presently (the little pencil icon). I would prefer to see that here rather than the Wikidata ID or even the nomenclature for Wikidata.

    Regarding the specific proposals: Some Pencil Icon Version > 2Wikidata > 2. I'm partial to 2Wikidata for a non-Wikidata-specific related improvement. That said, I believe the intent is for the template to provide the links internally so that people who are curious about any particular identifier can understand (with some level of encyclopedicity) what it is they would end up looking at without taking up oodles of space with the template where it is provided (by use of the abbreviations). I'm not sure if those links are so valuable in fact or not, and I might suggest the general link to authority control/help:authority control suffices for "hey, what is this template doing? what are these links here for?" rather than specific links to each of the authority controls. That leaves me somewhere in the realm of option 2 as a last resort. Flat rejects: 2Wd for previous comments, 2Q per sea of blue rationale, 4 per first paragraph, 1 per con listed, and 3 because I have a specific preference. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Option 2pencil (per Izno) or Option 2edit . This has become the standard way of indicating "edit this on Wikidata". All of the presented options betray into thinking that Wikidata is one of the authority control files. It's not (is it?). The problem this proposal wants to fix is not that readers want to use Wikidata as an authority control; it's that editors can't find how to edit the actual authority files stored on Wikidata. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Could you provide some examples of this standard? Also, is your second choice then Option 4 - no change?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Many of these templates (though not all of them). For representative examples see {{Twitter}} (live example: Cristiano Ronaldo#External links) and {{Infobox astronomical event}} (live GRB 970228). Yes, my second choice is Option 4. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Created Option 2pencil.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Thank you, Tom.Reding. As for its con, it's something we should definitely check against MOS:CONTRAST, but I don't think we're married to this particular blue pencil. Your Option 2Wikidata is close to what the rest of the WD templates do (see e.g. {{Infobox anatomy}}): [edit on Wikidata] in brackets. That would be the clear, and standard, way to phrase what this option is trying to do. I don't mean to be critical, but there would have been no need to reinvent the wheel here when standard options already exist. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
            • Yes, the color used doesn't appear to match those at the top of phabricator ticket M82 (the pencil is ~2 years old and needs updating).
I think you're the first person to enter this conversation that was aware (or at least vocal) about such standards!
I guess Option 2edit needs to be made for "[edit on Wikidata]"?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  18:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Anything but 2Q Option 2pencil I disagree with the arguments for Option 4 that another wikidata link would be redundant, as it's not obivious in any way that the wikidata link in the sidebar had any connection to the data presented in the authority control template. The only option I am really opposed to us 2Q. It seems like an WP:EASTEREGG, is likely to be confusing when editors don't realize why they're not always being sent to the page they expected, and the single-character "Q" link is a small target to hit. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 16:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Per Sitush. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - we already have a wikidata link in the toolbox. I agree with Sitush here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Then we should eliminate {{commons}}, {{wikiquote}}, {{wikisource}}, {{wikispecies}}, etc. too.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The links to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies etc are NOT STANDARD in the toolbox, as opposed to WikiData. As I said above, I did this. That template did, on that page, not ADD anything (not even in the toolbox). On most pages where AC is transcluded it does not necessarily add anything (especially since we have up to 22 identifiers transcluded, what is it supposed to do, even more identifiers to be found?). And I would not necessarily oppose careful use of a sister link to WD where it adds something. A blanket transclusion with AC is distinctly different from having a chosen sisterlink. —Dirk Beetstra T C 15:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
      • If the only concern against adding a WD link to AC is the presence of the same link elsewhere on the page, then it's an irrelevant concern due to the ubiquitous existence of the above templates, as described in the opening paragraphs of this proposal. Please read them.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I'd also argue that "I don't like Wikidata, and/or I want it to go away, and/or I don't want to do anything to improve it nor Wikipedia" is antithetical to all involved Wikis, and also not a valid point, unless there are plans to dismantle the project.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 4: per Beetstra and Fram; but Sitush raises the best argument. I've never seen the use of Wikidata, to be frank. But that's a conversation for elsewhere. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 15:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've never seen the use of Wikidata, to be frank. This is precisely what this proposal seeks to improve.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Unless you meant figuratively seen, which I now suspect was the case, then yes, a conversation for elsewhere.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (indifferent among them)—Editable and on the left-hand side of Authority Control to differentiate it. People should know where this information comes from and have a way to edit it.--Carwil (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

AC Wikidata item link discussion

Please keep the discussion focused on the merits of the available options.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  23:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I added some text to clarify 2Q. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we please promote this to an RfC, that attracts more editors and will get independent closure with a bit mere authority? —Dirk Beetstra T C 04:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are the options confusingly numbered 1, 2, 2Wd, 2Q, 2, 3, 4? Could we change to having them as 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3, 4 - or something else that's more straightforward? In particular, we shouldn't have two that are just "option 2"! Mike Peel (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I renamed the second option 2, that was my mistake. Fram (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Headbomb & Chetsford, just to inform you that Option 2pencil and/or Option 2edit were created after your vote (and since you didn't vote Option 3 nor Option 4), in case you wish to amend. The available options appear stable now...   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Misleading opening statement

@Tom.Reding: you state: A 'Wikidata item' link exists on the left hand margin of any Wikipedia page which currently has a Wikidata item associated with it, similar to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. Also similar is our placement of a 2nd link to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. at the bottom of the page in the external links, to aid navigation and visibility. So the addition of a 2nd link to Wikidata would be in line with current behavior.

