Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• Jump to bottom
• New topic
• All village pumps

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

Before creating a new section, note:

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

Before commenting, note:

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

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 10 days.

« Archives, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82

Rename all userbox categories

The subcategories of Category:Userboxes have been organized by topic of the user templates for a long time. The subcategories are mostly called "Foobar user templates" for topic "foobar", with occasional variations like "Foobar-related user templates". These categories are not called "Foobar userboxes" because sometimes they contain topical user namespace templates, which aren't userboxes. Examples: Template:WikiProject Animals topicon (part of Category:WikiProject user templates), Template:The Malta Barnstar (part of Category:Malta user templates).

Corresponding to the practice of mixing userboxes with non-userbox templates, the category header template {{Template category}} treats parameters |type=user and |type=userbox as synonyms (since Special:Diff/1039882654), outputting text The pages listed in this category are meant to be user templates, including userboxes.

This makes Category:Userboxes to be very confusing in itself. It is called "Userboxes", but almost none of the subcategories in its tree have the word "userboxes" in the name (this search shows 17 examples). Category:Userboxes contains userboxes, but also a random assortment of user namespace templates not related to the template {{Userbox}}.

I propose a plan for a big renaming of the subcategories of Category:Userboxes:

1. Through one giant CfD nomination, rename all template categories with |type=user or |type=userbox from "Foobar user templates" to "Foobar userboxes" or equivalent, depending on the naming scheme.
   • This will inevitably cause miscategorization for topical templates which aren't userboxes. We'll live with it for a bit until the new category structure is established.
   • One good example of a local naming scheme are subcategories of Language user templates, which are named "User templates ISO language code".
2. Update template {{Template category}} to support two separate values |type=userbox and |type=user. The wording will be something like:
   • |type=userboxes: The pages listed in this category are meant to be userboxes
   • |type=user: The pages listed in this category are meant to be user templates, including award templates, top icons, userboxes etc.
3. Replace |type=user with |type=userbox in the renamed categories.
4. After the renaming, create a new structure under Category:User namespace templates. That way, all non-userbox templates can be grouped together with similarly themed userbox templates. This new structure doesn't need to be deep at the start of the process. Just the standard 10 topical categories (same as in Category:Wikipedia templates by topic) + Category:Wikipedia-related user templates would be enough for the purposes of this plan.
5. Move miscategorized non-userbox templates from userbox-specific categories into the new category tree. At this step, the miscategorized templates can be found using WP:QUARRY requests and using WhatLinksHere, like Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Top icon.

A rough draft of the proposed structure of the category tree using award templates, barnstars, and userboxes as examples:

• User namespace templates
  • User namespace templates by topic
    • Arts and culture user templates (new after renaming)
      • Arts and culture userboxes (renamed)
      • Wikipedia arts and culture award templates
        • Arts and culture barnstar templates
    • ...
    • Science and nature user templates (new after renaming, also will be under Science and nature templates by task)
      • Wikipedia science and nature award templates
      • Science and nature userboxes (renamed)
      • The aforementioned Template:WikiProject Animals topicon will probably end up here as an nature-related top icon template.
    • Wikipedia-related user templates (new after renaming)
      • Wikipedia-related userboxes (renamed)
      • WikiProject user templates (new after renaming)
        • WikiProject userboxes (new after renaming)
        • The aforementioned Template:WikiProject Animals topicon will also fit here, as a WikiProject-related top icon template.
  • Wikipedia award templates
    • Wikipedia barnstar templates
    • Wikipedia arts and culture award templates
    • ...
  • Userboxes
    • Arts and culture userboxes (renamed)
    • ...
    • Science and nature userboxes (renamed from current Science user templates, the "topic" part of which is inconsistent with the rest of Science and nature templates by task)
    • Wikipedia-related userboxes (renamed)

Do you have any suggestions regarding this plan? Do you think it is a good idea overall? What are the possible alternatives beside the status quo?

If there is a general consensus that this is a good idea, I plan to start a bigger discussion after workshopping it for a bit. The plan is to mark all the relevant categories into one giant CfD nomination using semi-automatic tools (wAwB, maybe with some help from WP:AWBREQ). If CfD regulars know a better way of doing such a nomination, please let me know. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Why not rename Category:Userboxes to Category:User templates and be done? It appears that 20 years ago, that was the name of this category. I don't have the detective skills to figure out why or when the current name came to be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

If I understood your suggestion correctly, this would mix userboxes with all other kinds of User namespace templates, like top icon templates, block-related templates, award templates – all very disparate, unrelated to each other templates. Such a CfD nomination won't succeed.

As an example, a couple of years ago I suggested merging barnstart templates with user award templates – two closely related kinds of templates, one is a subset of the other – and it was rejected: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Subcategories of Wikipedia barnstar templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

They are already mixed; nearly every subcategory of Category:Userboxes is called "XX user templates". My suggestion would just fix the parent category name. You said in your original post: The subcategories are mostly called "Foobar user templates". Hence my suggestion for renaming the parent category. It appears that 20 years ago, that was the name of this category. See also (historical pages): Wikipedia:Simple userbox solution; Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007_July_22#Userboxes (they were still in Cat:User templates in July 2007); Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive351#User:Babelious_keeps_editing_my_user_page (Jan 2008). Here's a 2008 CFD that may have resulted in the current mixed-up situation. And here's a 2020 RFPP request from an editor who was later blocked at ANI for all sorts of disruptive editing; that editor created the current redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the intervening edit before posting my reply above. I guess in these twenty years, the weird naming scheme of the subcategories of Category:Userboxes weren't scrutinized enough. The increasing amount of kinds of user templates somehow didn't affect this naming scheme.

They are already mixed – at least right now the topical user templates are separated from the rest of User namespace templates, and we don't have a category Category:User templates by topic or Category:User namespace templates by topic. But not every subcategory of Category:Userboxes is based on a topic, like Utility user templates. What I'm trying to say is that the status quo seems like a better situation than dumping all existing userbox categories into Category:User templates/Category:User namespace templates.

The userboxes are an overwhelming majority of the user namespace templates. Splitting the userboxes from the rest will be similar to how Navigational boxes are split from the rest of templates (mostly in the realm of topical templates). —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Userboxes, etc. because that is the standard term which distinguishes it from other user templates. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Support – Per nom, explained pretty well and would make it consistent. FaviFake (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Category:Userboxes and its sub categories should only be for userboxes, and not for other templates. In the past I removed many that were not userboxes, but I was not able to remove the ones that were protected. I asked for them to be moved to another category and my request by an administrator was denied. Catfurball (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked for some advice regarding CfD process at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion § Any best practices for giant CfD nominations, with 2700+ proposed renamings? —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

A page for emotional support for experienced editors

I firmly believe that Wikipedia needs a concrete space where experienced editors who feel quitting, taking a Wiki Break, or just really upset need a space where they can talk to other editors to guide them through tough times when editing Wikipedia. CostalCal (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I smiled at that because there was an article today on BBC about attachment theory. I guess you want "detachment theory". I am no expert on those things, but let us make sure both parties in the counseling do not end up leaving. But it would be interesting to do a survey of "why are you frustrated" reasons among users before you start. The sad part is something I read somewhere long ago: Wikipedia is a fight club, but do not say that to newcomers. Sigh. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be known for a fight of flight culture. CostalCal (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree, it should not. That was not my saying, but something I read. So some people feel that way. And theoretically there should be no need for ANI. Anyway how about Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention for this. It is not very active but maybe you can jumpstart it. I will leave it in your hands now. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Got it. CostalCal (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Good luck. But please give the counseling users some type of procedure to follow rather than random advice. I know nothing about Grief counseling except that it exists. It may help you figure out what to do, because you are ineffect dealing with Wiki-grief. I will say no more. Have a good day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Trust me, we find out soon enough if we hang around for long. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I wonder about WP:Discord. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This does seem aligned with Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, as has been suggested. I'm not on Wikipedia:Discord, but I can see the appeal of some place off-wiki that is closely associated with the project. I imagine various pros and cons to having all of these conversations on-wiki. I think there is something to this, just not sure what is should look like. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The editor retention wikiproject was not set up to provide emotional support to editors or to discuss specific situations, but as a place for editors to discuss ideas regarding editor retention. isaacl (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting using the editor retention project for emotional support, though I see now that I was unclear. Rather, I was suggesting folks there might be interested in or might already have ideas about this. I think it also makes sense to discuss here, and is more visible. I'll place a notice of this discussion on that project's talk page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

How about this, I feel as if this is the best concept.

The name can be something like Wikipedia:Editor Support Circle

A peer space for editors going through a hard stretch (burnout, a permission loss, conflict, or just feeling discouraged) to talk it through with others who've been there.

Post under a new section with your username, saying how you're feeling and roughly what happened.

Example: "I lost my NPP flag after months of warnings. I know I moved too fast, but it still really hurts, and I don't know if I want to keep going."

Volunteers who've opted into the project reply. At first acknowledging the feeling, then (if the person wants it) help build a realistic game plan together.

A reply example reply: "That sounds rough, losing something you worked hard for. A lot of us have been through a version of this. Want to talk through what getting back on track might look like, when you're ready?"

The main goal for this is to give editors a space with no admin escalation, no policy citations unless asked for. This isn't a noticeboard.

Any user who meets Semi-protection (10 edits and 4 days) can post on here. CostalCal (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

A key challenge I see is finding enough people to provide support in a productive manner, without taking sides. Perhaps you can run a trial for a period of time and evaluate how helpful it was. Personally, I don't think any restrictions are needed on who can seek support. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

On a related note, I think new editors can be encouraged to talk to their assigned mentor about any challenges they are facing regarding participation. I do think expectations need to be set (both with a support venue and with mentorship): personal emotional issues that go beyond interactions on Wikipedia aren't within the scope of Wikipedia editors to handle. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I think hosting it off-Wiki would be better, so that people can post anonymously if they don't want to be linked to their account (without any fear of socking accusations). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

That sounds rough, losing something you worked hard for. A lot of us have been through a version of this. Want to talk through what getting back on track might look like, when you're ready?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would find this incredibly obnoxious. If I wanted to get canned therapy-style responses then I'd just pay an actual trained therapist. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

That phrasing honestly sounds like AI chatbot therapy. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@CostalCal: I'm sorry you're having a tough time, and thank you for bringing this up. We really can't afford to lose good editors who make some mistakes and get burned. As noted, the editor retention wikiproject isn't a place for support, but mentors are there to help editors one-on-one, and I think in theory, everyone who's created an account in the past few years is assigned a mentor, even if they never need one. What you're describing is a bit beyond the kinds of help that mentors usually provide, so I think we'd need to hear from some active mentors and I'm going to mention this discussion at the new mentorship noticeboard.

I also think that having these discussions on-wiki is maybe not the best idea, as editor support of this nature could go into territory that you don't want preserved indefinitely in revision histories. Maybe after an initial post requesting support, this could be followed up off-wiki, though everyone has our own preferences regarding email, Discord, or other communication channel. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 23:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we need to be cautious about private communication channels. As I alluded to, I think there is a risk of a volunteer being given information that they'd rather not be privy to, or for which they aren't willing to provide support. isaacl (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It would be "use at your own discretion", of course, and a disclaimer would probably be a good idea - something describing that the intended purpose is to discuss matters related to Wikipedia and expecting people to more or less follow TP guidelines here, just with anonymity to keep their concerns separate from their account - not a free for all/substitute for therapy. I wouldn't recommend Gmail - I think Discord is probably the best option for limited fully anonymous support. No records or tracking. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that private communications have problems, but public communications are terrible, and on-wiki comments are subject to Anything you say can and will be used against you forever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. I would not suggest that anyone do this kind of thing on-wiki. @ChompyTheGogoat, Discord does have records - anyone can join and search back through all the posts in public channels. There's no simple way to delete a direct message thread, either. But I do agree that it's much better than having that kind of discussion fully in public.

I would encourage editors to make offwiki wikifriends wherever they can - via in-person meetups, chat programs, email, whatever. People with strong social bonds are more likely to stick around. But I'd also advise anyone feeling burnt out to go rant about it to someone who isn't a Wikipedian. It's a different kind of therapeutic. Also, they're quite likely to tell you that whatever you're mad about is a dumb thing to be mad about, in the grand scheme of things, which can be a necessary reality check. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

My mistake - I must have confused it with something that has vanishing messages.

I agree that it's important to have off-wiki friends to talk to as well, but I think there may be times that people want to talk about specifics that are too difficult to explain to anyone who isn't an editor. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh, @ChompyTheGogoat, and @Isaacl I hear your suggestions. I agree that posting anonymously on an off-wiki is a serious possibility. I want this to be how your behavior/thoughts affects your Wikipedia life, not a fix my entire life platform. User:ClaudineChionh, thank you for putting this on the Wikipedia:Mentorship noticeboard talk page. @User:Isaacl brings up a good point when saying that brining this to Discord or Gmail may hurt privacy and may hurt engagement with user. This project will probably need some time and attention to sort out. I proposed this less than 30 hours ago. CostalCal (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we're asking for trouble with this. What we want is to encourage editors to detach their personal emotions from Wikipedia, providing this kind of support only does the exact opposite; it encourages people who have let onwiki business affect their real mental state to stay in the ecosystem instead of disconnecting.

The main thing that stressed editors need to hear is that if you're at a point where business on Wikipedia is causing you real mental distress, you are far too invested in Wikipedia, and you need to log off, touch some grass, pet a cat, hug somebody, go for a run; whatever. Leave for however long you need to leave until you can return with a level head. There is literally not a single thing on Wikipedia worth getting yourself in real-life stress over. Athanelar (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that it's okay if experienced editors want to take a WikiBreak. I don't think they should feel obligated to talk it out first. Sometimes people want to step away, for a short time or a long time, and that's okay. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I have now looked at what people have said and see 3 different barriers to this attempt:

• 1. Grief counseling can not be done in public. It must be private. But no mechanism for that has been suggested.

• 2. Finding enough counselors will be a challenge. And who said they know how to counsel?

• 3. Informing all experienced users that the project exists and convincing them to open up and use it may be difficult.

So unfortunately I do not have high hopes for the success of this project, unless a dramatic new suggestion is made. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This isn't intended to replace real therapy. Community support is important for mental health too - I think it should be peer to peer interaction, not something with self designated "counselors". I'd see this as an intermediate step, when people are just frustrated and need to get things off their chest. Knowing when to walk away is important too, but they're different solutions depending on the situation. Sometimes venting and feeling heard is all it takes for someone to move on from something. Getting outside input might help people recognize when a break IS called for too - I agree that "stay at all costs" wouldn't be a healthy mindset to base it on. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Yesterday, all my dreams... is the only editor in this thread to interpret this, or to refer to this as, "counseling" and specifically "grief counseling". There are plenty of valid concerns expressed and limitations identified throughout this thread, but I don't think it's helpful to put the entire idea under the "grief counseling" umbrella. Also, support or guidance might include recommendations to step away or limit participation, even if temporarily. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yesterday, all my dreams..., @ChompyTheGogoat, and @SomeoneDreaming Wiki-break suggestions are mostly effective. I also agree, that telling people to stay without a doubt is sometimes not the best advice. Honestly, with how this has been going, I am starting to doubt if my plan will succeed. It looks to be too logistically challenging, and the off-wiki/on-wiki privacy concerns are valid. However, I am a firm believer in a change to Wikipedia's culture. We can't just expect everyone to know what they are doing 100% of the time. CostalCal (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it is logistically challenging. May be you want to write an essay that helps people calm down. As for "changing Wiki culture" the word challenging would be too mild. But please do consider the essay route. Have a good day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea. CostalCal (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

But please let us accept that a single essay will not help everyone. So you must use 3 or 4 questions upfront that allows them to click and get 3 or 4 essays. So you have a brief top level page that leads to different types of advice. Good luck. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

By the way in the essays add a few nice and calm images, flowers, lak3s, mountains etc. That always helps. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I want to add that if Grief counseling were to be private, that means that the counselors actions could not easily be reviewed. Editors depend on each other to hold each other accountable and if it were private, you could have somebody offering very bad advice go undetected for some time. - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 21:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that kind of one on one interaction is best left to real therapists. I definitely think this would need to be more of a group environment (if it happens at all) so you can potentially get input from multiple people. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Sub-referencing

WMF intends to roll out sub-referencing this year, which in my view will make {{sfn}} and {{rp}} obsolete. Should we think about deprecating and converting them to the new citation format? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a really good change; it will make citing books, journal articles, etc. so much easier. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh good - I just stumbled across an article badly in need of such a thing. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, but not until sub-referencing has been established here for a while such that there is clear evidence that it works in practice on the English Wikipedia for various types of articles (including large lists that make extensive use of the same publication). Only when editors can clearly see whether it is actually a significant improvement over the alternatives will any discussion about deprecating any type of referencing style have a chance of being productive, especially as there was a lot of scepticism at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Support or oppose deprecation that subreferencing is an improvement over {{rp}}. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I support this in principle (and in general think we should make citations more consistent) but IMO it is best to hold off on determining this until subreferences have been enabled and we’ve had a few months to battle-test them. Mir Novov (contribs | talk) 12:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Thryduulf and Mir Novov. I'm looking forward to sub-referencing, and plan to convert several articles that I created to that style when it's rolled out, but we need to put it through its paces and demonstrate that it's both workable in practice and is an improvement on sfn/rp before proposing widespread conversion. Schazjmd (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

What is there to test? It's already active on several wikis and there's full documentation of how it works/what it looks like. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It isn't in use on the English Wikipedia yet. Editors don't know how it works in practice with the articles they read and write on this wiki in combination with all the policies, style guidelines, templates, conventions, etc. that we use on this wiki. There is no experience of how much effort it takes to convert from either sfn or rp to subreferencing. I don't understand why you're in such a rush here? Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not in a rush. I figured I'd get the conversation started since it should be coming over here soon. I'm also not sure how any of this could possibly conflict with any PAGs. It looks like a very straightforward system. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

However likely it may or may not seem, until I've seen it actually stress tested I'm not going to say that can't possibly conflict with anything. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This looks promising, but mandating sub-referencing and deprecating {{sfn}} and {{rp}} would be a major departure from WP:CITEVAR. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

There's some precedent in the deprecation of parenthetical referencing. Anomie⚔ 15:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think we can't deprecate these but it would be a big change. It's reasonable to have some discussion now though I agree with the sentiment many have expressed that we can't fully anticipate the impact until these go live. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thinking about it probably wouldn't hurt, but actually pushing for deprecation needs to wait until editors here have some experience with the new mechanism, as others above have already stated. Personally, I suspect that {{rp}} would be easy to bot-convert the majority of uses (assuming we could get consensus to actually do it), but {{sfn}} would likely need human attention and people discussing trade-offs between conversion using inline refs versus LDR. {{r}} possibly also needs some consideration; it seems to be a kitchen-sink that tries to do everything, so someone would need to re-plumb the {{rp}}-like parts of it.

When the time comes to have the deprecation discussions, I suspect we might get better results by tackling {{rp}} and {{sfn}} separately instead of trying to discuss both in the same discussion. In particular, I'd expect a combined discussion to get bogged down with people arguing to keep {{sfn}} (e.g. people who really like having a "bibliography" section ordered alphabetically by author, while sub-refs would order it by first use) while ignoring {{rp}}. Anomie⚔ 15:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

How does this make {{sfn}} "obsolete" when it doesn't produce an alphabetical list of sources? I could understand if you just think an alphabetical bibliography is redundant and unnecessary, so prefer other referencing styles, but that's a personal preference; it doesn't make {{sfn}} obsolete, it just makes it not to your taste.

My main problem with sub-referencing compared to {{sfn}} is not actually the lack of bibliography. It's that subrefs are less concise in the source code than {{sfn}} citations and that, like "main references", subrefs still use entirely arbitrary labels instead of consistently using last names and years like {{sfn}}. As with typical <ref>...</ref> references, that often results in duplication of references as well as making it easier to provide incomplete references (missing authors, missing dates) without any warnings, error tracking, or pushback.

Compare: <ref name="ARBITRARYLABEL" details="p.&nbsp;23." /> to {{sfn|Johnson|Smith|2005|p=23}}. The subref doesn't seem any easier to use, is less concise, may require finding the arbitrary label a previous editor decided to give your source, and doesn't handle the   for you. My point isn't that sub-referencing is bad actually. My point is only that it's not a straight upgrade to {{sfn}}, which handles some things better and other things (like, eg, references that don't use {{cite}} templates) worse.

If you like sub-referencing, great, but by itself it won't make {{sfn}} obsolete. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 17:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I use sfn only because I have to and rp absolutely sucks. It would've been great if this feature existed when I started editing. I'm less concerned about wiki text. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not just wikitext though. Tracking down where short refs came from when the labels are arbitrary is more difficult. A lot of <ref>...</ref> references have labels like ":0", ":1", ":2". For a subref with such a label, it would be impossible to track down where it came from if content is copied from one article into another without copying in the mainref. You can try a search for the text itself, but sometimes the copied text comes from an old revision (so does not appear in search results). WikiBlame can help, but only if the edit summary provides attribution. {{sfn}} has similar problems, but at least with {{sfn}} there's a chance you can find the source again even without finding the original article the content was copied from. While Wikipedia requires copied content to be attributed, in practice this isn't always done. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 17:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The ":0", ":1", ":2" references names are going to be going away too. See meta:WMDE_Technical_Wishes/References/VisualEditor automatic reference names. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, those proposals would still produce extremely vague labels eg. "olympics" or "web_reference_1". Some participants on its Talk page supported author+year based labels; hopefully that that approach is what ends up being applied (where feasible, obviously). Even if the new automated system turns out to be excellent, a lot of articles already exist with weird and vague ref labels so I'm still concerned about the arbitrary labels. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Scyrme the main approach will be content-based reference names. Volunteers will be able to use TemplateData to define for each citation templates which parameters should be used to generate a reference name (including a fallback chain of alternative parameters if the preferred parameter(s) aren't used in that specific citation).

But we also need a fallback in case the reference doesn't use a template (or the template doesn't define how the ref name should be created). In that case we would like to use the second-level domain (if the citation includes a URL) to generate a ref name. If there's neither a template nor a URL we still need another fallback option – in that case we would like to change the default from ":0" to something like "reference-1" to make it more human-readable. We'll also offer options for local wikis to define their own fallback, in case local wikis want to come up with something else or stick with ":0".

TLDR: Most references using a citation template should get a meaningful ref name in the future when re-using them in VisualEditor (e.g. "author+year"), but we'll still see some fallback names for basic references. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't forget that "second-level domain" will lead to name collisions as soon as more than one URL on a site is used in a page. As for :0 versus reference-1, I suppose the latter would be slightly less confusing for humans reading the wikitext, but would still be entirely useless for anyone (or any bot) trying to deal with references in more than the most basic manner. Anomie⚔ 12:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, we are aware of that issue (which might even arise in some edge cases when using template-based reference names). We still need to decide whether to assign a number to those "second-level domain" ref names right away or just when there's another re-use of a reference with the same domain in VE (and if choosing the second scenario whether to add a number to the previous ref name as well or start with "xyz-2" for the newly re-used ref without assigning "-1" to the previous name). Happy to get any input on that! Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank-you for the clarification. It's use of TemplateData including a fallback chain is reassuring, at least in regards to automated references supplied by the VisualEditor, though this still only addresses part of the problem.

I'm still concerned about manually provided names. <ref name="moved" details="p.&nbsp;44." /> seems just as unhelpful as <ref name=":0" details="p.&nbsp;44." /> when it comes to finding a lost "main reference" after the introduction of subreferencing. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:16, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's an issue specific to sub-referencing? The same problem occurs when copying wikitext from another article which contains <ref name="moved" /> but doesn't contain <ref name="moved">...</ref>. And if our solution for auto-generated reference names works as intended, you would likely get something like <ref name="Smith2020" details="p. 25" /> – it shouldn't be harder to find the main reference compared to finding the publication when accidentally copying {{sfn|Smith|2020|p=25}} without the full citation.

I had a chat with Team 01E Asie - Fix the sources during Wikimania which created CiteFix to support fixing entries in Category:Pages with broken reference names but I believe the tool still needs some improvements. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

That's true, but what I've noticed is that when reusing a reference to cite another page, editors often won't use <ref name="moved" /> with {{rp}}, but instead choose to duplicate the whole reference with a different |page=. Some others instead use {{sfn}} (despite mixing referencing styles being discouraged). Despite the problems with these methods, they at least don't rely on naming references.

If there are many editors who feel (like voorts at the top of this discussion) that subreferencing is the perfect solution, there may be shift towards relying more on named references which would in turn make the problem more prevalent, accelerating the growth of an already large backlog. The improved approach to automated reference naming will help, but many editors edit Wikitext rather than use the VisualEditor; they supply the names manually (either by typing them in or using wp:RefToolbar, which has no autofill option).

Or at least that's my concern; in practice things may play out differently. I don't know the stats regarding which editor most new references are added with, so it may well be that the new system addresses the majority of newly named references.

Ideally, the improved reference naming system for the VisualEditor would be implemented before subreferencing, to minimise the proliferation of vague names when editors begin adopting the new referencing style. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

We have started our work on VE ref names (see phab:T430051 and its sub-tasks), but our work is unlikely to be done before deploying sub-referencing to English Wikipedia (even if enwiki decides to become one of the pilot wikis for the VE ref name improvements – we'll probably start a discussion about this in the next couple of weeks). Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It may not produce an alphabetical bibliography, but it's also not as incredibly fragile as {{sfn}} which fails in any number of hard-to-debug ways on a regular basis due to things like two sources with the same last name in the same year, nested citation templates that require explicit whitelisting, etc. If you look in the WP:VPT archives, 8 out of the last 10 have someone seeking help with a Harv/Sfn no-target error. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Do people actually object if you change the "arbitrary label" to a systematic one? Anomie⚔ 18:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone object, but how many editors actually do that rather than copying whatever ref names are already there? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The ones like you who care about it? Like everything else around here? 🙂 Anomie⚔ 19:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Outnumbered by the editors who don't and continue to call references things like "ReferenceA2" (What does the "A2" even mean? There is no "A1"), or "PSSOM" (A partial acronym of the title; useless out of context), or "moved" (not an author, not a keyword from the title, just vague topical word association). These are real examples.

Maybe more editors will care if the rollout of subrefs results in the equivalent of sfn no-target errors because of content being copied around. Or maybe I've misunderstood something and subrefs are immune to this problem somehow, idk. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 20:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I have a similar objection to replacing rp with this until the old extends= syntax is added. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

While I also wish they'd have gone with the extends syntax, I doubt they'll change course now when they haven't already. What exactly do you prefer about {{rp}}, that would be solved by the extends syntax? Anomie⚔ 14:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't really present much of an advantage: <ref name="label" details="p.&nbsp;42." /> vs. <ref name="label" />{{rp|p=42}}, it's not much of a difference and the latter seems much easier to type. I feel like at least once I'd forget to add that period in the details attribute (yeah I'm still not over the semantics of content inside an attribute...). Stylistically, I also prefer seeing the page number as a superscript. (If the concern is that "[1]:42" is so obtuse that we're better off deleting the template, why not deprecate the colon style instead and change it to "[1] p. 42" or AMA style?)

Extends would've offered irreplaceable value of reusing <ref name="h2g2" extends="label">p. 42</ref> like normal references:<ref name="h2g2" />. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

{{rp}} doesn't work well with visual editor. This change is meant to make it easier to subreference for everyone. I think we need to move away from the idea that everything needs to be built for power users who edit in wikitext, unless we want editorship to continue declining. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on "doesn't work well"? I see no problem with it for me (except that it adds the full template name, which I don't think is a problem). I started out editing mainspace with visual editor for everything but tables, (and now I edit with the wikieditor for everything but tables), and I don't remember any difficulty with RP either. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Personally, If the concern is that "[1]:42" is so obtuse that we're better off deleting the template is indeed the main problem I have with {{rp}}. Now that I look into AMA style, I at least see why some people may like {{rp}}: is not terribly different from AMA's ^1(p42). But I think the subref style still makes more sense for hypertext. Anomie⚔ 17:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Editors (particularly new ones) using virtual editor shouldn't need to use multiple templates for a single reference. It's clunky both for editors and readers. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

FYI, I was referring to the reading experience rather than the editing experience. Anomie⚔ 22:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Besides my proposal to replace the colon with "p. ", rp actually already supports AMA style, too: I guess the encyclopedia would still be well (and dandy, even) if we replaced rp with hovered footnotes. A small problem I have with the current implementation is that you need to go down the references section to see the parent of the subreference and then click the correct link to go back up, but that is a very fixable implementation detail. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems to work fine with the mw:Help:Reference Previews feature when I try it on testwiki. Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups does have the problem you describe. I don't know about mw:Reference Tooltips, that doesn't seem to be installed on testwiki to try it. Anomie⚔ 23:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Oops, I had that installed so long I forgot it wasn't default :) You're right. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Anomie @Aaron Liu Reference Tooltips has been adapted to correctly display sub-references within the footnote pop-up . Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing subreferencing being used on enwiki, but this is a conversation to have once it's been in use for awhile and editors have had experience of it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree, and I add that the most important part of 'experience' isn't necessarily the bit where some edge case only appears in one in a million articles, and therefore seven times here; the mist important part is people having seen this "weird" (aka "new") thing a few times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

It's just going to end up like that "15 competing standards' XKCD comic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Link to the '15 competing standards' XKCD for anyone not familiar. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this feels spot on. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

We'll get a new, shiny cite style to argue over. Wondrous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The true "one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases" hasn't even been mentioned in this discussion yet: {{r}}. (Actually, it has been mentioned once.) Ah, blessed {{r}}, when they finally figured out how to do all the citations. Somehow it can even already do sub-references. Although, the current way to do that looks extremely confusing. Anyway, I just hope all the citation styles have fun. Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

R is the worst template. Trying to use that in visual editor is like pulling teeth. Also, the thing about R is that you can do like 6 different cite styles with R - it doesn't exactly solve the issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I find all of the citation templates cumbersome to use. Sometimes I just free text the citation side of <ref>...</ref> tags. I usually muddle through trying to do it the right way and I find the experience quite aggravating. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why I don't think adding sub-referencing will solve the problem, because each of us as individuals have our own preferences that may not work with another's. That is the principle of citevar. I really dislike plaintext citations and like CS1 but other editors like plaintext and hate CS1. Hell, we couldn't even come to consensus on suggesting templates rather than text alone.

Even though I mostly use sfn and will continue to use sfns, am still glad about sub referencing, as it may free me personally from {{rp}}, which I have always hated using but still had cause to use in certain situations, so hey. And I am sure on the other hand people will use sub referencing as they see it as better than sfns (while continuing to use rp). PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Current events coverage

Every time an event pops up in the news, editors rush to create an article. Most AfDs end up as no consensus because many editors insist that such events are notable. In my opinion, most such articles are not encyclopedic and Wikipedia should not be a place to create articles in the rush of current events that will more likely than not not be covered in any history books. For most of these articles, if you look at the article 6 months or a year later, it'll still be sourced to primary news sources from around the time the event occurred and routine updates from government officials making statements or releasing reports, and if you look for secondary sources, you won't find any. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a perennial proposal, should we really have waited six months to cover things like 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision? Editors shouldn't rush to create articles about breaking news events, but equally they should not rush to nominate them for deletion either. My preference would be that any AfD whose rationale is or significantly includes things like NOTNEWS or recency would be speedily closed if initiated less then 5 days after the event (the speedy close would be completely without prejudice to a nomination once the event is 5 days or more old, the first AfD would simply be treated as if it never happened). Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Some things will obviously continue to be notable, like that plane crash. Other things, like most of the crimes that get articles created about them, will not. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to give into the urge for once, and provide a copy of NOTNEWS for anyone who hasn't read it in, oh, say, ever:

In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even when citing recent news articles as sources, ensure the Wikipedia articles themselves are not:

1. Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.
2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Routine coverage for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.

I suspect that the main difficulty is editors having differing opinions of what constitutes a "significant" current event. For example, I remember someone arguing that 2025 conclave should not have been created until after it was over (or was it until the first scholarly papers had been published?), whereas other editors might draw the line much lower, at approximately two different newspapers covering the same crime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Arguing that we shouldn't have an article on the conclave is incredibly silly. If you use a modicum of common sense, it's obvious that a papal election meets NEVENT. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the underlying principle that people struggle with (or forget entirely) is that there should be a reasonable expectation of continuing coverage and discussion beyond the immediate future. Will people still care about this in six months? A year? Five? Ten? It's often impossible to predict with certainty, but that should be the thought process before deciding whether an article is justified. The more sure of it you are, the more likely it is that the article passes NOTNEWS. Major elections with near-infinite international coverage? Beyond any doubt. Small town petty crimes? Not so much. Between those extremes is lots of grey area, but checking similar past events to see whether they've stood the test of time can often be helpful. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but I do not think it can be resolved simply through rules and regulations. The creation of such articles is part of the organic way in which Wikipedia has developed. It began as an encyclopaedia, but it has also become a unique and invaluable record of (very) recent history. Rather than resisting that reality, I think we should accept it and think about what to do with the mass of older current-event articles that may not be very notable. Lova Falk (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not proposing additional rules, just to keep that general concept in mind when debating over whether an article is justified, or if we should hold off to see how it develops. How much coverage it gets immediately isn't the point. And no, I don't think there's much additional value in just immediately restating what regular news sources are saying. That's the whole point of NOTNEWS. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I understand that you are not proposing new rules, but arguing that the existing principle behind NOTNEWS should carry more weight when articles are created or discussed. My point was mainly that we should embrace the reality of how Wikipedia has developed. Lova Falk (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

That's not "the whole point of NOTNEWS". The first point of NOTNEWS is that Wikipedia editors should "restate what sources are saying" and not go interview eyewitnesses themselves to create an original news report.

I realize that for people who've grown up with Wikipedia that this is basically unthinkable, but in 2002, editors thought it was worth noting that Wikipedia is not "A news report. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories. However, creating background encyclopedia articles on topics currently in the news is an excellent idea" because it was "thinkable".

Later, that general comment developed into an item in WP:IINFO saying (e.g., in 2006) "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news", got longer (e.g., in 2008), eventually split into its own section, and in 2009, swiped the shortcut NOTNEWS from Wikipedia:News articles (which in turn had swiped it from NEVENT). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

"No original reporting" is basically just restating WP:NOR. Nothing new there. The second section provides most of the substance, including most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

It was new then, because NOR wasn't created until 2003.

I wonder how many editors have looked at the statement most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion with an actual paper copy of a newspaper in hand. I like to use Kansas as an example, because it's in the geographic middle of the US. The Wichita Eagle is the biggest daily newspaper in that state, and they very conveniently have a news reader that lets you see which things are on which pages. Here's the contents of the first few pages of last Friday's paper:

Page 1:

• Red Cross blood supply crisis (USA Today Network)
• A state agency will open an office in a small town
• Latest strikes in the Iran war (NYT News Service)
• Meet the candidates for county judge elections

Page 2:

• Town irritated by county fire-prevention rules
• (continuations of articles that started on the front page)

Page 3:

• Regional update on the Cyclopspora outbreak
• RFK Jr. said something about the outbreak (USA Today Network)
• Groundbreaking ceremony for a local hotel

Page 4:

• Rumor that a local restaurant might close (false; only the building will be sold)
• Consumer spending up in Q2 (Reuters)
• Trump using Todd Blanche's nomination as a way to force support for an unrelated tax cut (NYT News Service)
• Routine "FYI" about open container laws

Page 5:

• Iran objects to US using military bases near them (Reuters)
• Local man arrested for crime
• (continuation of article that started on the front page)

Page 6:

• City gives developer a tax cut in return for building apartments
• Local restaurant will reopen next week
• Zoox robotaxis approved (Reuters)

Page 7:

• Caller threatened mass shooting
• Teenager with BB gun chased someone
• Fatal motorcycle crash
• Rape reported
• Dulles Airport to be redesigned (NYT News Service)

I count 22 news articles. I count zero subjects that qualify for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article. American Red Cross doesn't even mention their recently declared crisis in the blood supply. We've got articles about the Iran war, but not a separate article about the individual events mentioned here. The election for the county judges probably doesn't merit a whole article; certainly "we interviewed the candidates" doesn't. The "explosive diarrhea" outbreak gets two articles in Friday's paper, but it only gets one section in Cyclosporiasis#2026 United States summer outbreak. There are eight articles (35%) about local businesses or local crimes, and none of them will even get half a sentence in Wikipedia.

In other words: Yes, I agree that most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. But the thing you need to remember is that nobody's trying to put "most newsworthy events" in Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

It's often impossible to predict with certainty Not really, and that's part of the problem here. It is sometimes obvious that an event won't make it past a news cycle, but editors insist we keep an article and wait. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure some are obvious, but plenty aren't. In those cases I think it's better to wait at least a little while to see how it plays out rather than creating it and then taking it to AfD later (if anyone remembers to). It's not the end of the world for us to not have an article immediately, since events with questionable notability aren't going to be as major (and news coverage exists for that reason). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you have to "remember"; anyone who really disliked this kind of article could just go to Category:2006 or Category:2016 and systematically sort through the articles to figure out which ones were probably worth deleting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Doing that for all event articles ever created is straight up insanity. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Doing that while the event is fresh in people's minds has proven to be ineffective.

Besides, the work doesn't have to be done by one person. For example, your account is about seven months old, and you've made 89 non-deleted mainspace edits. So let's say 200 a year is possible for you. If you told me an interest area, I could probably generate a list of 100 or 200 articles about events that you could review. If you looked at just a few each week, it wouldn't take much more time than you're already doing. Just run down a basic mental checklist with each one and see what you think. For example, I'd ask this:

• Subjectively speaking, is there any chance of this getting deleted at AFD? If the answer is "People will yell at me if I send this to AFD", then you're done, so move on.
• Does a good WP:BEFORE check show sources not presently in the article? Be sure to check local media directly, if the event had a local or regional focus; this is especially important for events in non-English-speaking countries. If the answer is "yes", then add them.
• If the available sources (not just the cited ones) seem weak, then consider whether WP:NEVENT or other guidelines might be met. If the answer is "yes", then you're done, so move on. If "maybe not", then tag with {{notability}}. If "definitely not", then send it to AFD.

Personally, I'd do some copyediting while I was there, but not everyone finds copyediting as quick and easy as I usually do, and it doesn't affect whether the subject is notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep/Archive 7#Speedy close for recent events of unclear notability is a year old RFC which may be related/give the community's broad temperature on recently created articles. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't rush to make event articles but no matter what the policy says if no one is going to vote delete it does not matter. Notability ultimately is what you can get people to agree on at AfD, nothing more. The case that I assume spawned this request had literally 0 delete votes. As someone with experience editing about it, I also disagree with the assertion that it is easy to predict what will and won't receive sustained coverage; in this case the article that is being asserted as non-notable especially, while I'd rather us not have an article currently, it is very similar to the Death of Kendrick Johnson, which received years and years of coverage and has scholarly coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

This wasn't spawned by any particular AfD, just reflections on my experience at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @PARAKANYAA that Notability ultimately is what you can get people to agree on at AfD. This is not apparent to everyone, but it is true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Consensus is based on strength of argument, not counting heads. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and that is not inconsistent with what Parakanyaa and I have said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Its going to be hard to stop people creating articles on events when they happen, but we can require better demonstration somwhere between 3 and 6 months after the event happened that the event has demonstrated long-term notability, either via GNG or NEVENT. And the problem is that at AFD, many of these attempts get slammed by editors that reply "lots of news sources in the article, its notable", not addressing the issue that most of those are primary or that they are a burst of coverage rather than enduring. We need to make sure AFD admins are not swayed by those arguments when others are pointing out the GNG/NEVENT issues. Masem (t) 18:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

"We need to make sure AFD admins are not swayed by those arguments when others are pointing out the GNG/NEVENT issues" - they're not even swayed by blatant GNG failures now. If there are enough votes for something, that is how it will be closed, even if it is not a vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe that indicates that the GNG isn't the only way to qualify for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article on the English Wikipedia.

Maybe that indicates that there's a range of interpretations of the GNG, with the result that stricter people perceive admins as not following the GNG, when the admins are following (a laxer interpretation of) the GNG.

Maybe that indicates that there's something wrong with the GNG. (The written rules are supposed to follow the community's practice; when practice diverges from the written rule, the written rule needs to change.)

Maybe that indicates that the GNG isn't what admins are supposed to be following. After all, we elect them at RFA on the basis of their ability to interpret consensus rather than on the basis of their views on the GNG.

In other words, there are lots of reasons why an admin might decide "X" when another editor might believe that a specific section of one guideline should result in "not-X". That doesn't mean the admins are wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I think in general the preservationist attitude that we should keep an article if it might hypothetically be a better article in the future really needs to change.

We should be less shy about deletion; an article shouldn't exist if nobody's willing to make half an effort at writing a decent one. I've had multiple corporate articles that I nominated for AfD be voted as keep because there's some crumb of notability out there somewhere; even if the current article is a total mess riddled with routine coverage. At best somebody maybe pares it down to a stub, but otherwise we vote "keep" and move on and the article stays in bad condition.

Same goes for these event articles. If a year has passed and the article still looks like it was written 2 days after the event happened, get rid of it unless somebody's willing to actually commit to bring it to proper encyclopedic standard. Otherwise we end up with one big bystander effect; "we should keep this article because WP:SOMEONEELSE (not me though, of course, I'm busy editing things that actually interest me) might be able to make it into a decent article. Eventually." Athanelar (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to see WP:TNT invoked more often. Notability alone does not an article make - I could find a reliable subject, add sources, and then fill the body with gibberish. We have WP:CSD for a reason, and similar logic should apply for creation and WP:XFD even when something doesn't meet those limited criteria. There needs to be a bare minimum standard for articles to have any encyclopedic value. A well formed stub is better than a bunch of WP:PROMOslop. If no one else cares to expand it correctly, is it really that notable?
Along the same lines, if no one cares enough to go back and write a breaking news article after the event is over, it probably fails based on WP:RECENTISM. In most cases where it isn't immediately obvious that the subject will have persistent notability, there's no harm in a WP:DELAY to see how it plays out. I maintain that it's better to hold off than to create it based on a coin flip and rely on it getting deleted later if it flops. Lord knows we have enough cleanup to do as it is. Notability standards exist for a reason - while I don't believe in any hard limit on the scope of Wikipedia, we don't need to fill it with a bunch of low quality cruft either.

I wonder if it would be helpful to set up a project/noticeboard/something to try to establish a group of editors with a particular focus on this - not an introduction of new rules, but an attempt to apply existing standards consistently instead of relying on majority rule. Editors who are making those determinations on a regular basis on subjects they're uninvolved with can be more objective. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it'd be nice to have a kind of "article bounty" system looped into this via AfD. If you nominate an article for TNT deletion (with solid reasoning) then somebody has to claim the article and pledge to work on getting it in better condition. If nobody volunteers or if they don't improve it in a reasonable amount of time then it gets soft-deleted as if it were an uncontested deletion. Athanelar (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

But why? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Quoting myself above; an article shouldn't exist if nobody's willing to make half an effort at writing a decent one. If an article's in TNTable state I don't think we should keep it just because the topic is notable if there's nobody actually willing to write the article to an acceptable standard. Athanelar (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Then we'd just have disputes over what constitutes "an acceptable standard". For example, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dover Corporation (2nd nomination), you nominated an article that, at the time of your nomination, had these qualities:

• 83 refs – more than twenty times the median Wikipedia article (which has a total of four)
• a "readable prose size" of 2,495 words – more than seven times the median Wikipedia article (which has about 350 words)

It appears that most editors consider that an article that is above the 90th percentile on both these scores to already be "acceptable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking more about stuff like Academy 360, Sunderland which was closed as keep last year because the school apparently had significant coverage under its previous name. Did anybody go on to add any of that to the article? Of course not, so it's still a short blurb entirely sourced to the school's own website. Athanelar (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Why didn't you add the sources to the article? You were given some sources in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academy 360, Sunderland. Aren't you part of the "anybody" who didn't "go on to add any of that to the article"?

I wish you had found a different way to describe this problem, because my impression from this comment is that you think you're better than the rest of us. We peons might have to do boring work like putting sources in articles, but you are so important that you shouldn't have to do anything more than tap your foot impatiently while your servants scuttle around to meet your demands. I doubt that's the impression you wanted to make, but it's the one I formed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Aren't you part of the "anybody" who didn't "go on to add any of that to the article"? Yes, I am, that's precisely the point I'm making. Nobody, myself included, wants to take the time to make an article about this random secondary school to an acceptable standard. So instead of just getting rid of it, it's going to languish in its current state for god knows how long. Nobody wants to delete it becsuse it's notable, but nobody wants to improve it either.

because my impression from this comment is that you think you're better than the rest of us. We peons might have to do boring work like putting sources in articles, but you are so important that you shouldn't have to do anything more than tap your foot... Ridiculous. My point is that, as I said explicitly, if nobody (which includes me; I am in fact 'body') wants to write the article, then maybe it's better that we have no article, and maybe we shouldn't maintain the culture of people being able to prevent deletion by gesturing toward the existence of sources without actually doing something to improve the article. If an article is in a demonstrably bad, unencyclopedic state (which that article is), then if somebody really wants to keep it they should hold the burden of doing the work to improve it, rather than stopping it from being deleted and leaving it in its poor state in perpetuity. I'm not arguing, and I never once said anything resembling, that somebody else should do this thing which I don't want to. I'm in fact arguing the opposite; people vote "keep" in these discussions in the belief that some other person at some other time will do the actual work to improve the article. Rather than hoping for that hypothetical person to come, again, to quote myself above, "an article shouldn't exist if nobody's willing to make half an effort at writing a decent one." Athanelar (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

You're confirming my impression: You don't want to do the work, and you're here on this page complaining that nobody else has done work that you refuse to do yourself. If neither the subject nor the article are important enough for you to do any work at all, then I suggest that it's probably also not worth you complaining about it.

Editors aren't voting "keep" at AFD "in the belief that some other person at some other time will do the actual work to improve the article". They're voting "keep" because our rules say that the decision about whether to have an article should be based on whether sources are available and not on the basis of whether anybody has put those sources into the article yet.

I don't know what kinds of articles you tend to read, but for a lot of school/organization/business articles, many of our readers are really only looking for a single basic fact. In the case of a school, I expect that there are only three questions that really need to be answered: What kind of school? (This one takes students of any age.) Where are they located? (That's going to be a long drive.) What's their official website? (Right there on the page. NB that the official link to the subject's website gets clicked on more often than any other link in any article, by a very large margin.) Most readers don't need the article that's up "to an acceptable standard", and especially not one that's up to your standards. They need an article that meets their immediate need, and this one likely does that for most readers. A red link won't meet their needs. I suspect that the only entity on Earth (present company excepted) that really wants a polished Wikipedia article is the school's marketing department. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:NEXIST exists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Just a reminder that {{user imm}} and Category:Immediatist Wikipedians exist, and proponents of m:Immediatism may wish to put them on their User: pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I've previously thought that something like WP:WikiProject Current events should be repurposed/created where articles on recent events are listed as drafts for people to work on (basically an incubator), and they can be moved to mainspace when there's consensus they either meet WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG with secondary sourcing. But let's be honest, readers like the current events articles that are basically just a synthesis of primary sources, and readers first. Maybe someone could request a new project which'd be like Wikipedia but specifically for current events and breaking news, idk what we'd call it, Wikinews or something Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I think Wikinews failed because it tried to be an open source media outlet. Newsrooms need structure. Maybe if it had been basic news analysis, like most of our current events articles, it would've survied. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there were a lot of reasons why Wikinews failed, including muddled purpose (supposed to be creating news articles, which means things like 'interviewing people' and 'writing things that can't be verified by reading a news article at a different website', or just rehashing other news stories?) and the wrong structure (too slow, too rigid, too little support, too little training, too failure-prone). But above all, I think what doomed them was too much competition, leading to no demand from readers.

I think that most readers and many editors (especially the kind of editor who doesn't spend all day on pages like this one) want the articles we write about current events. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that they're valuable, I just don't find many of them particularly encyclopedic. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

If you believe Wikipedia:Five pillars (and many newer editors seem to believe that it's the most important page ever), Wikipedia isn't just an encyclopedia. In that model, it wouldn't matter if they're really encyclopedic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

perhaps Wikipedia could have cross-project redirects to these Wikinews articles, like we do with Wiktionary sometimes? Idk, seems too wikt:pie in the sky Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't limit Wikipedia:Soft redirect to Wiktionary. However, there's never been enough interest in redirects to Wikinews to even bother creating the usual template (see Category:Interwiki soft redirect templates). The problem is the lack of decent articles at the English Wikinews. Can you name even a handful that you'd want to do that with? I can't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I was talking about a potential new Wikinews like that described above, but having messed about with the Random article on Wikinews, I can't either Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Nonexistent page creation prompt on mobile

Hi! When I'm using mobile view and search a term with no page, it doesn't ask me if I want to create a page with that name but it does ask me that if I'm using Desktop. Is this a known feature mismatch that's being worked on? — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you show an example? I just clicked around and every page I tried in either mode had some kind of option to do so, albeit sometimes buried amongst other suggestions. I do not appreciate when I follow a redlink in mobile and it autoloads the editor, because that version takes over the entire screen and I have to back out of it to access other options. That appears to only happen with redlinks though, not search or a direct URL. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

When I search for "corticolimbic", for example I get the following message at the top of the results using desktop:

The page "Corticolimbic" does not exist. You can click on "Corticolimbic" to create the page directly, or you may create a draft and submit it for review, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered..

This message does not appear when using Mobile view. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 23:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Ohh, I see - the actual search function ignores the nonexistent article for that exact title and only searches within live articles. You can still navigate directly to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/corticolimbic, but I can see how it's useful to offer that option on searches. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

More than anything I just think it would help drive in new editors whose primarily (or only) way of accessing Wikipedia is via their mobile device and encourage them to create pages (or redirects). — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 08:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure we really want to encourage brand new editors to dive in with entire articles. In fact, we specifically discourage it on Teahouse, although it's not a rule. More often than not they just don't know enough to make one that's passable, regardless of how well intentioned they are. A redirect wouldn't hurt in most cases, but I don't think many people are going to be inclined to start editing for the first time just for that.

Regardless, I do think it should probably be consistent on mobile vs desktop - the reasoning doesn't change. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure that the merits of encouraging page creation where discussed at length when that message was added to the desktop experience so I'm not really feeling it necessary to rehash that debate, my main concern is like you pointed out, ChompyTheGogoat: the experience should be consistent on mobile and desktop. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 00:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:ITN § Brainstorming reforms

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:ITN § Brainstorming reforms. Left guide (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Auto-purging

CAT:EXLLM seems to be perennially backlogged because the category fails to auto-update when an nomination under {{llmprod}} expires. I'd suggest sending a bot to purge all pages with PROD tags every six hours or so, same as WP:PRODSUM. Any other ideas? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the general PROD categories are dated, whereas there aren't any specific LLMPROD dated categories, and LLMPRODs expire earlier than normal PRODS. I think we do need seperate LLMPROD dated cateogries. I guess a bot is also fine since it won't even require an account, see this button that will purge all LLMPROD pages (only works if there are less than 500 such pages though): Purge LLMPROD pages (click 'Make Request' after this) Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

That first one is a good idea. {{prod-blp}} could use such categories as well. This can likely be handled with a simple edit request on each page, plus updating the list of maintenance categories for Hazard-Bot (talk · contribs) to date. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Replace fundraising banners with 'we need more editors' appeal

With the WMF having almost $300m in assets and another $100m in the Endowment we are less desperate for donation and more desperate for new editors, which has significantly decreased in the last 10 or so years. So I propose to replace the fundraising banners and replace it with a 'Wikipedia needs your editing help' banner, maybe suggesting them to register an account or point to the category of pages that need cleanup. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Let's ignore your comments about the WMF's Reserve (accounting), as it's both misleading and irrelevant. $300M as the economy teeters on the brink of a recession is how much actual experts recommend the WMF to have in their operating reserves.

Let's instead talk about getting more editors. I'm in favor of the goal. I've got some suggestions about the order in which we do things.

Here's the graph for the last 10 years of "active" editors. Here's the graph for the last 10 years of "new" accounts. I agree that this is an area of weakness, but the "active" editors are the ones who are around long enough to become good editors. We need to turn the newbies into active editors.

If we wanted to make a difference in this area, the research-backed approach might be an education campaign aimed at highly active editors. Specifically, we know that editor retention is improved when patrollers and other editors follow the rule to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, and whenever possible to build on an imperfect contribution (e.g., replacing their bad source with a good one, removing only part of an addition while keeping some visible fraction of it, adding a clearer explanation, etc.).

There's not much point in recruiting new editors if we're going to run them right back off again by reverting their attempts to contribute.

Therefore, I suggest that we first look at ways to improve retention of newcomers. After we think we can retain a decent fraction of the newbies, we can look into trying to get more newbies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The active editor graph suggest that it's stable over 10 years, while the new editor graphs is going down. Of course I agree that we need to be more friendly, but I don't think most of Wikipedia are so bad that it scares newbies off. Most newbie contributions are not reverted. Anyways I might be overly thinking about a Signpost article that suggests that the number of new users is decreasing (admitedly not by a lot annually), although that might not be a huge deal. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it's a big problem, and I agree with the goal. I think that we need more than a banner to solve the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This is of course a big problem, but I think we might be trying to find the perfect solution. It might not make a huge difference, but it'll still (hopefully) make a positive difference. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, as always graphs need context. Please also show a graph of the number of articles. Let me put it this way, if the number of doctors in a country remains stable, but the population goes up five fold, quality of care will go which way? That is the issue. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Our editors-per-article ratio has been declining at the same time that our article quality has been improving. Doctors-per-capita is at best an imperfect analogy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a graph of editors per article ratio? Is it scary? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think the declining number of editors is a big deal. You'd expect to see numbers declining since the low-hanging fruit of article drafting has been harvested aggressively, and wide swathes of the encyclopedia's articles on topics that fundamentally aren't changing are in a pseudo-maintenance mode at this point. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have a long list of articles I want to write, more than I will get to in the time I have left, I am regularly returning to articles I worked on in the past to add to them (I just enlarged a B-class article by 25% in the last 3 days), and most articles in Wikipedia are still far too short. Half-a-dozen new regular editors in the areas I work in would help. Donald Albury 01:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but... As I said below, it is not just "writing" but updating. Some articles have had no meaningful updates for 15 years. That requires knowledgeable editors. Alas I have no idea how to get them. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

How, indeed, to recruit new editors who are at least as interested in updating and expanding existing articles as they are in creating new articles? I see new editors that seem interested in working on existing articles in areas I work on, but most do not stay around for very long. So retention is also a problem. I have not been interested in mentoring, and was disappointed by the lack of response from student editors when I worked with the education program more than a decade ago. So I don't have an answer, either. Donald Albury 13:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

We are in agreement. I keep looking at the activities of editors, like this. He knew the subject, then just evaporated away. Some of his speculations persisted for long. Also this user. They come and go and because we have so many articles no one has time to check or update what they have done, and material gets outdated year after year. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I would love it if we could do both. This ought to be tested if it hasn't been already Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why do I think it has to be one of the other, of course it can be both "please donate" and "please edit". Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Can suggest it at the WP:FUNHUB btw, though tbh I'd like to see testing of it on its own as well Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a criticism of your suggestion, there's nothing wrong with it; that being said there's currently an elephant in the room that the WMF unionizing conflict is getting worse, and depending on how that goes it might affect what is done with donation banners. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess this idea could also be a replacement of the fundraising banner. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

(A bit off-topic, I'm sorry.) I think much more is needed than a banner. When I joined, nineteen years ago, so many editors were encouraging: "Be bold! Make an edit!" I rarely read this any more. Lova Falk (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, this is a big issue. Perhaps we can throw that phrase more. The idea though is that the banner would encourage readers to make an edit or ten. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not just the words. We need to back up the words with action, or people will feel like we lied to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Of course, but I'm not sure we're breaking a promise. Wikipedia promises to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and as far as I can tell we aren't lying about that. If you meant that we semi-constantly revert their edits, I'm not sure what could be done other than to remind experienced editors to revert only when necessary. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I've previously written about English Wikipedia's structural issues that make it unattractive to many co-operative editors. They essentially make content-dispute resolution ineffective and provide incentive for poor behaviour. Any edit one makes, no matter how small, has a sword of Damocles hanging over it: another editor can vociferoously object, and one has to decide if it's worth getting into a discussion about it or not. Either way the outcome is often poor: one can just move on, with a constant irritant that aggressive behaviour typically wins out, or one can end up spending an unbounded amount of time trying to find common ground with an editor not interested in co-operating. Even if most interactions aren't like this, just a few can suck all the joy out of editing. For better or worse, though, the portion of the community that likes to discuss these matters generally places a higher priority on the ability for everyone to weigh in, which is enabled by the current decision-making traditions. isaacl (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Isn't co-operation required? If one consistently can't co-operate isn't that blockable? Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

By English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions, in the absence of clear disruption, whether or not one is being co-operative or just engaging in vigourous discussion is decided upon by a consensus-based discussion. So every disagreement requires a weighing of options: is the worth the effort to build a consensus for one's point of view? Since discussion participants are self-selected amongst those who happen upon the discussion, the outcomes are frequently uncertain. It's a constant drag on enthusiasm that can wear editors out. isaacl (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I have heard that WP:HEAR can be used to pull people's ears, so to speak. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I created a prototype banner. Feel free to improve it. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is that we need more editors, and a banner may be a good way to help with that. The other is that aggressive fundraising is not universally popular with readers or editors. Those two points are almost orthogonal, the overlap being that they might compete for the same screen space. The current reaction to union developments may be relevant here. Although I don't think it's being proposed, one way to deliver a message to the WMF would be to interfere with fundraising banners, leaving a free slot which could be used to recruit editors. Certes (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, in fact it might be useful here. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

My unhelpful comment on the subject is that we generally need better editors, not more editors. Of course, since I don't know a way to get better editors that's hardly actionable. Except of course by getting more editors and hoping that the better ones remain. (Certainly, regular Wikipedia users are typically pretty good!) Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I've given up on trying to get "better" editors, because trying to find "the one" in 100,000 is needle-in-haystack region for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I would say we need "knowledgeable" editors. Please consider the talk page Talk:Reason maintenance. The last discussion was 15 years ago before I commented today. The last meaningful edit to the article was also 15 years ago by an editor who left long ago. Many articles are way out of date and not enough editors who understand the subject well enough to do anything. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge PROPSPLIT into AfD?

Okay, admittedly I am not a great ideas person, nor am I the most familiar with Wikipedia as a whole or what I consider as a hardcore editor or anything, so everything here is admittedly based on vibes. Please correct me if I'm wrong on anything.

But I was curious, with the merging of WP:PAM into WP:AfD not too long ago now, that got me thinking. Has anyone ever proposed merging WP:PROPSPLIT into AfD? To me, while splitting isn't really deletion like merging is in a sense (especially with the RfC to rename AfD failing), in a sense, PROPSPLIT was essentially the inverse of PAM. From what I've seen, PROPSPLIT also seems to suffer from the same issues of inactivity and invisibility that PAM did (which was part of the motivation with merging it into AfD). In fact, I'd probably argue that PROPSPLIT probably has it worse off since AfD at least ostensibly acted as an occasional, inadvertent alternative, and it seems to me like a lot of actual split discussions aren't displayed on PROPSPLIT, leading to most of them being inactive. Splits honestly don't seem as common as merges are, so it probably won't really dominate AfD anyhow, even to the same extent as merges do. But yeah, I'm not sure if it's a good idea. I just wanted to get the ball rolling; maybe others have better ideas than I. Please, feel free to be brutally honest! OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It's been suggested a few times. Most recently the general consensus was to wait and see how well folding mergers into AfD works in practice and I think it's still a bit early to get a feel for that tbh. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks! In that case, I'll defer to that, then. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As I've mentioned during the Merger discussions, that wouldn't work since—when compared to Deletion arguments—Split discussions have very different arguments while Merger discussions have very similar arguments. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

AfD is not (or should not be) a forum to discuss what content decisions should be made about a merge. What's next, a binding decision at AfD as to how to organize the content in the article? Katzrockso (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Merging has always been one of the results for failing inclusion criteria, whose appilcability is exactly what AfD discusses. See WP:RFCMERGEAFD. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the PM-AfD merger, as I both participated in that discussion and in post-RfC discussions about it. Please reread my comment - I am talking about content decisions being made at AfD - AfD is not the forum to decide if we should include/exclude content, how to title an article, whether to rescope the article to be about another topic, etc. Many of these do incidentally result from an AfD consensus, but people cannot and should not be bringing articles to AfD for that purpose. Bringing in mergers, while a mistake in my opinion, is much more consistent with the purpose of AfD than any run of the mill talk page discussion that people seem to increasingly want to bring to AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the process for having merger discussions at AfD is working very well. I would not support any other additions to AfD (recognizing that there could be multiple outcomes of an AfD). --Enos733 (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Merging at AfD is already terrible, but at least in that case 1. merge was sometimes already an AfD result and 2. merging ultimately results in the loss of a page. Splitting is a decision on whether to make a new article - a decision that has never been made at AfD. Absolutely not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

And the problem with inactivity in splits is that it requires writing a whole new article; this is not a problem that AfD can solve because writing a whole new article is a bit much of anyone to ask. I have a split suggestion that achieved consensus in 2024 that no one has bothered to do, not because it has lacked for comments, but because no one has stepped up to write the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The issues involved in a split proposal seem sufficiently different from deletion and merging that I don't think this makes sense to add to AFD, although I take your point that a split is the inverse of a merger. There are obvious notability considerations with respect to the new page(s) to be split off, and anyone arguing or a split must take these into account, but other than that the work and the issues at play are distinct. The fundamental challenge with splits is that it takes a lot of work both to make a determination and, especially, to carry it out. It's one thing to make a determination that a topic is in and of itself non-notable, or that there's not enough to say about it to warrant its own article. Seeing the potential for a split is perhaps not difficult but actually going through a very long article and identifying two or more distinct, notable topics and exactly which content should go where, and achieving some level of consensus for the content organization is a heavier lift. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

We should split out proposed merges from AfD and merge them with proposed splits. That way the shortcut for both could be WP:SPLERGE. "This article needs splerging!" will become the rallying cry of the next generation. I am very smart  — Hex • talk 20:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

MeatPuppet Investigations

Wikipedia could honestly have a MeatPuppet Investigations for detecting meat puppets. It is a major issue, and it still isn’t handled with a MeatPuppet Investigations. plus, the shortcuts could be WP:MPI, WP:MEATReport, and WP:MEATFIND ~2026-43379-50 (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

how does anyone think of this? Duodeca 12 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

answer Duodeca 12 (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Isn't meatpuppetry already a form of sockpuppetry? ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 04:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Redaction of username from all edits and logs when blocking

Moved from Special:Permalink/1368178108 § Redaction of username from all edits and logs when blocking

Hi everyone! I'm moving this discussion here because I accidentally posted it on the village pump (policy) page. :-)

I've mentioned this idea before, and I recently noticed that an open discussion was held regarding the bureaucrat role on this page. It inspired me to start this discussion and see what others think. Like the bureaucrat discussion, this one is intended to be open-ended; it does not come with any specific proposal attached.

A little background: currently, oversighters can suppress the username of an account from all edits and logs when applying an indefinite block, which also removes the account from the list of users. This option also extends to stewards, who can do the same thing on a global level.

I originally suggested extending a similar option to administrators (and likewise expanding it for stewards globally) a few years ago after noticing that stewards would sometimes globally suppress accounts whose usernames, while extremely disruptive and clearly inappropriate to leave publicly visible, (in my opinion) did not rise to the level that warranted suppression. I reached out to them about this — not to complain or start a riot or anything like that, but as a precursor to present this idea as a possible solution.

Now, let me say this: I totally get it. I completely understand why global suppression would become an attractive option in situations where a username clearly should be redacted but does not actually require suppression. It would be ridiculous to expect a steward to manually redact the username on every project, one at a time, simply because there is no equivalent option available when globally blocking an account. I don't have the examples with me at the moment, but I included a handful of them when I first reached out about this, and I think most people would agree that there would be no argument for keeping those usernames publicly visible, but they did not warrant suppression.

That brings me to my idea: what are your thoughts on extending a version of the suppression option to administrators when applying an indefinite block to an account? It would do the exact same thing but would use revision deletion rather than suppression to redact the username from edits and log entries. My initial thought is that it would not hide the account from the list of users like the suppression option does, but like I said: this is an open-ended discussion, and I'm interested in hearing other ideas and perspectives.

Likewise, a similar option could be extended to stewards when applying global blocks. Rather than relying on global suppression, they could apply global revision deletion to redact usernames from edits and logs across all Wikimedia projects while still allowing local admins to review and manage any issues according to their own policies and processes.

I know that many admins have different levels of involvement in dealing with LTA disruption and abuse, but I often encounter situations where an LTA creates numerous accounts with blatantly abusive usernames that need redaction. Having the ability to redact those usernames from edits and logs at the time of an indefinite block would be extremely useful as well as much more efficient. It can be tedious and sometimes very time-consuming to manually remove the username from every edit and log entry, especially when one or two more abusive accounts created by the same LTA appear in the account creation log and start causing disruption while you're still cleaning up after the first mess!

Overall, I think this option would be very useful for administrators and would allow them to respond much more efficiently to blatant username violations and blatant LTA username abuse. Just like with all other administrator actions, its use would be publicly logged and easily reviewed and scrutinized, and the potential for abuse of it would be very low. An administrator who wanted to misuse revision deletion could already do so using the existing tools they already have access to; this option would simply streamline a process and take the tediousness (as well as the possibility of accidentally leaving the username public in some areas and missing a few places) out of the equation.

That's my idea, and I'd like to open the floor for discussion.

So... what are your thoughts? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

amazing idea. It is simply the most magnificent idea. Plus it could revolutionize Wikipedia Duodeca 12 (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

This seems like it would be a benefit. In practice, we already do this, it just requires a run of manual RD2/RD3 rev-deling after the block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I just want to say that the block log probably shouldn't be included by default. Additionally user talk pages usually disappear with suppression - I don't know if that's automatic - and probably shouldn't be included by default (I'm not saying they should necessarily remain). Another thing, accounts created by a bad username should probably be blocked before their account creation logs are redacted. I often take the view that removing usernames from conspicuous histories is sufficient (ie mostly just article histories). A little visibility can help with anti-vandalism efforts. I can't say that such a tool wouldn't be occasionally useful, with the type of adminning I usually do. I just wonder if there's enough demand for it as a standard option. After all, "potential for abuse" will also be "streamlined". And there will still be plenty of other places to clean up. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any experience of usernames that require this level of suppression? Sometimes I deal with promotional usernames, offensive usernames, attack usernames or fakers. Usually blocking is enough, and revision deletion is seldom needed, even less is log redaction rquired. If any edits are kept then the user and edit summary are legally required to be kept. But under what circumstances should a username need to be made completely invisible? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Some usernames require suppression, probably most commonly they are attacks on another user ("User:Example is a paedophile" sort of thing) but there are reasons, but revdel would not be suitable for those. I don't work WP:UAA but there is nothing there currently that would need hiding. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Admins can get some idea of what is being rev-deleted at this log link. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Wish I had seen this before I wrote up my comments. I still struggle with a policy basis there; RD2 is the only acceptable non-OS to redact a log, and at a quick glance a decent percentage of those are RD3 that I don’t really think should be hidden. Not going to make a case of it, but I do see benefit to leaving some of those there in public to help with anti-abuse efforts. The RD2s that don’t rise to the level of OS seem reasonable enough, but imo, those really should be handled by a steward as a lock-hide and local RDing of logs doesn’t serve much purpose. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The line between RD2 and RD3 has always been incredibly fuzzy. Most of those RD3 might as well be RD2s. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Not to be the Debbie downer, but I don’t really see the benefit here. block-suppress is infrequently used because lock-suppress is such a stronger tool and it’s usually easiest to flag a steward. There are cases where block-suppress is useful, but those are the most extreme cases where it can’t even wait for a steward and damage control needs to be done now.
  What I’m struggling with is I can’t think of any example where I would want the account creation log and block log hidden if it doesn’t meet the suppression criteria. I don’t think there’s currently a policy basis for it. The log redaction policy is Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the creation, move, and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters. I don’t think there’s something that would meet that for blocking an account that isn’t already covered under the oversight policy.
  I think most people would agree that there would be no argument for keeping those usernames publicly visible, but they did not warrant suppression.
  I guess I’m not most people . I can’t think of a single reason I would support hiding an LTA username that isn’t suppressable. OS criteria 4 gives us this ability locally for attack usernames, and the other OS criteria gives it to us for libel and PII. Globally stewards don’t have to lock-suppress, they can lock-hide as well (unless that’s changed recently.) So what is the target of usernames were revdeling here where all logs need to be redacted? I’m just not seeing the purpose here or where this helps. I can also think of several potentially negative things that could come out of this, so I’d want to have a very strong reason to support first. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps this would be a good idea for spam/promo usernames? Not sure. Toadspike [Talk] 08:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni - Let's say that the option would redact the username from all edits and logs except for the block log, and it wouldn't hide the username from the list of users. Would that change your opinion on whether or not you'd think the option would be useful? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

In that case I likely wouldn’t view it as a negative, but I’m not sure what it accomplishes that’s positive still, to be honest. There’s already a mass revdel script that gives more precision level control over these type of cases. I’m just not seeing this as a tool that could be both policy compliant and useful at the same time. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

While I'm not an admin, I support the idea. It would take the load off of oversighters and helps keep Wikipedia functioning better. In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 00:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Fetching athletics results centrally from Wikidata?

With the ongoing 2026 European Athletics Championships, it's clear we are wasting significant effort manually maintaining identical results tables across dozens of language versions. Could we start generating these tables automatically from Wikidata instead? Transitioning athletics results to a module would give us zero duplication as data is entered once on Wikidata and updates everywhereat once; fewer errors as centralized data reduces the typos and discrepancies found across different language wikis.

Is there a specific technical reason we aren't already doing this for athletics, or has no one just built it yet? I'd love to know if others are interested in collaborating to end this duplicated effort. --Ajarmund (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikidata integration on English Wikipedia is very controversial and has a very fraught history with RfC's over the years to show for it. Can look on WP:WD for the history of this. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:16, 11 August 2026 (UTC)