There s NO STANDARD LINK to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. There IS a standard link to WikiData on all pages with an associated WikiData item. But as a list of non-exhaustive examples:

All have A WIKIDATA LINK in the toolbox, and NO LINK to commons, wikispecies, wiktionary, wikitravel etc.

At the time of my removal here, the article Giovanna Fletcher had a commons link at the bottom (IMHO useless as it did not provide significant material), and NO link to commons in the toolbox at the left.

Adding this link leads, by definition, to duplication, as opposed to other ‘sisterlinks’. —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And anyway, also for those sisterlinks - since they can now be linked from the toolbox, barring exceptions those templates are, in my opinion, then excessive and should be removed, but that is not for here. —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Just so we clearly understand the argument: we had sisterlinks in the document (e.g. through {{commons cat}}). Through WikiData coding that now sometimes results in duplication on the page as a second link to e.g. commons appears in the left hand box. Now, because we duplicate commons at the bottom in the article ánd in the top-left box, it is argued here that the duplication of the existing WD link in the left hand top box is fine. —Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: A link is shown in the sidebar to commons, wikispecies, etc. in the left-hand side-bar where it is available (defined as an interwiki link in the Wikidata entry, or as a manual interwiki). There is a large overlap between those links being shown and the sister project templates also being included (far from 100%, since there are many cases where those templates have not been added even if the link does exist, and there are templates that provide a link where it's not an interwiki on Wikidata). Of course, if a link doesn't exist, then it can't be shown, which is the case in the examples you have given here. Meanwhile, nearly every Wikipedia entry has a corresponding Wikidata entry, so you see that link in the sidebar far more often. So there is nothing wrong or misleading with the opening statement here. Mike Peel (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. a commons link now appears for the first item in your list as I just created it. Up to you if you want to add the photo that's on commons into the article. Mike Peel (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Be careful, the photo is clearly of a different person than the subject of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Is it? Did de:Wladimir Michailowitsch Sobolew get it wrong? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure. The guy was born in 1924 and the photo is recent; even of the photo were historic, there is no way a Soviet diplomat in the 1940s or 1950s could be dressed like that.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Aah, I found your deletion proposal now at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sobolev.jpg. Thanks for that. Mike Peel (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
If a commons cat exists for the page, a link will appear in the margin. If a Wikispecies entry exists for the page, a link will appear in the margin. If a Wikidata item exists for the page, a link will appear in the margin. Lo, if a <another wiki> entry exists for the page, a link will appear in the margin. If there's Wikidata item associated with the Wikipedia page (and no forced params in {{Authority control}}), then both the template and the link in the margin are 'dormant'. You've done an excellent job at finding variation on this theme, but not to prove the point you think you're making. The example pages above have Wikidata entries associated with them, but none of the other Wikis. Clearly you've misunderstood the system and need to reevaluate.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No, I did not misunderstand. Your argument is still that duplication is fine because we do that elsewhere. I disagree, I would even oppose the other duplication - especially in cases where the corresponding commons cat does not add anything extra over what is already in the article, or just has limited content. —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I would say we should get rid of {{commonscat}}, especially since it pulls data out of Wikidata anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I was indeed considering that we could get rid of all sisterlinks-type cats, as they are all in the tools. It is just duplication. —Dirk Beetstra T C 14:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I personally would be fine with that, but I know some people feel very strongly about the sister links.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I can see arguments for some cases to be there, but not general. There are indeed strong feelings there, would likely need an RfC. —Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Which would sink like a stone, I expect. Commons links are infinitely more important, useful and used than Wikidata ones. But carry on chatting among yourselves. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Polling templates

I suggest including the polling templates on Commons to Wikipedia. It would look better on Requested moves, Articles for deletion, and Proposed mergers and other Wikipedia proposals.
-- (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to make Uw-Unsourced warning more user friendly Suggestion

I have been posting (subst'ing) this message User:DBigXray/ref as a Twinkle Welcome message for newbies who are not aware how to add sources. I have posted this on hundreds of talk pages of newbies and several editors have copied this subst and modified this to their own version with this image, I propose to update the Template talk:Uw-unsourced1 with a screenshot image and text as as below. Based on my experience and positive feedback I have recieved, I believe this will help Wikipedia's acute problem of unsourced editings. --DBigXray 12:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

(updated) proposed text and the image to be added at the end of the template

Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Adding a well formatted references is very easy to do.

  1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
  2. Then click on "templates",
  3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill all relevant details,


I wouldn't support fill as many details as you can, but I'd support fill all relevant details. Also, the toolbar should support other {{cite xxx}} templates and order them alphabetically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The proposal is open to any Copy Editing of the said text, if others feel it can be improved. I had written as many so that at least the Title publisher dates etc are available for a google search in case of WP:LINKROT. --DBigXray 14:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have updated the text with your suggestion --DBigXray 17:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The main question I have at this point is is the RefToolbar enabled by default?, especially for IPs and the like? Otherwise we'd be giving a screenshot of something they don't have access to. I do like the idea though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Headbomb: Did a quick check from a different browser, where I'm not logged in, and it appears to be at least enabled for IPs on desktop. Don't know about new accounts or mobile, though. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Headbomb: I am quite sure, it is also enabled for the newbies. I am saying this from the confidence of experience, None of the hundreds of newbies who got this template from me ever complained about not seeing the refToolbar. I did recieve many thanks from them. Since it is enabled for IPs it is safe to say it is also enabled for new users. --DBigXray 20:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
If it's on by default, then there's no possibility of confusion. So I say add it to the warning. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that we have lots of editors that a user can potentially encounter, not just WikiEditor 2010. Also note that the reftoolbar is currently not supported by a single person, so any changes will require it finds a new maintainer. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • WikiEditor 2010 by its name now appears to be 8 years old. Do you have any wise estimation or numbers of users editing wikipedia and not using WikiEditor 2010. I believe those numbers will be far less in comparison to users of WikiEditor 2010. This proposal does not need any source code edits in the Reftoolbar. Just a suffix in the warning template is all it needs. The image is self explanatory and does need any reading of wikilinks or policy pages. The links would still be there for people interested to know more on policies. Based on my experience we cannot slap the template and then expect the said newbie or IP to go through the wiki policies and understand HTML tags so that he can make a sourced edit. --DBigXray 16:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I tried to get the numbers you ask for a while ago, and it appears that the answer depends – far more than any reasonable personw would guess – on exactly what you mean by "number of users", "editing", "Wikipedia", and "not using". Here are a few things that I have learned:
  • There are too many mw:Editors.
  • At the English Wikipedia, half or more of all edits are semi-automated or fully automated changes made via scripts (like Twinkle, HotCat, and AWB) and bots (e.g., ClueBot). An unfortunate proportion of these script-based edits aren't tagged or labeled in a way that would let you find out which tools an editor is using.
  • The "number of edits" and the "number of users" are significantly different issues. Thousands of humans (across all the wikis) use the visual editor; sometimes, a single editor makes a thousand edits at just one wiki on one day. You probably care about the proportion of humans using a given editing environment, rather than proportion of actions taken by those humans.
  • New editors are more likely to use the visual editor exclusively than others; people who have been editing for a decade are more likely to use a wikitext editor exclusively. You probably care more about new/learning editors than about experienced editors.
  • The proportions also change by namespace. You probably care about the proportion of mainspace edits, which has a lot more edits via the visual editor (VisualEditor's visual mode) and the mobile editors, compared to talk pages or template pages (where, e.g., the visual editor is disabled).
  • Desktop users [like me] make more edits than mobile editors.
  • When you look specifically at what I'll call "fully manual" edits in the mainspace, about 7% of all edits (not humans) are made using the mobile editors.
  • Sometimes, it's hard to figure out how to classify something. For example: if you have WikEd enabled, and you use HotCat to make several changes, which editing environment did you use? I'd like to see that get a Special:Tag for both HotCat and WikEd, but WikEd is an overlay on one of the old wikitext editors, so maybe it should get a tag for that editor as well. Also, a lot of straight-up reversions happen. The Undo button leads to an older wikitext editor. But did you really "use" it?
Sorry that I don't have any simple answers, but I think you would do well to be cautious about assuming that the people who need to hear your message are working in the same editing environment that you prefer. That said, among less-experienced editors, the most common alternatives to the 2010 WikiEditor are always tagged server-side. You could make up three or four screenshots, check their contributions to see which tags are attached to their edits, then post the relevant screenshot. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Support in principal. I'm sure the debate about what screenshot to use can be resolved. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle At WP:MEDHOW we explain how to use both main editors to add a reference. The above does not take into account VEDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for closing the Simple English Wikipedia

There is currently a proposal on Meta for closing the Simple English Wikipedia at meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia (3). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Questionnaire for new users

When new users start using Wikipedia, how about giving them a questionnaire? This could have questions such as "Did you find Wikipedia easy to edit?" "Were you aware that you could look at the history of an article?" "Did you find the talk page useful?" "Were you aware of Wikipedia: Articles for deletion?" "Were you aware of Wikipedia: Requested articles?" In the long run, the goal of such a project would be to help to improve Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA